Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Exploring the Paradox of Partial Reality Models

What's Wrong with this Picture?

Tony wrote: "This is generated by the manipulation of hologram-like images and using the processing power of the greatest computer in the universe – your brain. . . . You are not here at all, you are being fooled into thinking you are. You are somewhere else entirely."

Am I the only one to notice the contradiction here? If we are in a bardo state and don't know it, then our brains belong to the distant past. Whatever is generating our consciousness here, it isn't a bunch of neurons.

In the end, Tony's CTF model of existence is no less arbitrary a model than my own MW one - the point being, they are just models, built to represent a truth that we cannot yet even begin to grasp, in any but metaphorical terms. The moment we begin to talk as if we are literally in a computer-generated Matrix, or literally living out replays of a once-real life in some bardo state, then we are effectively fixing the program, admittedly into an evolved function, but one that only traps us once again. It is just as if the matrix created a second "Zion" matrix, and tricked the warriors into thinking they had unplugged. The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.

The problem (for me) with Tony's thesis is similar to the problem I had trying to apply the premise of The Matrix to reality (by which I mean, what I already think I know about it): I keep coming up against areas of experience that don't fit into the model.

Here's a big one: many NDE report a reliving of the events of their previous life, not merely as they happened, but as they affected other people, i.e., through the eyes of others. Both Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe and Whitley Strieber's The Key refer to this process of facing up to the full truth (consequences) of our thoughts, words, and actions after we die. Buddhism refers to a similar, purgatory-like process, in which a Soul must gaze into a mirror and see the truth of its former life, and allow the fire of shame to burn away all attachments to that life.

Personally, whether Quantum Mechanics can back this up or not, I believe this pertains to a greater Truth - and would indeed be how that life would look through the eyes of the Daimon, since the Daimon is connected to existence in a way we cannot imagine.

So are we then to think that, after this "cleansing" process, we still go back into the simulator, as if to make amends (yet with no memory of what we have seen)? Or is it that this more holisitic life review only occurs at the end of countless replay lives, when the Eidolon has finally surrendered to the Daimonic awareness? Neither seems a very satisfactory explanation to me. As always, there is something we are not seeing.

Here's another example: Just as with the reincarnation model, we need to question where all the new "souls" are coming from with the population explosion. If six billion plus people on the planet are reincarnations of previous humans, where were all these souls 2000 years ago, when there were only a few million people on the planet? Logically, most people now alive are not reincarnations, but "first-borns." This is born out by the average level of spiritual awareness on the planet, and indeed by the current global situation. If there was a majority of evolved souls, would we really be in the mess we are in now?

Likewise, in Tony's model, the likelihood is that most people alive now are on their first time out, which means that, for most people on the planet, this is literal reality and not a simulation. But for the more "evolved" among us (those of you at this blog ; )), it's a simulation! So what are we doing in the same reality???? (And how come 70% of people still experience deja vu?!)

You see what I am getting at? Apply questioning logic to Tony's model and it falls down very quickly, just as does my own MW model. That doesn't mean these models aren't valid, only that they are extremely partial.

They are tools for describing states of being that otherwise we have no language for. They are transitional models between Eidolon and Daimonic reality. In other words, none of this is literally true, because until we attain the Daimonic perspective, nothing is literally true.

13 comments:

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Jake: Sorry to simply repeat the advice I gave you on your previous post, but your comments here suggest you have not yet fully read through the concepts of the previous posts I directed you towards, which all expand on ITLAD and address the very anomalies and philosophical loopholes that you mention here.

I can answer every one of your questions you ask in this post by the simple progression of thought-form that I outlined in my comment to Tony's Laying Down The Bohmian IMAX post from earlier today.

I would again seriously recommend you take some time to read through the posts I directed you towards as I feel you have the kind of imagination that will thoroughly enjoy the ride which the posts and comments take you on (especially here and here) and that, once fully conversant with the adaptations of CTF and ITLAD that this blog has developed, you will then be able to answer your own questions posted here rather than me repeat myself to the collective groans of everyone else.
*smile*

Jason (Jake) Horsley said...

Karl,
thanks for the links. I have been checking out posts but helter-skelter and i haven't had time to go deeply into this blog, so apologies to the old-timers if I end up re-expressing questions that have already been aired.

That said, having read the posts you directed me to, there is nothing there that would have altered my last post one bit. I am already familiar with these ideas, and in accord with them, but they are really the QM equivalent of "all is one" mystic thesis - they explain everything, and hence they explain nothing. If all is one, then how (and why) are we having this debate to begin with?

In other words, while you are interested in revealing the equivalence of all things, I am drawn to explore the differences.

(Perhaps one thing I am getting at is that Tony's model may not be true for all of us - just as the reincarnation model may not.)

All for now

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Jake: All is "one", and all is also not "one", because, we are all one consciousness BUT experiencing itself subjectively, so there are differences within the holistic consciousness which we experience as life and ourselves.

This is the journey towards a Grand Unifying Theory Of Everything, which is the holy grail within Science and Philosophy, and where the BIGTOE of this blog is at the forefront of radical and yet scientific theoretical physics, neurology and consciousness studies.

Shiva said...

A thought : An eye cannot see itself. The mind cannot understand mind. Ordinary mind can at best, through the use of words ( that Tower of Babel !) allude to it.

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Shiva: "An eye cannot see itself" - A mirror?

"The mind cannot understand mind" - I think Mr Freud and Mr Jung might voice some opposition to that!!

And your comment re words I can totally agree with!!

We are trying to explain ultimate universal metaphysics within the confines of our finite minds using language and human constructs that fall way short.

We are an atom in a grain of sand on a beach trying to understand the movement of the ocean and the skies and the infinite nature of existence.

Shiva said...

Beautifully put Karl.
hmm perhaps I could have said, " An eye cannot see itself directly...only by reflection". Mind cannot understand itself directly, but can only allude to it through reflection ( hehe ) "

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Shiva: Thank You!
See what I mean about language? I totally agree with you there.

Jason (Jake) Horsley said...

"And all we ever did was to measure the behavior of our instruments."
Mr Crowley (i think, tho Al did love to plagiarize!)

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Magick without Tears, unless I am very much mistaken.

*dons Master Therion jacket*

RAC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RAC said...

True wisdom comes when we acknowledge our own fallibility. You are a very wise man Jason (Jake) Horsley.

"The more I learn, the less I know."

Jason (Jake) Horsley said...

my god, am I fallible??
Now you tell me!!

; )

Thanks Rac, I am not sure how i earned this kindness, but it is much appreciated

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Effing the Ineffable !!!

*smile*