I don't mean to disturb the thread and I hope it won't but can I interject with a question?
That wasn't it! If second, third and subsequent lives are effectively re-runs in your own mind (as the brain dies) would you not experience deja vu yourself but not have reports from others about it? I mean - other people are conforming to your life memory - a recording - so would not be experiencing for the second time. I'm assuming that everyone in the first life (from which your life's recording is made) are in physical reality and therefore not the Bohmian IMax where re-experience can occur.
One thing's for sure - I'm certain I've heard this deja vu thing before :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I have pondered similar things carenza.
Technically, if you have a premonition and change something to your previous life setting you down a different path, shouldn't it then become impossible to experience Deja Vu from that particularly split in direction? Or is the multiple worlds so infinite in quantity that every possible outcome is played out again and again. Is Deja Vu an outcome of the (multiple)roads more frequently travelled (than others)?
I'm trying to see things from the perspective of Anthony's 'recorded life' idea.
I've kinda assumed that subsequent lives play out more or less identically in this model, and that free will is therefore an illusion.
If there are elements of MWI in this idea, then I've missed that!
It just strikes me that, assuming subsequent lives are recordings, then other people in those recordings were recorded as they were in their physical first life. Therefore, I would not expect them to be 'complaining' of deja vu!
I'm not trying to attack ITLAD, just fill in something I've probably missed.
Carenza, "Can I injerject with a question?" IS a question (owing to the question mark). But is there any such thing as a hypothetical question.
*hmmmm*
Now, you raise an interesting question regarding subjective Deja Vu and the interraction of "others" with similar experiences. As I mentioned in my post "The Mother Paradox of Cheating The Ferryman" I'm working on a theory of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Consciousness, whereby as Tony proposes, we are each, within ourselves, a universe BUT I postulate that whereas Parallel Universes exist but are out of current reach of communication, IF we are all a subjective consciousness universe then it it entirely possible that "Life" as we know it, and the interraction with others is communication between Concurrent Universes.
erm, Or Something !
*shrugs*
And HurlyBurly, yes I agree about any alterations to your life blueprint theoretically ereadicating further Deja Vu/precognitive episodes unless any such deviation is temporary and at some future point the two worlds converge and rejoin the same pathway - which is entirely feasible in Quantum Mechanics.
Carenza, I see that, synchrondipitously, we were posting at the same time so I hope the comments above help address some of your questions.
The "virgin Life" is a blueprint, to which your Daemon can guide you to make alterations in subsequent returns. These alterations will then naturally become the new blueprint for following run-throughs.
If each of us is internally one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively then the Many Worlds theory could be interpreted as I hope to do soon as a Concurrent Universe theory whereby we interract with other Universes (other people).
*BLIMEY !!!!*
Yes, I think Karl has answered it re concurrent lives and universes. And Anthony himself, in ITLAD, refers to Bohm's implicate order in so far as the "realness" ( and not phantom state) of others in our world goes. . .
Thank you Susan Marie
*hugs*
I'm hoping to post something on my Many Worlds Interpretation of Consciousness soon (when I get some time - irony!!)
And I have many issues with David Bohm and the Implicate Order but I'll not start a rant.
Made my day with your *hugs*, even if they drip with sarcasm. I hope you will not unravel Bohm altogether, Karl? The implicate order is the glue which holds it all together. SOL!!!!
HOW VERY DARE YOU !
*major flounce*
None of my hugs are in the least bit sarcastic.
*ponders what a sarcastic hug would feel like*
And whilst you may consider Bohm to be the glue, you may one day consider my theories to be the cement.
*laughs at self for pathetic attempt*
I send this dispatch forwith, with my humblest apologies: I always thought that you were quite sarcastic in your stance toward me. And I place myself at the mercy of your superior knowledge regarding Bohm. (Yikes.)
Susan Marie, I am astonished! Apologies, of course, unconditionally accepted and I personally apologise for any sarcasm you inferred as I assure you than none was implied. I am in fact an overly genuine and honestly direct person, hence the asides to convey other emotive intonation *smile*
And you should never place yourself at my mercy, lord knows what kind of fun would ensue *cheeky wink*
KARL: No need ever to apologize, or to be amazed. And I am in agreement that placing myself at your mercy is good fun, and shall remain in this humble position. . .
And Karl, I reiterate: No need ever to apologize to my weirdness. And as I am a natural submissive, it is all to the good at any rate. . .
A Gentleman should never be afraid to apologise dear Lady.
*eyes wide at quote "placing myself at your mercy is good fun, and shall remain in this humble position"*
BLIMEY !!!
*wipes brow with exquisite handkerchief*
Anyway, weirdness is good. Excellent even, good lord I should know!! There aren't many like me around (as I'm constantly told).
And in any relationship, be it family, work, friends or one which involves all that squelchy nonsense their should never be a submissive nor dominant role (unless that's the deal transactionally) as a strong and healthy relationship is all about sharing, empathy and understanding.
*Hippy moment over*
Unfortunately, Karl, I take after my father, who was a submissive always and everywhere on the look for dominants, which are hard to come by in this era. And you have not known weird, intellectually, unless you have ventured into our family's brand of madness. But I must stop, lest Mr. Peake deems fit to remove me from this blog. . .
He wouldn't dare do such a thing to a lovely lady such as yourself. And if he did, he'd have me to talk to - and I'm bigger than him.
*smile*
(I'm also the most pacifistic man alive but don't tell anyone that as it gives my edge away)
Thank you, Karl, for rising to my defense. But we are at cross purposes, as I plan to beat him to the punch, before he can remove me. . .
I'll always defend the oppressed - it's in my nature.
That trait makes you doubly precious; and I thank you for comprehending that I belong to the clas of the oppressed.
My pleasure, dear Lady.
*smile*
Post a Comment