Application of Set Theory in OBE and Parallel Realities...

[CEP2plet]

Let's say this physical world is A, and the astral world is either B or C. Why B or C? Because it's not yet known whether the astral world is a virtual world streaming in the brain or a parallel universe that includes this one, and more. Which ever way it happens to be is beside the point in this topic. The point is to merely draw up a framework to account for both possibilities for future use.

OK, so, this is sort of what it would look like:

B -> A -> C

World B is the astral world possibility of being a larger universe that includes this one, and world C is the astral world possibility of being a virtual reality constructed by our brains, which would be included by world A, the physical.

Whether or not the astral world is B or C, the framework itself doesn't change. If it happens to be that the astral world is not B but C, then there would merely be a change in representation (for me, anyway, as I think it's B).

World C isn't that interesting at this moment. It's more like a familiar possibility at this time, with the Internet, Second Life, MMORPGs, and massive governmental systems (of which there is no end in legality and bureaucracy that it creates its own kind of "Internet") developing toward that end. World B is the fascinating one at this time because of the things that would be possible if found to be a universe that included this one (there's a way to write that expression in set theory, but this window does not allow that symbol/expression, or I just don't know the correct key combination to type it out).

If you're wondering that the astral world could be neither B nor C, as in, being another world that exists side by side (parallel) to A, then if that were so, somehow B and the world parallel to A (let's call it AA) is acting sort of as a "server" to allow for the connection to happen. So, even then, there must be some world that includes A and AA in order for them to be considered "parallel", and going to and from them would mean, at some point, the passing between a "middleground", "wire", "tube", "plane", whatever (B). Unless, of course, if A and AA intersected in some places/times, then going from one to another wouldn't require going through B first*. But that brings up more interesting questions as well, such as format-compatibility/successful-translation or preservation of yourself when going to and from an intersecting AA. In that possibility, the initiating and ending of an OBE is the processing of consciousness from A to AA and back again.

If A ends up being no world at all ("no world" is a kind of world, too, just ask Data), then that would call for a massive rethinking of what we think about when we sense or experience anything at all, even as you read these words, and we could safely say at this moment that we're in some kind of "cryptospacetime". But the experience of an OBE invalidates that possibilty. An OBE narrows the question down to "what is the astral world, really?" Oh, and also, if A is "no world" (let's call "no world" NULL) after all and not physical, the framework stated above still doesn't change; it merely means A is at the very bottom, the NULL, and there would be no C for NULL. NULL is, in set theory, the empty set; there are no subsets.

OK, that's about it for now.

* - That was my initial thought. To go from A to AA that intersect would still require B in order to make the transportation successful.

[journyman161]

Let's say this physical world is A, and the astral world is either B or C. Why B or C? Because it's not yet known whether the astral world is a virtual world streaming in the brain or a parallel universe that includes this one, and more. Which ever way it happens to be is beside the point in this topic. The point is to merely draw up a framework to account for both possibilities for future use.

OK, so, this is sort of what it would look like:

B -> A -> C

World B is the astral world possibility of being a larger universe that includes this one, and world C is the astral world possibility of being a virtual reality constructed by our brains, which would be included by world A, the physical.This seems a bit simplistic. There are more possibilities than this. They don't need to be dependent at all - that would appear to be an assumption of yours that limits the possibilities.
C doesn't have to be a virtual world in our minds for it to be a subset of A. Also, even given what you propose, it's B --> A OR A --> C, not both.


Whether or not the astral world is B or C, the framework itself doesn't change. If it happens to be that the astral world is not B but C, then there would merely be a change in representation (for me, anyway, as I think it's B).Actually it does change it - choose one & you lose the other.


World C isn't that interesting at this moment.Why on Earth not? You don't find the idea of minds being able to construct entire worlds an interesting possibility?
It's more like a familiar possibility at this time, with the Internet, Second Life, MMORPGs, and massive governmental systems (of which there is no end in legality and bureaucracy that it creates its own kind of "Internet") developing toward that endI'm not sure why you've added this stuff in. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what you're suggesting & certainly if Astral worlds are a creation of human minds it seems a step away from all this stuff, not similar to it all.
World B is the fascinating one at this time because of the things that would be possible if found to be a universe that included this one (there's a way to write that expression in set theory, but this window does not allow that symbol/expression, or I just don't know the correct key combination to type it out).Why? You don't explain why it would be more interesting than the C possibility. (& look at the Alt-key combinations for ASCII tables)


If you're wondering that the astral world could be neither B nor C, as in, being another world that exists side by side (parallel) to A, then if that were so, somehow B and the world parallel to A (let's call it AA) is acting sort of as a "server" to allow for the connection to happen. So, even then, there must be some world that includes A and AA in order for them to be considered "parallel", and going to and from them would mean, at some point, the passing between a "middleground", "wire", "tube", "plane", whatever (B).Again, why? If the worlds simply run on different time slices they can easily all be on the same system, running in parallel, unconnected but available if only you change the 'tick' you're running on. Also, if the Astral world is neither B nor C, but is AA, there is no need at all for B so it can be discarded entirely.
Unless, of course, if A and AA intersected in some places/times, then going from one to another wouldn't require going through B first. But that brings up more interesting questions as well, such as format-compatibility/successful-translation or preservation of yourself when going to and from an intersecting AA. In that possibility, the initiating and ending of an OBE is the processing of consciousness from A to AA and back again.I don't quite see why there would be format or compatibility problems. Surely the one common factor would be consciousness? You're presupposing that consciousness somehow is dependent on the strata on which it runs, yet the very subject (astral worlds) would suggest that simply isn't the case. In fact it's more likely that those who've investigated it are right - the difference is one of vibration... which brings us right back to the time-slice idea being the separator between the worlds.


If A ends up being no world at all ("no world" is a kind of world, too, just ask Data), then that would call for a massive rethinking of what we think about when we sense or experience anything at all, even as you read these words, and we could safely say at this moment that we're in some kind of "cryptospacetime". But the experience of an OBE invalidates that possibilty. An OBE narrows the question down to "what is the astral world, really?" Oh, and also, if A is "no world" (let's call "no world" NULL) after all and not physical, the framework stated above still doesn't change; it merely means A is at the very bottom, the NULL, and there would be no C for NULL. NULL is, in set theory, the empty set; there are no subsets.
Um... this doesn't make a lot of sense... there is such a thing as taking an analogy too far. Whatever it is, the A world is where you are so to use Null sets to describe it is a very long bow indeed.

[CEP2plet]

This seems a bit simplistic.

At first, yes.


There are more possibilities than this.

Oh, definitely.


They don't need to be dependent at all - that would appear to be an assumption of yours that limits the possibilities.

Well, it's not just my assumption. It is just an assumption for now in this particular model. But, in any way you look at it, the astral world exists, in some form or another. Eventually, you and I are going to assume something. We are going to think about the astral world in a particular way. So, with such little information to go by, why make hasty assumptions that are too specific for their own good? Why not play it safe and be as general as possible, for now. That way, whatever the astral world could possibly be, we'll be ready with open minds to learn, and a general approach, at first, seems limiting, but is one that allows for the expansion of possibilities, not the limitation.


C doesn't have to be a virtual world in our minds for it to be a subset of A

True. Then, that would mean C is a virtual world of a virtual world? What do you think?


Also, even given what you propose, it's B --> A OR A --> C, not both.

Oh, right, about that. B -> A -> C is a model to account for both possibilities; either B or C. So, for example, if the astral world is a world that includes A, then the astral world is B. If the astral world is a subset of A, then the astral world is C. So, either/or, it doesn't matter. You can write it as B -> A or A -> C.

The reason I write it as B -> A -> C is because, that way, I sort of have the beginning of a model of sets of worlds. In the limited scope of deciding whether the astral world includes, or is included in, A is all this model shows. That's all, really.


Actually it does change it - choose one & you lose the other.

No, it doesn't change it. It just means the astral world isn't B, but B will still be there.


Why on Earth not? You don't find the idea of minds being able to construct entire worlds an interesting possibility?

Yes, I do. I'm comparing the possibility of us making virtual worlds not as fascinating as the possibility of us discovering that the physical world itself is a virtual world to another more vast and even more complex world. I mean, I think finding that the physical world is a virtual world itself is more interesting than constructing our own virtual world (a world we know from the start as being virtual). I mean, sure, we'll make a virtual world. It'll happen sooner or later. But making contact with that more vast and complex world that this one is included in is more epic than the creation of a virtual world here, because all along since the earliest record of civilization, we have thought that this world was included in a much more vast and stranger world, and actually discovering that would be fulfilling a long-held spiritual belief in a world beyond this one. In fact, after discovering that this world is a simulated one would mean the next discovery would be in how to modify this physical world to whatever we want it to be, and get to know those that we, as a civilization, have lost contact with for so many millennia. Who needs another virtual world if we already are in one!


I'm not sure why you've added this stuff in. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what you're suggesting & certainly if Astral worlds are a creation of human minds it seems a step away from all this stuff, not similar to it all.

Well, it actually is similar to all those other things I listed. The Internet will be known in the history books of tomorrow as the predecessor to whatever virtual reality we create in the future (if we get that far before destroying one another). The Internet, as it is right now, is incomprehensively huge. It would be the life-long task of someone with photographic memory to keep track of everything that has been, is now, and will be on the Internet. Sure, it's mainly a text-based environment right now, but if you think about it being synthesized with the MMORPG 3-D environments, then you're talking about approaching a virtual world imminently. Plus, for any media conglomerate that is reading this right now, it would be a massive investment to first invent the interface/format to link MMOs and browsing the Internet together, and second to get deals made with companies that own mainframes and large server networks, and those who own and run the MMOs. But the profits would be dependent on how well it's all designed and implemented. If all goes smoothly, profits will be like nothing this world has ever seen.

Oh, and about the large governmental bureaucracies. Yeah, there's so much that goes on in our governments that not even the people that supposedly get elected even know everything about it. It's sort of like the legal system's "Internet". You see, I don't think the astral world is a virtual world to this one. It doesn't resemble an incomprehensively large government, computer network, or anything like that. It's something else completely.


If the worlds simply run on different time slices they can easily all be on the same system, running in parallel, unconnected but available if only you change the 'tick' you're running on.

Acutally, no. This is an entirely different topic altogether (infinitesimally small spacetime sequences). Not just different "time slices", but also different locations in space as well. You can't talk about time without mentioning space. Time travel, like space travel, has its limits. For instance, if you want to manipulate time, or some time in history from our reference point in time, the present, then it will be a monumental task because the farther back in time you go, the harder it will be to actually arrive at the time in our history that you want to be at. Why? Because of the reality of multiple histories as well as multiple futures. And the further "forwards" or "backwards" you go, the harder it is in telling where exactly it is you are going! It's a mind-flip, I know, but think about it. The only place to manipulate time with a good possibility in getting where and when you want to be is in short distances and very short time sections. Sort of like a simultaneous split in direction of going forward in time for a minute before merging those timelines back together again. Time is about as complicated as imagining mapping out every choice you make and drawing out a Sierpinski gasket for each moment in time, both forwards and backwards, and then stringing them together in such a way as to be able to create a two-dimensional MIDI sequencer connecting together each and every point in such a way as to allow for the navigation in time travel. Ridiculous for thinking about at this moment because of the incomprehensibility of the phenomena. That's why it's harder to tell where/when you're going the longer you time travel. You can't "time travel" without "space travel", by the way.


Also, if the Astral world is neither B nor C, but is AA, there is no need at all for B so it can be discarded entirely.

That would be unwise, because AA and A would merely be two worlds included in another world. Kind of like this world, A. Right now, at this very moment, there could be another intelligent lifeform in A that has already constructed and has been running a virtual world, CC, for millennia, and we have yet to know about it. Well, in that case, that would make two, parallel virtual worlds that would exist as subsets to A (assuming we got that far to make our virtual world happen). So, again, no, the framework doesn't change.


I don't quite see why there would be format or compatibility problems.

If two worlds intersected, then there would be a problem if you wanted go from the world you're in, to the world that intersects your world. You would be limited to the sections of the world that intersected. The other parts of the world that don't intersect, you would only be able to experience one side or the other. A set is defined by the elements that make up a set, so that means that a world being a set of "axioms" that generate altogether the phenomena that plays out in that world, we would be restricted only to the places that intersect. I'm not talking about worlds as spatial or geometrical, or even temporally here. This approach is wholly counter-intuitive; it's hard to imagine. It's incredibly complicated. But B would still be there, for "format compatibility" so your "A-interfaces" can effectively transport from one to another. It's kind of like browsing the Internet and being stuck with a browser that can't read HTML, or doesn't use the hyper-text transfer protocol. Good luck with that.

And, no, consciousness is distinctly different from the A-interfaces that they are using. It's a question of how are you going to get to AA with an A-interface? You need to translate your A-interface into an AA-interface. If you don't, you can't connect, or you'll only be able to experience the fragments of that world that are compatible with the A-interface. That's where B comes in. So, again, the framework doesn't change; we just added more to it.

...


Um, I'm going to continue this later. A good place to start in this is "Set Theory and Logic" by Robert R. Stoll. It's a Dover book. It's awesome.

[journyman161]

Certainly a bit to digest here, & as I am at work I'm going to have to return later so i can spend some time with it. - be back later...

[Tom]

Is there some way to represent this visually for us? Maybe draw some pictures?

[CEP2plet]

Yes, there is a way to visually represent all this, but I'm afraid I will have to use Paint, as I don't have any photo editing software and I don't have a scanner, either, so... If some abstract images in Paint will do, then I can draw some up.

[journyman161]

Note: You will need to create them, then upload to a hosting site somewhere (like photobucket) & then use the tags to enclose the Web address...

[Tom]

Using Paint or something like that sounds good to me. I just have some trouble following along with the written out explanation today. A picture to help show everything right away would be much easier to understand.

[CFTraveler]

Or use smilies:
:D -> :D -> 8)

[CEP2plet]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/WorldsasSetsModelVersion1.jpg

OK, this is the most basic model of worlds as sets. Very simple.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/WorldsasSetsModelVersion2.jpg

This is the, um, elaborated version of the first model. Still, very basic.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/DotsRepresentAxiomsintheWorldsthatI.jpg

The dots represent the "axioms", for lack of a better word, of the worlds A and AA, which, in this model, they intersect.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/TheWorldThatIsFormedfromtheInteract.jpg

This is the result of the overall interactions of the "axioms" altogether; they form an incomprehensively complex phenomena that we are familiar with; our world, A. Again, in this model, A intersects with AA.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/AandAAIncludedinBWhereBIsMadeupofth.jpg

Here, A and AA are subsets of B. B is made possible/defined by its axioms (the dots) as well, which include the axioms of A and AA, and others that are not included in either A or AA. The phenomena that's made possible by the "axioms" of B are not shown here. You wouldn't be able to see A or AA if it were shown.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/CEP2plet/EvenIfAandAAIntersectTheyAreTwoDist.jpg

Here, A and AA are shown as two worlds that do not intersect, but whatever was said before in Reply 2 from me still applies here and all the other models as well. This Reply from me will be Reply 4.

[journyman161]

It's not just my assumption. It is just an assumption for now in this particular model. But, in any way you look at it, the astral world exists, in some form or another. Eventually, you and I are going to assume something. We are going to think about the astral world in a particular way. So, with such little information to go by, why make hasty assumptions that are too specific for their own good? Why not play it safe and be as general as possible, for now. That way, whatever the astral world could possibly be, we'll be ready with open minds to learn, and a general approach, at first, seems limiting, but is one that allows for the expansion of possibilities, not the limitation.But assuming they are dependent immediately removes the possibility that they aren’t dependent in any way. For instance it is possible they are totally independent realities but that Consciousness is able to pass between them.


Quote:
C doesn't have to be a virtual world in our minds for it to be a subset of A


True. Then, that would mean C is a virtual world of a virtual world? What do you think? I think it’s entirely possible that B, A & C are ALL virtual worlds within Virtual worlds. I think it is possible there is a hierarchy of world or Cosmoi (as I like to call them) all the way up to the ALL or the Source. I can even think of a mechanism that would separate them – dimensions. The math says the dimensions are there.
If the physicists are right with their concepts of a Holographic Universe, there is one aspect they have forgotten – a holo is a representation of a real thing – it is a bit difficult to describe one that isn’t. So if our Universe is a hologram, of what is it a holo?


Quote:
Also, even given what you propose, it's B --> A OR A --> C, not both.


Oh, right, about that. B -> A -> C is a model to account for both possibilities; either B or C. So, for example, if the astral world is a world that includes A, then the astral world is B. If the astral world is a subset of A, then the astral world is C. So, either/or, it doesn't matter. You can write it as B -> A or A -> C.

The reason I write it as B -> A -> C is because, that way, I sort of have the beginning of a model of sets of worlds. In the limited scope of deciding whether the astral world includes, or is included in, A is all this model shows. That's all, really. I was making the point that the way you write it is actually confusing. You’re implying Astral World --> Real World --> Astral World.


Quote:
Actually it does change it - choose one & you lose the other.


No, it doesn't change it. It just means the astral world isn't B, but B will still be there. Why would B still be there? If you choose the model A C, where is the place for B?


Quote:
I'm not sure why you've added this stuff in. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what you're suggesting & certainly if Astral worlds are a creation of human minds it seems a step away from all this stuff, not similar to it all.


Well, it actually is similar to all those other things I listed. The Internet will be known in the history books of tomorrow as the predecessor to whatever virtual reality we create in the future (if we get that far before destroying one another). The Internet, as it is right now, is incomprehensively huge. It would be the life-long task of someone with photographic memory to keep track of everything that has been, is now, and will be on the Internet. Sure, it's mainly a text-based environment right now, but if you think about it being synthesized with the MMORPG 3-D environments, then you're talking about approaching a virtual world imminently. Plus, for any media conglomerate that is reading this right now, it would be a massive investment to first invent the interface/format to link MMOs and browsing the Internet together, and second to get deals made with companies that own mainframes and large server networks, and those who own and run the MMOs. But the profits would be dependent on how well it's all designed and implemented. If all goes smoothly, profits will be like nothing this world has ever seen.

Oh, and about the large governmental bureaucracies. Yeah, there's so much that goes on in our governments that not even the people that supposedly get elected even know everything about it. It's sort of like the legal system's "Internet". You see, I don't think the astral world is a virtual world to this one. It doesn't resemble an incomprehensively large government, computer network, or anything like that. It's something else completely.I agree with most of this but it still seems out of place in your original post.


Quote:
If the worlds simply run on different time slices they can easily all be on the same system, running in parallel, unconnected but available if only you change the 'tick' you're running on.


Acutally, no. This is an entirely different topic altogether (infinitesimally small spacetime sequences). Not just different "time slices", but also different locations in space as well. You can't talk about time without mentioning space. Time travel, like space travel, has its limits. For instance, if you want to manipulate time, or some time in history from our reference point in time, the present, then it will be a monumental task because the farther back in time you go, the harder it will be to actually arrive at the time in our history that you want to be at. Why? Because of the reality of multiple histories as well as multiple futures. And the further "forwards" or "backwards" you go, the harder it is in telling where exactly it is you are going! It's a mind-flip, I know, but think about it. The only place to manipulate time with a good possibility in getting where and when you want to be is in short distances and very short time sections. Sort of like a simultaneous split in direction of going forward in time for a minute before merging those timelines back together again. Time is about as complicated as imagining mapping out every choice you make and drawing out a Sierpinski gasket for each moment in time, both forwards and backwards, and then stringing them together in such a way as to be able to create a two-dimensional MIDI sequencer connecting together each and every point in such a way as to allow for the navigation in time travel. Ridiculous for thinking about at this moment because of the incomprehensibility of the phenomena. That's why it's harder to tell where/when you're going the longer you time travel. You can't "time travel" without "space travel", by the way.You speak as though the definition of Time is set in stone. IF Einstein is right, then Time & Space are linked, but Einstein’s theories have holes in them large enough to drive a Qunatuim Pickup through. Not only do Quantum & relativity theories not mesh on gravity, it turns out evidence suggesting Relativity might be wrong was suppressed almost from the start – the Michelson-Morley experiments actually DID show the existence of an ether but were loudly proclaimed to have failed. If there is an Ether, Relativity is wrong, or at best, limited even more than classic Newtonian ideas.
Add to this the fact that the math of Relativity has, from day one, had failure points built into it. People think that at the speed of light, weird things happen but actually the only thing we know is that, at the speed of light, the math breaks down! It is obvious there must be a better explanation – Light travels at the speed of light without any of the weird stuff happening to it.
In Quantum theories, Time & Space are not linked as they are in Relativity.
The question of manipulating Time is a furphy & has nothing to say on this subject. First you have to define what Time is before you can start using the paradoxes or possibilities to accept or deny other theories. Who knows if there would be multiple histories? Only the guy who KNOWS what Time is.
And actually, at the moment, the only place to manipulate Time that would make sense in any of the theories, is from outside it. Until we find out just what Time is, it doesn’t make sense to decide other things based on what you think might or might not be feasible under this or that theories. the definition may simply collapse all your possibilities into a nice neat package that lets Time Travel be a possibility.


Quote:
Also, if the Astral world is neither B nor C, but is AA, there is no need at all for B so it can be discarded entirely.


That would be unwise, because AA and A would merely be two worlds included in another world. Kind of like this world, A. Right now, at this very moment, there could be another intelligent lifeform in A that has already constructed and has been running a virtual world, CC, for millennia, and we have yet to know about it. Well, in that case, that would make two, parallel virtual worlds that would exist as subsets to A (assuming we got that far to make our virtual world happen). So, again, no, the framework doesn't change.I think maybe you’re substituting your Venn diagrams for reality here. You’re saying No to something, based on suppostions in an idea about things. Using a ‘might be’ to decide something as a fact isn’t wise – such things tend to turn & bite you later.


Quote:
I don't quite see why there would be format or compatibility problems.


If two worlds intersected, then there would be a problem if you wanted go from the world you're in, to the world that intersects your world. You would be limited to the sections of the world that intersected. The other parts of the world that don't intersect, you would only be able to experience one side or the other. A set is defined by the elements that make up a set, so that means that a world being a set of "axioms" that generate altogether the phenomena that plays out in that world, we would be restricted only to the places that intersect. I'm not talking about worlds as spatial or geometrical, or even temporally here. This approach is wholly counter-intuitive; it's hard to imagine. It's incredibly complicated. But B would still be there, for "format compatibility" so your "A-interfaces" can effectively transport from one to another. It's kind of like browsing the Internet and being stuck with a browser that can't read HTML, or doesn't use the hyper-text transfer protocol. Good luck with that. Why would there be a problem? There might be, but you’re saying it as a fact & the way you say it removes the other possibilities. It is a possibility only that there may be hinderances that might make moving from one to the other difficult, but your hypothesized incompatibility is just that, an Hypothesis. Why would there be a problem? There easily might be one but you’re stating it like it is a given.

It seems to me that for us to be having the difficulty we are with Consciousness, that maybe it isn’t a part of this Universe – so it may not be a part of any specific universe & so may not have any compatibility problems at all..


And, no, consciousness is distinctly different from the A-interfaces that they are using. It's a question of how are you going to get to AA with an A-interface? You need to translate your A-interface into an AA-interface. If you don't, you can't connect, or you'll only be able to experience the fragments of that world that are compatible with the A-interface. That's where B comes in. So, again, the framework doesn't change; we just added more to it. Unless, as above, Consciousness isn’t subject at all to the rules you are proposing.

What if Consiousness actually creates all the Cosmoi? What if all these worlds/universes are simply figments of Consciousness at different levels – all the rules, all the limits, the interfaces etc become meaningless. Your diagrams still work except the outer ring, the one containing all the others, will have the label Consciousness.

[CEP2plet]

But assuming they are dependent immediately removes the possibility that they aren’t dependent in any way. For instance it is possible they are totally independent realities but that Consciousness is able to pass between them.

Not really. All I did was draw up a diagram where I made C a subset of A a subset of B. OK, so, all that means is that if the astral world isn't C, then it's B, but C will still be there as something other than the astral world. See? If we found out that it's C, and we discard B, then when we find some other world that includes A, we'll just bring back B. But if we kept it there, we wouldn't have to bring it back; it would still be there. Sure, we can leave it out, as it's not going anywhere, for now as we're talking about the astral world being one or the other, but it'll be back when we need it, so I'll leave it there; you can discard if you want.

It is possible they are all totally independent. If they are all totally independent of each other, then that means they're parallel to each other. OK, there's a reason why I made the diagrams look the way they look. I mean, we can make all kinds of diagrams of all kinds of set relations. Great. But I have a feeling none of them will be good enough for you, as they would all be limited to some extent (hey, it's math and science, what do you expect?). I'd rather assume something in a mathematical way, so I can make quick changes if any new ideas come up. There's no emotional attachment to diagrams or models.


I think it’s entirely possible that B, A & C are ALL virtual worlds within Virtual worlds.

Well, we can at least agree on that (ha ha).


I think it is possible there is a hierarchy of world or Cosmoi (as I like to call them) all the way up to the ALL or the Source. I can even think of a mechanism that would separate them – dimensions. The math says the dimensions are there.

Hmmm... "The math" says that, eh? Then I wonder what I was talking about... Gee...


If the physicists are right with their concepts of a Holographic Universe, there is one aspect they have forgotten – a holo is a representation of a real thing – it is a bit difficult to describe one that isn’t. So if our Universe is a hologram, of what is it a holo?

Or maybe physicists didn't mention that bit about it being a hologram of a real thing because... that would be redundant. Maybe they're giving their fellow readers the benefit of the doubt of being versed enough in the English language to know what "hologram" means. Of course, when they say "holographic universe", it's implied that it is a representation of a real thing. Nice try.


I was making the point that the way you write it is actually confusing. You’re implying Astral World --> Real World --> Astral World.

Really... I'm not confused. It's 3 letters. Hey, just write it out whichever way you want. Think for yourself.


I agree with most of this but it still seems out of place in your original post.

Um, that's nice, you could have mentioned that earlier (maybe if you stopped objecting to everything I type for a second, and starting thinking, maybe I'm not so objectionable after all). It's not out of place. It's related.


You speak as though the definition of Time is set in stone.

Journeyman161, the definition of time is not set in stone. In fact, it is not in any stone at all. It appears to be everywhere around us, in us, and we seem to read it like a laser reads a CD-ROM disk. So, everything I am typing now, I have already typed, and everything you are reading in this topic, you have already read. We are merely conscious of one of the possible timelines that exist for us in a "one at a time" fashion. Oh yes. Time is quite static like space. I could care less about relativity more than I care about quantum mechanics, because if you don't already know (which you will in time, ha ha), set theory is crucial to quantum mechanics. Without it, there would have been no quantum theory. Set theory is one of the most complex and crucial of modern mathematical innovations. That's also one of the reasons I chose to understand worlds as sets; it seems to work consistently (consistently enough, that is, for now), if you have the patience to learn the essence of what science and math are. But, by now, after all your objections and arguments, you seem to be trying to "look clever". You don't seem to be saying much of any abstract meaning.

I mean, sure, quantum theory was never compatible with relativity, and, yes, ether physics should have a more serious place in the world of science as it is a welcoming gust of innovative and original thought in science, which should not be allowed to become stale and conventional in its methods, but you don't seem interested in any of that. It looks as though you're trying to counter-posit everything I type. If you had any interest at all in math or science, you would have found this stuff about set theory being applied to understand the astral, virtual, and physical worlds as fascinating to think about. Fun, mental puzzles to explore!

You can argue anything, but if you argue too long, your arguing turns into you arguing against yourself arguing. In other words... guilt and/or regret, familiar 4-D phenomenon, but bitter ones at that. I hope this is food for thought. This is my last post of this kind. Use it wisely.

[journyman161]

Wow, that's twice in one day people with whom I thought I was having a reasonable discussion have turned insulting. When I have a theory or a way of looking at something I happily accept what others say about it & use them to test how good my thoughts are. In science, it's called peer review & anything that doesn't go through the process isn't regarded as knowledge.

Physicists & scientists in general are required to mention all their postulates - to fail to do so makes what they do into not-science. So if a physicist doesn't mention that a holographic universe must be a representation of a 'real' universe he either hasn't thought of it or he isn't doing real science.

Thinking for myself is what I have been doing when I point out the basic flaws in your concepts. What you're apparently trying to say is I should just accept your errors. That's faith & faith is something I learned not to indulge in a long time ago.

And again you seem to 'know' all about time - you keep making statements as if they are facts
So, everything I am typing now, I have already typed, and everything you are reading in this topic, you have already read. We are merely conscious of one of the possible timelines that exist for us in a "one at a time" fashion. Oh yes. Time is quite static like space.None of this it truth, it is just ideas & if you're going to pretend at science you should make your statements reflect that.

As for 'trying to look clever,' that's just cheap insult & insults generally come from those who have run out of argument in a debate. It's a way to distract from the fact they have no more to say.

Maybe if you'd bothered to tighten up your original ramble there wouldn't have been so many holes for me to poke at. Set theory is only useful in as much as it reflects either reality or the theory you're trying to present. Deliberately presenting models that you know to be inaccurate, and worse, stubbornly defending their inaccuracy is not science, it's religion.

While you seem content to have inaccurate models of nested worlds just in case one of them may be needed later, I had thought you'd appreciate some critique to help you firm up your concepts.

Apparently I was in error. So you just carry on with your self-conversation secure in the knowledge that, for you at least, it is all you need.

[kiwibonga]

I also think set theory is a good way to look at things:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welco ... #msg212172 (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_experiences/what_does_the_astral_plane_look_like-t25249.0.html;msg212172#msg212172)

[journyman161]

Set theory is certainly a good informational tool - just not when you deliberately introduce inaccuracies & then defend them with, to paraphrase...'well, I might need them later'
Not really. All I did was draw up a diagram where I made C a subset of A a subset of B. OK, so, all that means is that if the astral world isn't C, then it's B, but C will still be there as something other than the astral world. See? If we found out that it's C, and we discard B, then when we find some other world that includes A, we'll just bring back B. But if we kept it there, we wouldn't have to bring it back; it would still be there.This doesn't use set theory as it is meant to be used - it's fiction. A kind of 'well I'll put it there just in case but if it isn't what I say it is then it will be something else so I'll need it anyway.'
*shrugs*

At first blush, your sets for the non-physical universe reflect what you're saying & begin with a disclaimer.

So in your sets, when we try to gain conscious projection we are attempting to merge the waking consciousness with an astral plane that might either be one of our own creation or of someone else's?

Would OoBE simply be projection into the Creators Astral Realm?

I'm also a little puzzled as to why the Creator's atoms would be heart-shaped?

[kiwibonga]

So in your sets, when we try to gain conscious projection we are attempting to merge the waking consciousness with an astral plane that might either be one of our own creation or of someone else's?

Well, perhaps not our waking consciousness... Rather, a non-physical, non-local consciousness. Where we end up is always a subjective "plane" ; the thing is, depending on what we let intersect, we may or may not experience outside things.

RTZ projection is quite different, since it is a two step process.


Would OoBE simply be projection into the Creators Astral Realm?

It would be first a withdrawal from the physical to switch focus into the etheric, the "second body," which acts as an intersection point between the physical consciousness (the processes of the brain) and the non-physical one, and then a second projection occurs where energy is extended out of the physical and into, yes, the creator's astral realm. But the person is still in a subjective "bubble," so to speak. You bring your set into another set, and you still retain creative powers within your set.


I'm also a little puzzled as to why the Creator's atoms would be heart-shaped?

It's just a reference to Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry ; the "ultimate unit of matter" he clairvoyantly witnessed was a heart-shaped spiral of interwoven energy that he named the "anu".

[CEP2plet]

Nice, kiwibonga. Thanks for the link! That makes two of us. I'll let you know what I come up with.

...


When I have a theory or a way of looking at something...

What? What was that again? A theory! You have a theory? Really?! Then, by all means, journeyman161, feel free to communicate it to us!

Of all your "critiques", you have yet to let us know your ideas (if you have any). The ball is in your court...

[journyman161]

It's just a reference to Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry ; the "ultimate unit of matter" he clairvoyantly witnessed was a heart-shaped spiral of interwoven energy that he named the "anu".Ah, thanks. It puzzled me.

A guy by the name of Ed Leedskalnin left very little written evidence of his thoughts (but lots of 'concrete' evidence :grin:) but what there was included a drawing of energy paths of positive & negative magnetic poles that looks very much like a heart when shown together.


What? What was that again? A theory! You have a theory? Really?! Then, by all means, journeyman161, feel free to communicate it to us!

Of all your "critiques", you have yet to let us know your ideas (if you have any). The ball is in your court...First, I have been posting in other people's threads so it would be a little rude to start spouting my own theories or ideas when I'm meant to be discussing theirs.

Second, if you read what I say without bringing your attitude to class, you would see some of my ideas appearing in both the comments I make & the questions I ask.

And lay off the sarcasm - it ill becomes you & makes you look petty.

[CEP2plet]

You can argue anything, but if you argue too long, your arguing turns into you arguing against yourself arguing. In other words... guilt and/or regret, familiar 4-D phenomenon, but bitter ones at that.

:( It's so true.

[CEP2plet]

journeyman161, why do you see this as a debate? I don't, and kiwibonga doesn't either. It's a discussion and/or sharing of ideas. But even if this was a debate, you would be losing, and I would be winning, because of the fact I have stated my argument in detail, in my Posts 1, 2, and 4 in this topic, and you have not. You even admitted it yourself...


...to start spouting my own theories or ideas...

As if what? As if they didn't mean anything in a debate?


...who have run out of argument in a debate.

Um, I have been stating things and answering your questions the best I can to the best of my knowledge, and yet you don't think it's worth your time to share a few of your ideas/theories? Who are you, journyman161, to be so self-righteous to think that we all on this forum should accept your word that "you know things, but you don't want to share them" argument (that's an insult on all of our intelligence)? Why should I believe you? What, because you're a moderator? That has nothing to do with the (could-have-been) discussion on this topic. I'm the type of person who demands proof of "knowledge". I demonstrate what I know to the best of my ability, and, so far, I have done just that, except on time. On the subject of time, I have put together an intuitive understanding of time, as I'm working to expand on the experience and present understanding of time (for whatever that will be worth).

But even then, if this was all a debate to you, you would have taken the time to demonstrate your "knowledge" about time or whatever else in a way that you would be the winner and I would be in defeat. In debate, there are winners and losers. That's why I don't see this as a debate. It wouldn't be fair for everyone to be draconian on an obviously intuitive subject as applying sets to worlds. It would be inappropriate to approach it as such... for now. As it develops, we may be able to see whether it can live up to its promise.

...

journyman161, I can tell you don't like me. Hopefully, we can leave it at that. I'm going to continue on with this set theory application idea.

...

Heh heh, if the astral world is B, C will still be there... :twisted:

[journyman161]

:lol: :lol: Someone needs to go back & re-read the thread... Assumptions can also bite your bum!

[CEP2plet]

Actually, the thing I should have done from the start is write a disclaimer to this topic, in order avoid this kind of confusion. Well, better late than never! Here it goes...

Disclaimer: This idea is subject to change at any given moment (don't worry, not the subtractive kind of editing, but the additive kind; oh YEAH!) and whatever is written in this topic is abstract in nature, so, interpret it as you like, we are all probably right about what we think anyway, so... That pretty much settles everything!

Math and science are not all about hard work. It's a lot of fun, actually! I mean, I don't know how you all came to learn math and science, but I had a good time! It's like art. It's so creative! Read Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, please. In fact, I changed my mind! OK, new disclaimer! Here I go, again...

Disclaimer: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is the disclaimer. LEARN IT! It will dispel all confusion!

[journyman161]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would probably make a reasonable disclaimer if what you are attempting to convey were arithmetical in nature. But trying to understand the structure of the causal & non-physical universes would not seem to fall within the 'arithmetic' definition.

There are those who think maybe Godel's theorems can be applied in a wider context but from what I've seen over the years, Godel didn't make that connection himself.

It is disputable whether the presence of Consciousness within the Causal Universe would then remove it (the universe) from the province of Godel's Theorems.

My personal thought is to wonder if the theorem can be applied to anything in real life at all, given real life systems are intermeshed so much. It talks about systems that are standalone, while we have to deal with enmeshed systems that are never standalone.

[CEP2plet]

There are those who think maybe Godel's theorems can be applied in a wider context but from what I've seen over the years, Godel didn't make that connection himself.

Well, you know, Godel didn't think of everything... :lol: And besides, he was talking about axiomatic systems as well, sooo... It's not restricted to just arithmetic. His theorems are known as "general theorems", that they are theorems that apply to all branches of math, not just arithmetic! Besides all that, all branches of math are defined by their axioms, so, yeah, I would say Godel was takling about all math, not just arithmetic!


It is disputable whether the presence of Consciousness within the Causal Universe would then remove it (the universe) from the province of Godel's Theorems.

Nope. Why should it? One way or another, you're going to form some abstraction about it, so... one way or another you're going to think about it in a particular fashion. In fact, you probably already have! I know I have! And whatever it is that we abstract from this phenomena of the physical and astral worlds, and consciousness, it's going to be working within some kind of logic, whether it be intuitive and simple, or more rigorous and complex. And, yes, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would cover that as well! Before you can talk about the phenomena you experience, you must understand that what you think of the phenomena isn't the phenomena you experienced! Language has its limits, and we must work within those limits! That's all that Godel was bringing people's attention to. There can be nothing that is %100 logically consistent. And, Godel even goes on to state that if there was a system that was %100 consistent, that it was impossible to prove that!

I guess maybe what I'm suggesting or imagining here, is that one day, our thinking will catch up with the physical world. Sure, the physical world is incredibly complex, but anything constructed or generated with such attention to detail and complexity will defy our pattern recognition skills initially! With time, though, and patience, we could crack that illusion of incomprehensibility. So, if that ever happened, it would be covered by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I think there's enough phenomena to exhibit the physical universe as being designed and created, and therefore, an abstraction as well. A HUGE abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless, which would be accounted for in "GIT".

So, yeah, I guess I'm one of "those who think maybe Godel's theorems can be applied in a wider context". YEAH! I don't understand; what do you mean by "wider context"? More like, ALL context!! :)

[journyman161]

Again, it is quite clear Godel is talking about a singular system that includes arithmetic concepts.

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true1 but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
It is crystal clear he is talking arithmetic systems & reasonably clear he is talking about single systems. You might like to extend it beyond where he intended but you shouldn't claim you're using his theorems as justification for your ideas. Nowhere in the theorems does he mention axiomatic systems.

What he's saying is you can't prove a system from within itself - so his theorems simply don't apply if the system is enmeshed, such as with consciousness, which, as it defies definition within the current physical models, would seem to be from outside the system. Thus Godel's theorem will not apply here, even if you ignore his insistence on ARITHMETIC systems.

[CEP2plet]

:oops: :( :x :P :)