LUCKY THIS DIALOGUE IS COMPLETE FROM THE PAST AS THERE IS LITTLE TIME TO GO OVER THESE ISSUES IN DETAIL AT THE MOMENT--E.Macer-Story
Subj:
Re: The New Cosmos--the lightning of the Kabbalists
Date: 12/17/00 2:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:(Jack Sarfatti)
To: MagickMirr@aol.co (E.Macer-Story)
Thanks
:-)
MagickMirr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/16/00 10:06:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sarfatti@well.com writes:
>
> <
> superspace. Deutsch's "worlds" are simply basins of attractors on
this
> super-hyper landscape. They are physically real, pure objective quantum
> information. They are not material but they are real. They are all empty
> save ONE! That is, Deutsch's "other worlds" are real but
immaterial
> attractor patterns of qubits. They are empty of matter-geometry. Empty
> worlds of objective nonclassical INACTIVE non-Shannon information that
> will activate only when the single unique 10-dim hyperverse "system
point"
> is trapped by an attractor.
>
> [Eugenia]
> This, as you know, is similar to the Sepheroth//Klepoth of the Kabbalistic
> Diagram. This connection to the wonderful worlds of the living Sepheroth
must
> be activated by a living mind which understands the pathways.
>
> [Sarfatti]
> However, because the landscape (Deutsch
> quantum multiverse) and the system point (Kaku hyper-verse) mutually
> influence each other in "two-way relation", so the whole damn
thing is
> super-conscious, there are topological sea changes, Thom catastrophes,
> Arnold singularities, like Earth Quakes and Star Quakes, that change the
> landscape. It's all dynamic in the 11-th dimension "time".
>
> [Eugenia]
> I have not heard of the Operator influencing the vital landscapes of the
> Kabbalah to change. But, of course, the use of these systems will vary with
> the consciousness of the Operator.
>
> [Sarfatti]
> But we are not finished. Now look at that single material hyper-verse in
> 10 dimensions. Sounds Qabalistic! Inside it we find "billions and
> billions" (Sagan) maybe infinite number of 3 dim "bubbles".
We live stuck
> like Flatlanders on only ONE of those bubbles!
> Talk about Ezekial's Vision of "wheels within wheels", here we
have the
> Heavenly Host of many worlds the real meaning of My Father's House has many
> mansions!
>
> [Eugenia]
> That's what I detected when on the "invocation footer" of one of
your emails
> about a year ago you used the term "Lightning". The
"Lightning" is a well
> known Kabbalistic formula-pathway which goes zig zag through ALL the
> Sephiroth. In fact, there is a lightning storm right now in Woodstock so we
> know it is also passing through Malkuth.
>
> [Gary]
> > Recently I have spent more time listening to what David has to say. I
> > am certainly open to the possibility that the other universes are
> > "real".
>
> [Eugenia]
> Yes.On a number of levels when real. Activatoing a number of different
> dimensions when real. Nor a Flatland experience.
>
> [Sarfatti]
> David does not understand what I have just shown to you. He does not
> understand Bohm in its fullness. Julian Barbour does not understand this
> either, not yet.
>
> [Eugenia]
> The Implicate Order of the many worlds, you mean? Not simply the Implicate
> Order of the 3 dim bouncing around in the Asti Spumanti?
[Jack]
The material 10-dim Kaku "hyper-verse" with the infinity of material
3-dim
"bubble univrses" floating in it, we live on only one of that
infinity, is in the
Explicate Order of 10-dim.
The mental infinite-dimensional Deutsch "quantum multiverse" is the
qubit
landscape for the motion of the material 10-dim Kaku "hyper-verse" to
move on
relative to the 11-th time dimension. This motion is in the infinite-dimensional
field configuration space of the material 10-dim Kaku "hyper-verse".
The
landscape is a hypersurface of constraint that undergoes Thom catastrophes as it
coevolves with material 10-dim Kaku "hyper-verse" along the 11-th
dimension.
>
> [Sarfatti]
> Remember Solomon ha-Zarfati (1040 - 1105, Troyes, Champagne, France) Then
> and Now. A Distant Mirror. Once every thousand years, a moment of magic,
> Camelot.
>
> [Eugenia}
> Cool.:-)
>
Subj:
Re: Dvali - Topological Effects in Our Brane World --response
Date: 1/26/01 8:54:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
In a message dated 1/26/01 1:48:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Jack Sarfatti writes:
<< Both many worlds and
collapse models are fundamentally incomplete ontologies. Einstein was
completely correct on that. Bohr was wrong. >>
Good Morning Jack--
Once again Gary Bekkum sends very relevant ideas. I saved this paper and will
probably refer to it when I do the configurational update of my fluidice.com
website soon.People writing within the canon of standard format for a variety of
reasons including maotaining their teaching jobs approach the enigma I address
in my "fluidice//traction fluidice" formulations without actually
addressing the need to admit an additional force or transduction medium into the
equations. I quote from the paper by Dvali, Kogan & Shifman:"our world
embedded in large, compact extra dimensions" Somewhat. If what I call
"fluidice" is seen to be those "compact extra dimensions"
then what I have termed "traction fluidice"is the necessary additional
force/medium which causes what these folks call in their delightful terminology
"interruptions on the brane".
I think that phrase would be a lovely title for a book or article on these
topics and I am considering using it in the future for a discussion of these
issues.INTERRUPTIONS ON THE BRANE..."er...excuse me, folks...but I..."
Both Einstein & Dirac, which their documented senses of humor &
perspective would have enjoyed this title. God does not play dice. The scope of
the situation is larger than we can perceive.So WE play dice or do oracular
divinations.Whistling in the dark.
Best--Eugenia Macer-Story
Below the photo of the cover of this English translation of the I CHING or BOOK OF CHANGES, a classic Taoist book of divination is found a dialog by various physicists about "brain function". The central problem here is that the I CHING and other oracular devices do not work initially by the use of neural or brain function of the human body. These devices--such as Tarot Cards, tea leaves and the yarrow sticks & coins of Chinese divination--are placed in arrangements exterior to the neural organic body of the questioner, and the arrangement is then consulted for "meaning". It is the opinion of E. Macer-Story, in formulating the concept of "fluidice" as a transduction medium, that this informational energy of the "traction fluidice" informs not only organically "living" bodies but potentially all material space. This would account for the oracular corrrespondences and also for "synchronicity" and "synergy" of information and energy systems.
Subj: Re: grudge & drudge mechanics (rival
physics theories concerning consciousness)
"Dr. Evan Harris Walker" wrote:
> EHW to Stan Klien and all:
>
> Thank you for your comment. It may help -- if the lesson there is
> recognized.
> One of the great problems we have with the question of consciousness is the
> fact that many people DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL.
[Jack Sarfatti]
Start with yourself of course.
[Walker]
> Nobody is to blame, I guess. The language is often used loosely.
> Let me say, though that there is no difficulty in discussing or explaining
> brain stimulus-response through-put data capacity. This is a conventional
> psychology question. The number that Nick gave was exactly for that. It was
> obtained form that source.
[Sarfatti]
Maybe, but it also drops out of my fundamental physics theory! So I consider
that a triumph of my theory.
[Walker]
> But that is not the subject of consciousness that
> is at issue here in the Q-Mind studies. The through-put is easily
> conceptualized. There is no "hard problem" lurking about the
edges of the
> through-put. It is a totally conventional psycho-physical issue
> conventionally discussed and studied.
>
> As Stan said: "One of the most amazing properties of the
former..." The
> thing that makes it amazing it the disparity between that limited outlet of
> 100 baud and our inner conscious experience that involves the direct
> experience of a vast data flow.
[Sarfatti]
In my theory, the cosmologically dependent "speakable" lifetime of the
single
q*-bit is around 0.4 sec, but its internal complexity for the
"unspeakable" feel
is generated from a billion-billion qubits and of order
billion-billion-billion-billion pair-correlated nonlocal e-bits and ....
2^N = Sum of all binomial coefficients [N,r] r = 1 to N for fixed N is the
dimension of the Hilbert space of mental pilot patterns of the human brain for
which N = 10^18 from both theory and experiment! Only when N = 10^18 is the
reaction barrier equal in height to the action barrier so that two-way
transduction of mental qubits (of electron mass) to material c-bits and vice
versa is possible overcoming absolute local quantum randomness.
[N,r] = N!/r!(N-r)!
N!/2!(N-2)! = N(N-1)/2
is the number of pair-correlated e-bits
N!/3!(N-3)! = N(N-1)(N-2)/6 is the number of triad-correlated e-bits
and so on.
So for the human brain we have of order 2^10^18 possible patterns of nonlocal
correlation for the "unspeakable".
[Stan Klien]
> >Evan brings up a delicate topic. How should people doing 'fringe'
> >physics interact. I hope it is clear to all that Tegmark's position
> >is the position of the vast majority of physicists and
> >neuroscientists. I call people who diverge from the mainstream as
> >'fringe'. People holding the mainstream position don't really have
> >the burden of proof. It is people holding novel positions like Evan,
> >Penrose/Hameroff, Jack who have the burden and who need to do the
> >convincing job. To do that convincing it is important to not let
> >personal grudges or hurts get in the way. I fully understand how
> >difficult that is since the people with wonderful novel theories are
> >usually ignored (I have some novelties of my own). I doubt whether
> >fighting over personal slights is helpful.
> >[Walker]
> >Years ago the argument we had concerning QM and consciousness was over
the
> >fact that you were saying that I was wrong because you thought the
> >consciousness data rate had to be only 100 baud! I had derived a value
of
> >about 10^8 baud, consistent with the facts about visual and overall
> >consciousness experience. You were wrong then, and you have never
> >acknowledged that fact.
> >
> >[Stan Klien]
> >There are two aspects to consciousness that are relevant to this
> >discussion: the speakable and the unspeakable. The latter can't be
> >measured. One of the most amazing properties of the former is that
> >experiments in psychology has shown that the baudrate of
> >consciousness is incredibly low. Less than 100 baud. Even though the
> >brain has billions of neurons working simultaneously, conscious
> >awareness counterintuitively operates serially on very few items at a
> >time. There seems to be a bottleneck that nobody understands yet. So
> >for the speakable aspects of consciousness (the only aspects that can
> >be measured) Nick Herbert (a quantum physics theorist) seems to be on solid ground.
>>I suspect that for
> >the unspeakable aspects, that Evan is correct. But that doesn't mean
> >that Nick Herbert is wrong.
IF YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND THE DISCOURSE IMPOSED BY LIMITED SYSTEMS OF PHYSICS,
ORDER THE BOOKLET by E. Macer-Story "FOUR FREE LECTURES ON DIVINATION"
from info@fluidice.com. These are
lectures presented for a Polyarts seminar in Boston,
now available in facsimile for $15.00.