> A modern treatment of the dancing angels problem can be found here

Hah. Saved for further musings.

After all, what observer made the first waves collapse into form? As the Diamond Sutra says, Form is Emptiness; Emptiness, Form. Or is the “Great Electron” just superposed in fractalesque splendor, reified by observation.

In Robert Sawyer’s amusing book “Calculating God,” he quotes the space alien saying “God observes, wavefronts collapse.”

Enter the (ahem) “quantum consciousness” speculations. Here’s one that cites Vajrayanist theology’s assertion that primordial mind in non-material realms counts as primordial wave-collapsing observers of the early cosmos. This writer claims “sentience” is the litmus, but that reifies mind as “consciousness” as representing quintessential “mind.” If this is a valid interpretation of of Vajrayanist theology, doesn’t this also introduce a God/creator concept?

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm

“… quantum theory and sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer’s mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality…

“…the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be observed…

“…But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans.”

“…highly advanced … contemplatives speak of experiencing
… Rupadhatu, a form realm .. unperturbed by … the gross
physical cosmos. And beyond this is the arupyadhatu, a
formless realm … When the gross physical dimension of a
cosmos is uninhabitable, sentient beings reside in the
rupadhatu and arupyadhatu or in other inhabitable cosmoses.
Humans cannot dwell in the rupadhatu and arupyadhatu, though
these realms are accessible to a human mind that has been
highly refined through meditation….”

“…The bottom line of the participatory anthropic principle
is that minds can exist independently of matter, and they
create their actual environments from the potentialities
around them.”

Quoting myself from elsewhen….

I think “mind” needn’t be sentient, but even more primordial, and still the theology can hold together. Why would sentience be required? Couldn’t the self-evolving system of the early cosmos served as its own observer?

n his brief musings, he doesn’t define the limits of what’s
“OUTSIDE,” b/c every “next” parallel universe is just part of a
greater, higher-level universe. So when he infers that these are akin
to immaterial, formless realms, he’s looking to take a metaphysical
experience and plant it firmly in some unconfirmed, but amusing to
speculate, parallel universe that may or may not actually exist. He
also requires the observer to be OUTSIDE this universe, just like the
formless realm he assumes is as well. But this isn’t even required.
Nor is sentience. The extra-dimensional spaces could be the “great
observers.”

It’s no surprise we want an anthropic, wave-collapsing, super-posing
eyeball watching our little petri dish in n-space & then succeed in
speculating accordingly. Makes for cool theosophical sci-fi, but
that’s about as far as I can take it. It doesn’t mean much otherwise,
it’s just ego-seducing fun that beckons us with a siren call of
beatific fractalesque wonders… ” If *I* can just attain that higher
realm …. ” But the extra-dimensional observers aren’t a-karmic,
they’re just in another part of a greater universe … so if you wan
the “real god,” you still have to go up yet another level … and
another, and another, and another & pretty soon it’s an infinity
mirrored stack of Great Turtles that vanishes into a haze of sweet
beatific speculative bliss … Owa, Tagu, Siam.

God: An anthropic, wave-collapsing, super-posing eyeball watching our little petri dish in n-space who intercedes in ways unseen, unknown and untested.

Reply:This may get deleted later as it is bait for a religious discussion WHICH WE DO NOT WANT, so please, please, no one take the bait~charles the moderator.

I was thinking something along those lines yesterday. Spooky action at a distance? But more along the lines of moral investigation. I do love western science. While other cultures can speculate about ultimate questions, the West is closing in on some answers. ETs for instance, where are they? What if we are the only intelligent life in the Universe? Doesn’t that put us back at the center of the universe? (Not literally, but in terms of importance.) I disagree with much that people believe, but i do appreciate, in many cases, that they are exploring the territory. SETI is NOT a waste of time even though I am almost certain that the only answer it will ever give is negative.

regards

Terry Prachett and co authors in one of the three books “the science of Discworld” do a very good job in describing “lies we tell children as we educate them”, i.e. your “good enough”, and how this carries on all through the educational edifice. Example: mechanics is good enough for engineering, quantum mechanics for electronic engineering, … And the question is, our scientific knowledge limits are what is good enough at our level, or are they the ultimate limits? I would suspect the first, which is what I call keeping an open mind for a next generation of scientific creativity . After all, right before quantum mechanics upset the cart the physicists of that generation believed they had the theory of everything after Newton and Maxwell.

There is a greek word accompanying the word ‘hubris” which has not come through to the latin derived languages “Oiesis”, it means pride that leads to hubris. I find climatologists particularly are full of it, and possibly all scientists who are passionate about their research, as they should be, have some of it: you need to usurp fire from the gods.

And this pride leads people astray on a tangent from their level of “good enough”, from people believing in astrology and UFOs to climatologists believing the lies they tell all of us.

On the other hand this pride is what advances the frontiers of knowledge; the incessant push to see over the next mountain. As people, as a culture, we cover the whole phase space of possible and probable routes, until some of us hit on the current jackpot, or minimum Action line ( take your pick).

All we need now are some enthusiasts to speak up.

I think the reason it is a common question is obvious. Teachers tell students, “This is how it works.” The students infer that this is an accurate depiction of reality, while it was only “a depiction good enough for our purposes.” When taught the basics of gravity, the barycenter is either stationary or moving smoothly between two bodies. The students infer these are “real” rather than “good enough.”

End formal education.

If they later consider a many body problem, It is rather obvious that the barycenter will behave in a new fashion. If they believe their understanding is real, it is logical for them to conclude that this new behavior requires additional forces to explain. Further, it is natural to wonder what effect those forces have.

Per dancing angels, what a waste of brilliant minds. Would you kindly ask a friend or two to apply their minds to why we may be heading into an economic depression? I am just so sure that it is a high priority of God that dancing angels be considered when millions may end up unemployed or worse. Just as sure as I am that He wants us to be concerned about global climate when instead of trying to win over the heathens, we are killing them! We haven’t got 10 simple Commandments down but He expects us to control the Earth’s climate?

And what about those pure mathematicians who want nothing to do with real applications? Should their jobs be spared in a depression?

But on the other hand, it might be safer for the world if they just stay in their abstract world. Still, it is their world too. They should at least be a little concerned about it. Let them develop a decent economic simulator. Somebody has clearly screwed up.

/rant off

Thanks. I ordered the book. I prefer to read the old fashioned way from a book . The books looks good. And now for dancing angels.

I have the barycentric values for the Sun from JPL and I just looked at the low extreme values during the solar minima which causes the low temperatures.

Here is the year and values

Maunder

1632 -0.04e+47
1656 0.51e+47
1671 0.08e+47
1694 0.63e+47

Dalton
1772 0.23e+47
1795 0.93e+47
1811 -0.09e+47
1835 0.66e+47

Current
1951 0.12e+47
1990 -0.08e+47
2029 0.16e+47

As you can see the extreme value during 1990 was deeper than during the first and deepest extreme point during the Maunder minimum in 1632, but almost of the same size as in 1811 during the Dalton minimum. The extreme points seem to occur 15-20 years before the temperature drops on Earth.

leebert: A modern treatment of the dancing angels problem can be found here

I think so too. There is just one problem: how do you create such a star? all [low-mass] stars must have planets as they condense out of their circumstellar disk.

Have Darth Competent disintegrate them with his Dearth Sta?

(taking a break from packing)

On open minds & relativity.

I have a Buddhist analogy on these things that I wrote for my kids. Experience is a fixed thing, like a cartoon character being drawn going extremely fast through a movie. The Road Runner’s watch slows down relative to the clocks in the movie (Wiley E. Coyote becomes old, dies & turns to dust…) but the Road Runner’s “rate” of experience is the same, just the information around him becomes ever more impermanent.

But what is the experience and what is the information? The movie screen is like Self, with an audience eager to see something happening on it. But we are looking at the wrong thing, the projector is the source of the movie, not the screen. The lamp, well… don’t look to the finger pointing to the moon. :-)

We can suspend disbelief too much in some ways, but discernment is part of being open to experience. Ego defends self from surrendering experiences.

W. E. Coyote is too full of ego, however & is reborn in his constant clinging to catching the RR who has become relativistic. W.E. Coyote is our paragon of suffering, clinging to impermanence. The RR is the proverbial Buddha being met on the road & poor W.E. Coyote is always trying to kill him.

( I doubt Warner Brothers would approve…. ;-)

OK, here’s a little thought experiment I pose to my kids:
How much of the universe can you fit on the head of a pin?
And Is there a difference if the pin head were smaller?

Of course, only conscious beings are of any consequence since we are the only things capable of suffering. When people speak of “saving the earth” I wish to tell them “The earth doesn’t care whether it is ’saved’ or not; it is the people and higher animals that are important.” Once, this was obvious knowledge, but these days I am not too sure.

It’s all about you,
but it’s also about me,
and if any others care,
it’s also about ye.

Thank you. But G.R. is sexy and if i am going to revisit my poorly learned physics then I need all the excitement I can get. Perhaps with the hopefully 60 remaining years of my life and a 40 day fast or two ala Pythagoras, I can digest it.