12/31/2019 8:55 a.m.
It is the last day of the year, new year’s eve, “Silvester.” A good day to reminisce, to look back on the year.
As I write this, “reminisce” stands out as an interesting word, let’s look it up: re- + menisci (meaning "to remember again"), from mens (mind), from IE root *men (to think).
How very interesting and synchronistic, it goes straight to the problem I am currently thinking about: how quantum mechanics (QM) and “memory” are linked. More on this later…
But allow me to first indulge a bit in reminiscence. This has probably been one of the strongest years for me as far as spiritual growth. I engaged in many inner dialogues, which brought up many interesting points out of the blue. I went from a spectator, that is from just reading, to a participant, even if that only means I am talking through my subconscious.
And now I am learning QM, I mean really learning it with all the math involved, and it has been another eye opener; compared to reading lay person books, it is as if I am learning a new language.
So looking back, and forward, I want to thank my inner Club for all the insights and guidance that I was allowed in the last year.
Thank you, Club!
With that said, let me open up the channel.
The Club: We are here.
OK, good. So what should we talk about?
Isn’t it obvious, reminiscent you? Memory. That has become one of the central problems in combining our insights with QM, how QM, and thus the physical, links with memory, and thereby mind and consciousness.
Right, while I do like Hugh Everett's (and other's) Many-Worlds Interpretation (MW) or Many-Minds Interpretation (MM), and see many parallels between it and our insights, it does have several severe implicit problems.
The first, and we had the same difficulty ourselves, is the probability problem: how to get to the stochastic distribution of QM if all branches are taken. We had that as well, which we called the futility of all things. [for example, compare here].
The second problem is that in MW/MM we do need memory being a part of the Ψ state vector describing physical reality, i.e. “the universal wave function.” But -- and this was brilliantly elaborated in Bohm’s critique* -- that opens a can of worms, because here we are getting into defining not just a physical theory, but also a philosophy of mind! [* David Bohm, The undivided universe]
Let’s talk about that.
OK, good so far. We don’t see a problem with memory, at least a part of it being in 3D as well. Remember we always said that the 3D is just a "sub-dimension" of a greater whole, "All-D." And that itself may be a sub-dimension of another (i.e. Bohm’s implicate order).
That seems new.
Fine, bear with it. In your newly found QM language, 3D is then just a slice in the larger abstract Hilbert space.* And [physical] memory is only a subset of the greater knowledge – only that which is stored “locally” in the 3D brain.
So the “psycho-physical parallelism”** only goes as far as the brain – and so then THAT can be modeled by a state vector/wave function.
[Notes: *It does not say that the All-D can be modeled as a state vector as well, only all the parts of the 3D systems.
**A term coined by John von Neuman and later used in Hugh Everett’s Ph.D. thesis, which then became labeled "the many worlds interpretation of QM"].
The other thing to see is how all seems to be entangled, or “superpositioned,” and thus each part knows of the other. Ultimately, this is similar to the holographic model: the hologram now becomes a ginormous superposition. It is All-that-Is and Ever-Has-Been and Ever-Can-Be.
The mind-part of the local observer now iterates over this. We said 3D matter and 3D consciousness come out together, are churned out of a greater “soup.” So it is not, as Bohm critiqued it, necessarily to create a dualism of mind vs matter, but that dualistic view only comes out as part of the churning and resolves again into the greater superposition – which contains all mind and all matter and all time and all possibilities.
In a way. So it does include some new philosophy of mind.
We don’t see how it could not!
We understand you are baffled, as all this is still very new, but the kinks can be ironed out.
So we are saying, Many-Minds plus possibly implicate order?
We are silent on that for now.
Then what about time? I.e. Cramer ? [*John Cramer: The Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics]
Not so much time as bleed through between the many words/minds. The separation is not always as clear, and cross-currents (repercussions, prepercusisons and cross-percussions) are always there, as at the bottom it is one, call it (wrongly) one mind, and one “life tree” (Everett’s word), so it is all “connected,” whereby that is a wrong word, too. It is all superpositioned, or entangled, and strong impressions from one “branch” can bleed over into the other. That is an advanced topic for later, some time.
To back up, by necessity, you need the local impression of time and memory with this.
But is “mind” not so much more than memory? Is it not also processing, and pattern matching, and so on?
Again, much of this CAN be pushed to the materialistic side, i.e. brain functions CAN indeed handle much of this. So the physical brain, in 3D at this moment does have its place as a sort of receiver (!) and processor, but ultimately what “it” is (where “it” is now the bigger system) is a perceiver of alternatives and chooser.
Hmmm. There is a lot hidden in that section.
In a way, all living things, even simple amoebas, and cells, and electrons, are such perceivers and choosers. As discussed, they all hold a level of consciousness that is appropriate for them. With humans, you need a receptive structure that can handle higher levels of thoughts. So your brain is more advanced that, say, a mouse’s.
Smiling. So to see an recognize the alternatives, and understand their future repercussions, you need a higher brain structure.
I do see this now getting into the topic of “brain” a lot.
The part of “mind” that is tied to 3D, yes. But remember, “mind” is something ever so much bigger than just this 3D brain. In a way, the brain is just a receiver, a local processor, of something much greater.
Oh boy, I see my work for the next year is cut out already.
[Writing this, I realize that in this view, the work is already done in the superpositioned branches that contain all, and will be brought out through the navigation of the life-tree in some of the branches, some more successful and others not]
We smile. But you like challenges, big boy, don’t you? (smiling) Look, what we are talking about, a year ago you would have been lost. You have learned, and you will learn more, so we bring out and “task you” with progressive bigger ideas and challenges.
So something to look forward to. Let’s stop. With that, I say “Cheers, and a happy new year (in a few hours).
Remember that a year is only something based on the human calendar, based on the earth moving around the sun. It seems cyclic, but in the greater scheme is just “the next moment” in a seemingly linear progression, or as you now might say, branching.
Ah yes, we also need to revisit the idea of not just branching but merging again.
A very much major point! All dealing with the superposition of elements.
I see the task at hand – it will not be easy.
All in good time. So now we say “Happy new moment,” my friend. Do you see the difference? [to happy new year]
I do. Sending love – over and out.
Until the next time.
( 9:40 )
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr