Anderz

Is Leo's view of time correct?

223 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Member said:

Maybe you can't know the future in a million years from now on but you can predict the outcomes in the short term

No, it's impossible in general to predict what will happen even a millisecond from now! And it's not only about everything being interconnected. Even many very simple processes are computationally irreducible. Stephen Wolfram discovered this with a simple cellular automaton he calls Rule 30:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Do you see information as a noun, or a verb?

I think of information at the fundamental level like how in The Wolfram Physics Project they have an interconnected graph as their model of reality. So the fundamental information is an interconnected whole. What we usually call information is made of separate bits. Nouns and verbs too are separate objects. That's second-order structures (or higher). The first-order information is one whole no-thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm Stephen Wolfram said that the graph isn't isn't made of anything, and that's how I see it too. The graph itself is the fundamental no-thing that gives rise to time, space, matter and also thoughts.

In the Wolfram model, they separate time from space, and time is the expansion of the graph. They have a certain time interval for the "time ticks" (smaller than the Planck time if I remember correctly). I don't see where they get a definite smallest time interval from, but if they can derive it somehow directly from the graph that will be amazing. Explaining how time intervals work and why they have a certain duration is something I haven't figured out yet.

The expansion of the graph is Mind, one could say. So that everything is mind, and physical matter, time and space are that Mind too. Mind is both subjective and objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anderz said:

No, it's impossible in general to predict what will happen even a millisecond from now! And it's not only about everything being interconnected. Even many very simple processes are computationally irreducible. Stephen Wolfram discovered this with a simple cellular automaton he calls Rule 30:

Interesting but randomness is to be expected in a chaotic disorganized system. According to this view, the Self seems to be regarded merely as an object or biological entity without any conscious attributes because consciousness is illusory or doesn't seem exist either. So if reality is random and decided a posteriori, then what is that thing that decides your future in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anderz

In a nutshell, is he saying that since he, time, space, matter, & thought arise of the graph, which is whole & no thing...that in other words he’s making it up? “Information” = no thing?

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm Wolfram only said that the graph isn't made of anything. That the graph is all Mind is something I made up. But it makes sense from a nondual perspective. Wolfram and his team are hardcore scientists, I haven't heard them talking about nonduality or other spiritual concepts. Although one commenter mentioned Indra's net which I found fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anderz

Reminds me of Sean Carrol. It’s as if since one is a scientist they are inherently separate from the no thing. “Mind” boggling how this can be missed at such a no-proximity-left ‘range’, isn’t it? Also curious, are you saying nonduality is a concept, or are you saying the team of hardcore scientists are? 

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anderz said:

Stephen Wolfram said that the graph isn't isn't made of anything, and that's how I see it too. The graph itself is the fundamental no-thing that gives rise to time, space, matter and also thoughts.

In the Wolfram model, they separate time from space, and time is the expansion of the graph.

If I am understanding you correctly, they claim that the graph is no-thing that gives rise to some-thing. How do they create the separation from a “no-thing graph” and the “some-things” it gives rise to? 

If we say “no-thing” gives rise to “some-things”, does not that “no-thing” become a “some-thing”? (Or vice-versa).

If there is a distinction created between “no-thing” and “some-thing”, what is ‘prior’ to the creation of that distinction? . . Not what is ‘prior’ to some-thing, because that assumes there is a som-thing. Rather, what is ‘prior’ to the distinction to create “no-thing” separate from “some-thing”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Member I think of all of reality as similar to the Wolfram model which starts from an initial condition and then expands. It's a completely deterministic process. One difference is that I think manifested reality starts only from a single difference (I got that idea from one of Leo's videos). Another difference is that causality in my view is a result of the whole unmanifested rather than only cause and effect from past to future as in the Wolfram model. Interestingly, Wolfram mentioned that there is something called Omega numbers, also called Chaitin's constant.

Quote

"...  a Chaitin constant (Chaitin omega number)[1] or halting probability is a real number that, informally speaking, represents the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt. ... Each halting probability is a normal and transcendental real number that is not computable, which means that there is no algorithm to compute its digits. Indeed, each halting probability is Martin-Löf random, meaning there is not even any algorithm which can reliably guess its digits." [my emphasis] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's_constant

And an Omega number is a single real number! That's how I think of reality. The Word of God is literally a single number that timelessly just is, one extremely special number out of all possible numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm Nonduality is a concept, but it can also be called a pointer. And the Wolfram team needs to be careful to follow traditional science as much as possible or few people will take them seriously, so even if they have spiritual ideas that's probably not something they will add to their model, at least not yet. (With the disclaimer that I haven't read the entire 400+ pages paper about the project.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

If I am understanding you correctly, they claim that the graph is no-thing that gives rise to some-thing. How do they create the separation from a “no-thing graph” and the “some-things” it gives rise to? 

From Wolfram's paper:

Quote

"The basic concept of applying our models to physics is to imagine that the complete structure and content of the universe is represented by an evolving hypergraph. There is no intrinsic notion of space; space and its apparent continuum character are merely an emergent large‐scale feature of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of matter: everything in the universe just corresponds to features of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of time. The rule specifies possible updates in the hyper‐ graph, and the passage of time essentially corresponds to these update events occurring. ...

In our models, the passage of time basically corresponds to the progressive updating of the hypergraph. Time is therefore fundamentally computational: its passage reflects the performance of a computation—and typically one that is computationally irreducible. It is notable that in a sense the progression of time is necessary even to maintain the structure of space. And this effectively forces the entropic arrow of time (reflected in the effective randomization associated with irreducible computation) to be aligned with the cosmological arrow of time (defined by the overall evolution of the structure of space).

At the outset, time in our models has a very different character from space." - Stephen Wolfram, A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“"The basic concept of applying our models to physics is to imagine that the complete structure and content of the universe is represented by an evolving hypergraph. There is no intrinsic notion of space; space and its apparent continuum character are merely an emergent large‐scale feature of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of matter: everything in the universe just corresponds to features of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of time. The rule specifies possible updates in the hyper‐ graph, and the passage of time essentially corresponds to these update events occurring. ...

Cool. The hyper-graph is an imagined representation. . . It’s fun to create imagined representations. One of my favorite hobbies ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Anderz said:

Nonduality is a concept, but it can also be called a pointer.

I think I hear ya on the pointer, but how is nonduality a concept?

Is that a “spiritual idea” in your opinion?


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm Nonduality is a word, so it's a concept. Nonduality teachers often talk about how all of reality can only be described through concepts and pointers. Leo has mentioned that too.

@Forestluv The graph is also a concept. But there is a difference. The graph can (potentially) model how reality works. At first one can imagine that a graph can represent reality. Then the next step is to examine if such model can describe reality better than the current models in science and spirituality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anderz

Nonduality as a pointing is ‘not two’. You and concept would be two, no? Do you suppose the scientists are including ‘themselves’, or maybe that what they’re sharing is only conceptual? 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anderz said:

I think of all of reality as similar to the Wolfram model which starts from an initial condition and then expands. It's a completely deterministic process. One difference is that I think manifested reality starts only from a single difference (I got that idea from one of Leo's videos). Another difference is that causality in my view is a result of the whole unmanifested rather than only cause and effect from past to future as in the Wolfram model.

So you're saying that the manifested reality is the effect and whole unmanifested field of information is the origin of the cause?

What if information is light and the evolution of consciousness is related to it?

78XZQ.png

33 minutes ago, Anderz said:

And an Omega number is a single real number! That's how I think of reality. The Word of God is literally a single number that timelessly just is, one extremely special number out of all possible numbers.

Interesting but since it is a real number, it is equivalent to what? Because reality without awareness is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Anderz said:

 

@Forestluv The graph is also a concept. But there is a difference. The graph can (potentially) model how reality works. At first one can imagine that a graph can represent reality. Then the next step is to examine if such model can describe reality better than the current models in science and spirituality.

For sure. Imagination = Reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm I certainly include myself in nonduality. Probably science will move towards nonduality, because reality is one, not two or more. Because if reality had two or more parts, then those parts are included in the one reality, or they would be separate realities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now