Virtual Reality and Trees in the Woods

From My Big TOE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

A piece of a conversation from the bulletin board that may be of interest to others:

Tom: The “perception” of trees is very undifferentiated (lots of uncertainty rather than lots of specificity -- thus the historical continuity requirement is very loose) and like the perception of people it takes place in the realm of consciousness within the constraints of the rule set and the constraints of consistent, available, PMR records (history). Within these constraints, perception is redefined every moment (DELTA-t) in the present.

Q: In your model, cells {as part of the makeup of our bodies and those of animals and plants} don't actually exist in Consciousness Space unless measured? So cells don't relate to the "feelings" of trees and their awareness? The tree "feelings" are real in Consciousness Space but the development of the tree follows probability. Cells of a tree (virtual) and tree feelings are not coupled in your model, apparently?

Tom: Data is sent to a consciousness in the PMR game who interprets that data as a tree. Other data is sent that the consciousness interprets as its PMR body. If the body inspects the tree closely it may find cells, or molecules according to the game’s rule set -- then additional data must be sent that will be interpreted as cells and molecules. If the body doesn’t inspect so closely, no cell or molecule data will be sent. The inspection is the measurement.

Q: If a human observer O1 sees just 4 trees in position A,B,C,D (3D coordinates, well almost 2D if they are in an almost flat surface) and no other living creatures in a big area. Would an observer O2, later on observe them in 4 other positions or may see 3 or 5 trees. Would TBC invent the new position and number of trees or it will keep the positions and number of trees from the last observation (observation of O1)?

Tom: That depends. O1 sees 5 trees leaves the woods, and is immediately is eaten by a bear. Next day O2 arrives in the same spot -- will he see the same thing O1 saw? Probably not, his interpretation is slightly different. But will he see something very similar? Probably so – especially if the rule set had very little uncertainty the first time when O1 looked (the constraints provided little room for differences) then O2 is likely to get a very similar result (approximately objective reality – what we have). If the rule set had no uncertainty (only one specific thing satisfied the constraints) and if O2 interpreted things exactly like O1, then O2 would see that exact same one thing that was allowed by the rule set and history (absolute objective reality – what we think we have). If the rule-set and history had oodles of uncertainty to work with (multiple significantly different outcomes satisfied all constraints) then O2 might get something significantly different.

What O1 saw became insignificant when the bear ate him. It only matters what data is in PMR -- (the historical continuity constraint is about PMR historical continuity) (The rule-set constraint is about PMR’s rule-set)

Tom: Alternatively, O1 sees 5 trees and uses his camera with GPS to mark the exact spot and orientation and takes high resolution pictures which are immediately sent by internet to his news paper doing a special on trees . Next day O2 arrives in the same spot and looks in the same direction. If he interprets the same as O1, he will see the same thing O1 saw to the resolution of O1s photos. This is true whether or not O1 is eaten by a bear and regardless of how much uncertainty there might have been in the constraints before O1 took his pictures. When the news paper sends out a crew to verify what O1 saw, they will see the same thing O1 saw. It will look just like the photographs. If, while they are there, they look at the tree with a microscope they will see things that O1 didn’t see and that measurement will bring new data into PMR, based upon probability. If they all totally forget what they saw in the microscope, then that data leaves PMR. If someone else brings a microscope the next day and looks they will get something similar, exactly the same, or something different depending upon how tight the constraints were (how much uncertainty there was in what the LCS could produce within the rule set and history consistency in that circumstance and in that moment).

Tom: [The new question assumes that the observer was blind and or numb and could not see or feel his arms] Of course TBC must describe the probable location of your virtual arms if they might interact with something like a virtual wall or another virtual being (a measurement is likely made whether you feel it or not – this is a multi player game with a rule set and an environment that is part of the record.

Tom: If you don’t remember where you were sitting (multiple places to sit) and there were no witnesses, a spot belonging to you could be in a multitude of places – all about equally likely.

Q: This is something I feel skeptical about. TBC knows what happened because it collapsed the probability when my position was measured by myself. Even if I don't remember, why would it choose a different location when by looking at the history it knows the actual one? Why complicate it by choosing a location when the VR knows what happened and the exact location from historical records.

Tom: The VR simulation simply sends data to PMR players. It sends data requiring the fewest calculations that meet all constraints. It does not have to track and compute data that is irrelevant to the constraints. “TBC knows what happened because it collapsed the probability when my position was measured by myself.” Once you forgot, TBC couldn’t care less because that information is no longer part of the constraints it must satisfy and goes on to answer the next call for data with a minimum effort that meets constraints – that minimum effort may have to look up and retrieve your old position data or it may just grab a random position that meets constraints and go with that – whichever is easier and quicker at that moment..

Q: Why would the position of my virtual arms be probable when the simulation can calculate exact positions using Kinematics (rule-set)?

Tom: Why perform a high resolution detailed deterministic calculation when a simple probability at 1/000 the cost would do perfectly well (meet all the constraints)?

Q: I wasn't thinking of detailed deterministic. I was thinking of a virtual forearm as an hexahedron (just 8 points) moving with Kinematics calculation. It would be nice to simulate these approaches in a computer program. Like, for example model a 2D object that observes in different directions with certain angles and change the VR according to the observations of this little 2D being (may be square simulated FWAU).

Tom: Yes, but kinematics is not cheap and even more expensive with a small delta-t -- it is much more complex than drawing a random number from a constrained subset for a likely place to put the spot. High level (low detail) statistical models are in general quicker that physics models because there are fewer inputs and fewer calculations – less specificity. As long as it meets the constraints, the cheaper the better. So depending on how much detailed calculation the constraints require and how complex the situation is that produces those constraints, whatever method meets the constraints more efficiently would be the calculation process used. My point that much of the time in the PMR game as it is interactively played by uncertain humans engaged in uncertain interactions for uncertain reasons within a hugely detailed but uncertain physical environment, the process will more naturally and efficiently be statistical. A statistical approach to reality simply makes more sense. Otherwise you end up like all the group of physicist who support the “many worlds” theory of QM -- having to create a new world every time an electron changes spin state. Talk about wasted bits!

Q: In your model, cells don't actually exist in Consciousness Space unless measured? So cells don't relate to the "feelings" of trees and their awareness? The tree "feelings" are real in Consciousness Space but the development of the tree follows probability. Cells of a tree (virtual) and tree feelings are not coupled in your model, apparently?

Tom: Data is sent to a consciousness in the PMR game who interprets that data as a tree. Other data is sent that the consciousness interprets as its PMR body. If the body inspects the tree closely it may find cells, or molecules according to the game’s rule-set -- then additional data must be sent that will be interpreted as cells and molecules. If the body doesn’t inspect so closely, no cell or molecule data will be sent. The inspection is the measurement.

Q: So when I asked you above the "coupling" question? Feelings of the tree are in Consciousness Space and the "observation of its cells" may reflect the "effect" of the feelings. So to confirm your answer, tree feelings are real in CS, but cells don't have a "real" existence but rather a response from the VR.

Tom: Correct!

Q: Rolling back to the roots of my assumptions, I think by taking some aspects you mentioned in the forum, I applied them to a broader range and perceived these apparent inconsistencies. You mentioned that the brain is a constrain applied to the FWAU, and that the FWAU mind leads and the brain shows a representation of it. I took this as something general, so I assumed the trees should represent their "dim mind" (with feelings and possible response to FWAU thoughts) in Consciousness Space in their PMR structure and therefore should not be called just "probabilities". But from what you were saying in these emails, the brain representation analogy does not apply to trees (to represent tree feelings). That was the source from me thinking of inconsistencies. I don't know if you can add something from what I just said.

Tom: Correct! Trees don’t have brains.:-) When you touch an old tree on an old battlefield and you think of what that tree might have “witnessed” and if you are intuitive you will connect with the database and “see” glimpses of what that tree has “experienced”. But you are not reading the tree’s mind, you are accessing a relational database for data related to that tree. When you love and cherish a plant, the loving intent modifies the rendering of the plant (by modifying its future probable reality) and you see the plant respond. We anthropomorphize the plant into a “plant being” that is interacting with us. Beautiful natural environments or art may cause a resonance within you that caused you to “respond to them” by relaxing and connecting to a bigger picture that is relevant to you. You, as consciousness are the cause of the response. It is in this way that trees and rocks have feelings – we feel all the data that is related to them when we “connect” with them. Our feeling, our connection. Data is data whether it is related to a tree or a rock or to the adventurer of our bodies or whatever. Information is all the same – reality is information -- in the best relational databases there are no masters: everything is related to everything.

Q: I am interested in promoting Big Picture exploration and MBT and it would be good to try examples like the ones we discussed and also do some computer programs to simulate simple scenarios. Now another aspect that it would be nice for you to give us (the followers and future of MBT) is experiments we can try in PMR to explore and understand the probabilistic nature of PMR as a VR. You said that the probabilistic nature applies in a macroscale to everything, but what kind of PMR experiments we can try to explain and prove this, if possible?

Tom: In my Hawaii talk, and the TMI talk as well, I give an example of an experiment that is quite doable but has never been done that would verify the nature of reality as I describe it. You will find it in the part where I discuss reverse causality.

Tom

Return to the Central Linkage Page for Tom Campbell's Lectures