Ramification: It seems that this particular word has quite different
meanings in French and English. Thanks for the .bmp picture. I now
understand that by 'bundles' of universes you mean large numbers of
universes which are the same or similar. Indeed there are many
undifferentiated universes; many differentiated by just one variable (eg
spin on an electron) and many quite different. But I am still not sure why
this concept is useful in this context.
I do not find 'mind' as objectionable as 'spirit' but that is simply because
I am prejudiced. When it comes down to it, I am not a dualist - I do not
admit that there are two kinds of thing - mind and non-mind. Mind is a
label we give to matter when it behaves in a certain way.
Our feeling of free will is just that - a feeling. It need not be based on
anything.
You say:
About predetermination, can we consider that everything is written
like in a
book ? This book should be infinite, but could we still call it a book ?
What we call it is up to us. You can call it an infinite book. I call it
marvellous.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Bailhache [SMTP:Jacques.Bailhache.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 14 January 1999 14:13
> To: 'Higgo James'
> Cc: 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> Subject: RE: Decision theory
>
>
> >Jacques, I have never heard the word 'ramification' used in this
> way. It
> >normally means a 'logical consequence'. There are no bundles of
> universes,
> >unless someone chooses to see them as bundled, and I don't think
> that would
> >be very useful. You use several concepts I consider meaningless,
> such as
> >'spirit'.
>
> James, I apologize if my english is not very good and if I don't always
> use
> the correct words.
> In french, I call it "ramification des faisceaux d'univers", which means
> that there are several universes which are associated together (because
> they
> are so near that we cannot perceive any difference) and which at some
> point
> separate into several subsets.
> Here is a picture to illustrate it.
> <<ramif.bmp>>
>
> I use the word "spirit" to translate the french "esprit" which has perhaps
> no exact equivalent in english, and is sometimes used with the meaning of
> "mind", but "spirit" seemed better to me to express the metaphysically
> transcendental concept which I am thinking of, but "spirit" has perhaps
> more
> religious connotations than the french "esprit" and does not express
> exactly
> my idea since I am not speaking about religion here. The concept I am
> thinking of is difficult to explain. At first sight, one can see life as
> an
> exchange of information between an inside (spirit) and an outside (matter)
> :
>
> spirit <--- consciousness --- matter
> ---- free will ------>
>
> But in fact things are more complicated. I would rather see them as an
> infinity of nested insides.
>
> I don't say that I know the truth about spirit, but I had some ideas
> according to which spirit does not exist as a finite and well defined
> entity, but rather as a limit of something getting smaller and smaller.
> If these ideas is true, spirit would have no meaning in the absolute but
> would depend on the considered physical theory, like I explained in a
> previous message :
> Any physical theory is only approximation
> of the physical reality. In fact, the physical reality could be just an
> infinite mathematical theory, defined by an infinite converging sequence
> of
> finite theories. In this model, the spirit would be relative to the
> considered level : if X1 is not explained by some theory T1, then X1
> belongs
> to the domain of spirit relatively to this theory T1. But there exist a
> more
> precise theory T2 which explains X1. Then X1 belongs to the domain of
> matter
> according to T2. But there exist another X2 which T2 does not explain, and
> which belongs to spirit relatively to T2. But there exist a more precise
> theory T3 which explains X2, and so on... Spirit would be something
> tending
> to nothing without reaching it.
> See also http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/naturesp.htm
> Metaphysical reflections
> <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/reflres.htm> - Nature
> of
> spirit
> The regularities
> <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/regul.htm> which we
> perceive lead us to conceive a mathematical model of the world. What can
> be
> the place of spirit
> <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/exesprit.htm> in such a
> model ?
> Let us examine the problem of the nature of spirit at the light of the
> model
> elaborated by the science of our civilisation. It tells us that the brain
> is
> the seat of spirit.
> * The brain is a gathering of interconnected neurons;
> * neurons are gatherings of molecules;
> * molecules are gatherings of atoms;
> * atoms are gatherings of particles
> ... all of these being ruled by the laws of physics. One could have the
> first impression that all of that is a machine made of a gathering of
> constitutive parts and whose working is ruled by precise laws. In such a
> conception, there would be no place for spirit.
> But we should not forget that physical theories are only approximative
> models. Elementaryparticles are in fact made of quarks, and quarks are
> made
> of preons... Each time the physicists believe they found the ultimate
> reality of matter (atoms, elementary particles...) they discovered later
> that those particles are in fact made of other smaller particles. One can
> then imagine the possibility that this nesting goes on indefinitely. The
> universe would be in this hypothesis infinite in the infinitely small.
> In this hypothesis, any physical theory as a finite mathematical model of
> the universe would modelize only approximatively the behaviour of the
> universe, because it would necessarily stop at a level of smallness and
> would ignore all the reality smaller (inner) than this level.
> This is perhaps for this reason that when we go sufficiently deep in
> matter,
> it stops to behave like we are used to at our scale. At this level the
> laws
> of quantum physics are no longer deterministic but probabilistic.
> We could then produce a sequence of theories asymptotically leading to
> total
> knowledge of the laws of the universe but never reaching it. This would
> imply that :
> * whatever is the degree of precision reached by a theory, there would
> always remain a part of unknown, of undetermination, which would let a
> place
> for spirit;
> * for any physical event, there exists a physical theory precize
> enough to predict how this event would unfold, then determinism is not
> fully
> contradicted.
> In the same way, we could conceive machines that simulate the behaviour of
> a
> human being, but such machines could realize only an approximation of the
> real behaviour because they should necessarily stop at some level of
> material elements. To simulate correctly the working of the brain, we
> should
> consider it as neural network and simulate the working of neurons. We know
> mathematical models but they are only approximations. To simulate
> precisely
> the working of neurons, we should consider them as gatherings of molecules
> and simulate the molecules, and so on indefinitely. But the brain works
> like
> a fantastic amplifier. Each neuron receives impulses from thousands of
> other
> neurons, adds the impulses and if they are above the threshold of the
> neuron, sends an impulse to other neurons. So, if we are very close to the
> threshold, a very small variation can decide if the neuron is excitated or
> not, and the brain contains billions of neurons. The probability that at
> least one neuron is close to the threshold is high. And the excitation or
> non-excitation of a neuron can act on the remainder of the brain. So the
> behaviour of a few elementary particles could have an influence on the
> behaviour of the individual.
> So we can for exemple come near to the brain with a machine which realizes
> an approximation, stopping at some given level of material elements, but
> probably never being able to identify completely the brain to a finite
> machine, which is a finite gathering of pieces whose working is ruled by a
> finite number of deterministic rules, because the decomposition into
> constituting elements being infinite, we would not be a finite gathering
> of
> pieces, and the sequence of theories asymptotically leading to an exact
> description of our working being infinite, it would not be ruled by a
> finite
> set of rules.
> Our feeling of free will could then come from this infinite nesting of
> levels, from the fact that we are infinite in the infinitely small.
> About predetermination, can we consider that everything is written like in
> a
> book ? This book should be infinite, but could we still call it a book ?
>
> ==========================
> Jacques Bailhache
> Y2K Centre of Expertise (BRO)
> DTN: 856 ext. 7662
> Tel: +32-2 729.7662, Fax: +32-2 729.7985
> Email: mailto:Jacques.Bailhache.domain.name.hidden
> Visit my home page :
> http://www.website2u.com/log/index.htm
> http://www.byoc.com/homepage/134885/
> http://www.chez.com/log/
> http://members.rotfl.com/log/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Higgo James [SMTP:james.higgo.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 12:33 PM
> > To: Jacques Bailhache
> > Cc: 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> > Subject: RE: Decision theory
> >
> > Jacques, I have never heard the word 'ramification' used in this way. It
> > normally means a 'logical consequence'. There are no bundles of
> > universes,
> > unless someone chooses to see them as bundled, and I don't think that
> > would
> > be very useful. You use several concepts I consider meaningless, such
> as
> > 'spirit'.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jacques Bailhache [SMTP:Jacques.Bailhache.domain.name.hidden]
> > > Sent: 14 January 1999 10:40
> > > To: 'Higgo James'
> > > Cc: 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> > > Subject: RE: Decision theory
> > >
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > >Interesting concept concerning the infnitely small. How about the
> more
> > > >orthodox idea that the brain is a quantum computer (running things
> like
> > > >Shor's and Grover's algorithms), relying on an infinite number of
> > > parallel
> > > >universes?
> > >
> > > It's another interesting idea.
> > > There is an infinite number of physical theories which are compatible
> > with
> > > our perceptions, so we can consider that our consciousness supervenes
> on
> > > all
> > > these theories and that we exist in an infinite number of
> corresponding
> > > parallel universes. But in some circonstances the difference may
> become
> > > perceptible.
> > > See http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/rfu.htm
> > > Metaphysical reflections
> > > <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/reflres.htm> -
> > > Ramification of universes bundles
> > > We will now examine the consequences of this hypothesis of
> mathematical
> > > universes <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/hum.htm>
> > > trying
> > > to answer to some questions at the light of this hypothesis.
> > > According to this hypothesis, the existence of an infinity of infinite
> > > mathematical models would then imply the existence of an infinity of
> > > parallel universes. We can suppose that, among this infinity, a part
> of
> > > models and corresponding universes are sufficiently near so that the
> > > difference is not perceptible. We could then say that we exist in all
> of
> > > these universes. But it is possible (by "butterfly effect") that at a
> > > later
> > > time, the differences become perceptible. A "ramification" of this
> > > "bundle"
> > > of universes would then happen, like in the many worlds hypothesis
> > > <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/hmm.htm> proposed
> to
> > > explain the wave function collapse in quantum physics. According to
> this
> > > hypothesis, if the position of some particle is described
> > > probabilistically
> > > by a wave function, and if we make an observation which gives a
> precize
> > > position, collapsing the wave function, a "ramification" of the
> universe
> > > would happen, and the particle would have different positions in the
> > > different universes resulting from this ramification. According to the
> > > theory of the ramification of universes bundles, the universes would
> be
> > in
> > > fact already virtually separated before the observation, but this
> > > separation
> > > would become perceptible only after. This also agrees with some
> theories
> > > according to which the apparent non-determinism of quantum physics
> would
> > > be
> > > caused by the fact that this theory does not describe the ultimate
> > reality
> > > but is only an approximation, and then there would always remain a
> > > non-determination that we could eliminate with a more precize theory,
> > but
> > > which would be still an approximation, and so on indefinitely.
> > > The ramification of universes bundles brings a new lighting on spirit
> > > <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/esprfu.htm>,
> > > non-determinism, perception and free will.
> > > The ramification of universes bundles also permits to explain very
> > simply
> > > <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/cf_rfu.htm> the
> > > principle
> > > of formative causality
> > > <http://www.website2u.com/log/text/reflmph/english/sheldrak.htm>
> without
> > > use
> > > of a propagating morphic field.
> > >
> > > ==========================
> > > Jacques Bailhache
> > > Y2K Centre of Expertise (BRO)
> > > DTN: 856 ext. 7662
> > > Tel: +32-2 729.7662, Fax: +32-2 729.7985
> > > Email: mailto:Jacques.Bailhache.domain.name.hidden
> > > Visit my home page :
> > > http://www.website2u.com/log/index.htm
> > > http://www.byoc.com/homepage/134885/
> > > http://www.chez.com/log/
> > > http://members.rotfl.com/log/
> > > << File: ramif.bmp >>
Received on Thu Jan 14 1999 - 09:40:51 PST