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 end

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.

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:
-> ->

[CEP2plet]

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



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



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



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.



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.



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.