Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Laying Down the Bohmian IMAX

I was very interested in the question asked by Woodsprite in terms of itlad/ctf and life assurance. We have discussed the nature of the how the recordings are made and KLLM has wonderfully expanded this concept into his "Virgin Life" VL theory. In order to possibly clarify my position on this I would just like to refer to the following section from ITLAD:

This book, its words and ideas and everything around you is an internally generated version of reality, a copy projected in front of you like an unbelievably complex sensurround, virtual reality computer game. This is generated by the manipulation of hologram-like images and using the processing power of the greatest computer in the universe – your brain.

Here you are reading this book, or should I say perceiving an image that contains this book. Look up and take in what is around you. Its all an illusion, a series of inwardly generated holographic images. You are not here at all, you are being fooled into thinking you are. You are somewhere else entirely. From this place you are generating the world around you, re-creating it piece by piece and second by second. We already know this from the evidence of quantum physics. As Hugh Everett proposed, there are literally trillions of universes, you exist in just one, a version of John Wheeler’s ‘participatory universe’ creating it as you go along, each micro-decision that you make causing ever-increasing new timelines, like the branches of some magical tree.

But there is one huge problem with this personal universe. If you have always only existed within your own self-created version of reality, how have you created such a rich and varied environment? If this universe is all you have known how have you created giraffes, quasars and rap music? In order to create such concepts you must, at some time or other, known of these things and projected them into your version of reality. How can it be otherwise? You are like a baby who is abandoned on a desert island. As the baby grows up he has no knowledge of anything external to the island. How could that baby mentally visualize anything outside of his direct experience, a glacier for example. So it is for you. It is likely that within your universe exists the Eiffel Tower. You may even visit Paris and take in the view from the top. Now here is the weird thing; I am writing these words at my home in Harrogate, England, on a beautiful June morning. This is my version of Harrogate and my idea of what a beautiful June morning should look like. I have chosen the Eiffel Tower as an example of a well-known man-made feature. You now read these words in your version of the universe, surrounded by objects and weather conditions of your own creation. But strangely you immediately visualize Paris with the Tower dominating all around it. How can we both have a similar vision in our heads? How can we both have inwardly created an object that we both can agree on in terms of size, shape and location when we have never met and exist in totally different versions of reality? Sometime in both our pasts there must have been a real world populated by real objects, animals and buildings. Indeed this original ‘objective’ universe may be analogous to the biblical Garden of Eden, a place were we all perceived the original blueprint of objective reality, a place were the original Eiffel Tower stood in all its glory. This internally generated world is a facsimile, a copy, but as with all facsimiles and copies there must be an original – a first edition if you like.

And so there is. There was a time in both our distant pasts where we first perceived not only the Eiffel Tower but also all the wonderful objects, concepts and structures that we now populate our illusory world with. This very fact is one of the major clues as to what is really going on.


My position in this has never really changed. For me there has to have been some form of initial 'reality' state' by which the Bohmian IMAX was recorded. Indeed I suggest that each human being 'records' their life in a unique and personal phaneron that in some way 'overlaps' with other individual phanerons. How this mechanism works is the next big challenge and I know that there are some simply fantastic suggestions being made.

There have been few criticisms of CTF and ITLAD but the major one, which I have a good deal of sympathy with, is that I mix together the Copenhagen Interpretation, Everett's Many Worlds (Minds) and Bohm's Implicate/Explicate Order - all of which are, on the face of it, mutually exclusive. MWI was postulated as an alternative to Copenhagen and the Implicate Order was a post-Einsteinian attempt to explain quantum behaviour in slightly more classical terms. However I genuinely believe that within each one is part of the answer ... for me they are not mutually exclusive but, in some bizzare way, complementary. Indeed had I left well alone and gone with either of these three as the bedrock of scientific support for CTF I would not have been criticised. Each one supports my theory - but all three together make the theory really work.

But remember, as I bang on and one about, this is only a theory. it may be right and it may be wrong ... but I have placed it in the public domain for one reason and one reason only ... to generate debate!

5 comments:

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Thank you Tony for this.

The few deeply philosophical arguments against ITLAD are able to be countered once we consider Virgin Life and The Mother Paradox of Cheating The Ferryman etc, and the only remaining oppositions to the theory can then be answered once my CtCw theory is applied.

The EITLAD (Evolution of ITLAD) is now about the deeper elements of the theory and, as Tony comments, on philosophising the mechanism by with Bohmian IMAX interraction takes place, which I have postulated a theory towards and which Tony and I will work on very soon.

The important word to consider when looking at the conflict between Copenhagen/Many Worlds and the Implicate Order is "Interpretation". They are all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, meaning in a Venn Diagram of all three, there will be only a small section of overlap, which is where ITLAD sits. Now, I agree with Tony that all three cannot be mutually inclusive BUT I do think that all three have certain elements of truth within them, whilst not being wholly exclusive to the others.

Debate and dialectical discourse is what strengthens any theory so Tony and myself place our thoughts here for that very purpose. We don't simply want blind agreement or immediate acceptance of our thoughts, we want to hear the oppositions too.

ITLAD/CTF works, but does have some philosophical loopholes and areas that tend to lead to Solipsism.

ITLAD/CTF + this blog and some of its adaptations help address these issues.

ITLAD/CTF + this blog + CtCw has so far yet to produce an opposition that Tony and I have been unable to answer or position within the theory.

And all of that is a result of the discourse here.

Anthony Peake said...

KARL: Thanks for this. You and I are in total agreement with this and I know that working together we can really make ITLAD a fascinating bridge between "spiritual Awareness" and "science". As Susan Marie has stated in her wonderfully impassioned articles this is sorely needed at this time.

For example I am sure that the reason that my lectures go down so well with audiences is that I deal with verifiable facts and figures. Itlad is not a subjective feeling but a potentially objective reality that can be measured, experimented with, and approached in a thoroughly scientific way. This is why it is different to most "New Age" presntations. I do not demand from the audience blind acceptance of my "revelations" but present the evidence for their evaluation and debate. That is the power of itlad.

Karl L Le Marcs said...

*nods*

Absolutely!

You and I are a working example of Hegelian Dialectics in action (ale-infused or otherwise)

"En Avant", as dear Susan Marie would say: Onwards towards the BIGTOE, as I would mutter!

I'll stop talking now.

SM Kovalinsky said...

In the edited and expanded version of my essay on TP & KLLM, I hope to make clearer the importance of this Hegelian dialectical process; it is of utmost importance, and I see it in action here, and even have drafted an essay that centers on this soley. To the philosopher's mind, there should be nothing higher, and this fusion into synthesis is as rare as it is wondrous: I am privileged in that I am seeing it doubled, in Peake and LeMarcs, and in Barack Obama. I will be holding political theory forums with sociology professors from WPU in the fall semester as relates to this process in the person of Obama. And I hope to involve Dr. Eric Steinhart from WPU in an open forum - perhaps with some of his philosophy students - with this process in the domain of quantum philosophy, and the fact that these 2 British are posing an answer to a question which is bandied about in the US but never fully answered. No accident, in my opinion, that TP and KLLM appear at the same historical moment with Barack Obama and his platform for "Change": change ripples through all American corridors now: political, economic, scientific, philosophical, academic. . .

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Susan Marie: As ever, thank you completely for all your efforts over in the US to get Tony's book into the American consciousness.

You and I are going to work on some collaborative efforts regarding my theory and our combined view of how to approach the schism in the US between Science and Spirituality and I am looking forward very much to working with you, my dear lady.