Geometrical Spacetime Theories of Consciousness

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Reiku, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    This will just mix up the debate in the other thread, so i will start a new one on this subject.

    First of all... i will do this in parts, so if you don't want to read it all, you can do it gradually in parts.

    My Spacetime Theory of Consciousness

    Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories

    Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I came up with the idea of treating the mind
    as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so
    crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called
    spacetime theories.

    I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John
    Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in
    the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in
    space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom.

    The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime

    My Principle

    ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.
    The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the absolute square of
    the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable
    with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given


    *Where t’ is the conjugate of t.

    This of course is identical discipline to Born’s Law, an empirical equation (P= \psi \psi*) describing the
    probability of finding a system in one of its quantum states, given by the quantum state vector given as |Ø>.
    An example, is the electron, with a position, momentum and energy is totally described by the state vector, given as |Ø>. Although, the rule of complimentarity ruled itself by the uncertainty principle forbids us ever knowing everything about the mathematics behind |Ø>. Though, potentially, anything you want to know is behind that variable. The state/wave vector spreads out over spacetime. It can potentially and theoretically calculate the wave vector of entire galaxies and even the universe itself!

    But here is the really interesting [part]. If we want a unification of physics, we need a model of the mind that corresponds to it having its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, even if we have to integrate them as real points in time, and that would also include space, according to special relativity.

    If my law that states:

    ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.
    The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the rule that
    the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an
    observed system.’’

    .. is true, then we do have a few things to consider, that seem totally logical. It would mean that for consciousness to operate, a collapse in the wave function between an observer and the observed must occur, so that the observations we make, can be used as a reference to what is observed: The internal and external realities, in this specific case of reasoning.

    These are the only times when real time models can be used, and is really, according to one line of mainstream physics, the only real time anything is real. When things are not observed, is when we can use imaginary time.

    This law is empirical to the following work, and if it fails, all else does as well. And, if the observer collapses the state of an external system, then the same law can be found to correlate to the observer as well. In fact, as the enigmatic theory goes, many physicists believe that consciousness can be the very product of such a collapse.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    An Arrow of Time for the Model

    …Is interesting, because my model cannot suggest a unique arrow, because of some discrepancies with the instantaneous frames of existence that seem to be posited from the above conclusions. I have quantized consciousness, so that only whenever we make an observation, can there be a correlation in space and time. In fact, time may be the very conduit that relates the internal world and the external world together.

    So only a point in conscious spacetime, which has collapsed the state vector of external reality, does either variable exist… in other words, there is no reality without the perception of reality, and this would conclude that consciousness and the perception of consciousness are invariant to each other.

    In fact, this is where the next premise derives:

    ‘’You cannot have a real point in conscious spacetime, without a corresponding point in external spacetime.’’

    If what we observe is not a current projection of external spacetime, then what we are witnessing cannot be
    real in the sense of what we define as a reality. There needs to be a simultaneous squaring of our world and
    the external world, for both to define a real existence.

    We actually require this rule, if we are going to integrate the mind as a dimension of spacetime, because in
    spacetime, we, find that matter and energy cannot exist without a vacuum, and vice versa. We need a
    relationship like the one proposed, so that there is an answer to how there can be a similar premise for the
    time vector of the mind and its relationship with matter.

    Its explanation, is that matter is popped into existence whenever we observe it, exciting the two dimensions
    \((P=|t|^{2}=(tt’))\). The notion that, ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a
    point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to
    be equal to the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an
    observed system (1),’’ not only unites the points of internal spacetime and external spacetime as playing
    exactly the same roles, it also plays the same role as the observer effect.

    (1) - Or the dimension of the observer and the dimension of the observed system.

    In fact, the very idea that a system will collapse on the ‘’transaction’’ of \(\psi\psi*\) (using Cramer
    terminology), may play exactly the same roles in uniting the variables t and t’ together. I also
    came to these conclusions obviously from mathematical idea’s, and we will cover that soon.

    The relationship between the external and the internal dimension(s), can be expressed as:


    … as an expression detailing their ‘’meeting’’. We must assume for this expression to be correct,
    there must be the ability to describe both t and t’ as having values that can be expressed as a set of events
    which describe their evolutionary steps to reach their final State Value.

    1) \(P_{12}=|t_{1} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}=|(\Delta S)t’>,|(\Delta S_{f})t’>\)
    And for the conjugate
    2) \(P_{12}=|t_{2} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}= <t(\Delta S)|,<t'(\Delta S_{f})|\)


    P ~ Probability
    t_{1,2} ~ The time variable (just a mathematical duration)
    t ~ The time dimension
    t’~ The Second Imaginary Time Dimension
    a ~ Event One
    b ~ Event Two
    S ~ Initial State
    S_{f} ~ Final State

    The reason why I have exhausted this part, is because the upper equations do describe some kind of
    time passing using a time variable... (But this is ok). The process can be instantaneous, but be careful,
    we may not actually be talking about speeds, as in faster than light.

    Of course, superluminal speeds would be hard to distinguish in the theory, because there is no obvious
    evidence that anything moves at all. It may just be a case of two myriad imaginal sheets that square
    together. I obviously attend for the latter.

    So how do we picture all of this?

    Well, I’ve made it clear that anything we perceive, are like flashes of momentary existence that has an
    unbounded attachment to the outside world. From time to time, consciousness and external spacetime lock,
    and create a point/moment in real time. This is the true arrow of time. There is just discontinuous fleeting
    flashes of existence, and any flow, is just an illusion.

    For some reason though, consciousness does not experience a discontinuous set of frames in time.
    Instead we experience a smooth chain of events that seem uninterrupted.

    This is called the ‘’Binding Paradox.’’

    After the consideration of mind and matter: Even those physicists who will inexorably and insidiously
    evaluate that such discussions are of philosophical debate, because consciousness is an ‘’abstract theory’’(1),
    that we are informed in physics, namely the Copenhagen Interpretation, that a particle is not real until a
    a collapse in the wave function occurs, (in this sense, we shall not include atomic observers). The thing that
    makes a collapse of the wave function when an observer is involved, is that we have memory of the action.

    (1) Consciousness cannot be an abstract theory. There are too many details which quantum mechanics
    cannot allow to be dismissed, such as the question to not having determined whether a model of the
    brain does not require a non-classical model of quantum physics, or not. If it does require a non-classical
    model, then we have the question to how \(10^{27}\) particles come together and give rise the phenomenon
    of consciousness. I argue, that if the mind was not present, then spacetime ‘’out there’’ would become
    an abstract theory, because there is no mind there to define it.

    An atom, being modeled as an observer, does not have this kind of memory. This is why there is an
    importance with the conscious collapse model. This is not pseudoscience. The Conscious Collapse Theory, entangled with the ability to rememeber an event is the importance of the titles of many famous books ever written.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Reiku Banned Banned

    Before we continue, my original notation did not have t and t’. Instead, they used Td and td.)

    "If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be
    related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time
    points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

    We certainly do experience a time dimension, and that time dimension must be inextricably linked
    to the external time dimension… I’ll provide more reasons into this soon; and there is overwhelming
    evidence to suggest they are indeed separate entities, and not the same.

    We also experience spatial dimensions, and it has been proposed by well-known spacetime theories
    to advocate dimensions for the mind as well, since we know very well we see three dimensions… but
    what we see isn’t of real space, so what we are observing are naturally created dimensions inside
    the mind.

    I applied the following mathematical conclusions from Pythagorean geometry:

    \(Tdi\)– Internal Time Experience
    \(tdi\)– External Time Experience
    a, b and c are the spatial coordinates


    I settle with the former discipline. I prefer the idea that the asymptotic time we all experience, and
    cosmic time are two different sides to the same coin.


    Where the left hand side of the equation, in this case, can represent the spatial dimensions we
    observe, given by the negi-hands. Now, to solve for the real part of


    I solved the real part of the equation by allowing \(i^{2}=i*k^{2}\) so that the result is


    Solving for the real part in vectors is useless for me, unless I can find some acceptable mathematical
    set of equations that describe the relationship between\(tdi=Tdi\) .
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles.
    For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human
    aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all
    the other variables:

    \(\Delta a^{2}+\Delta b^{2}+\Delta c^{2}+\Delta tdi^{2}-\Delta Tdi^{2}\)

    So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any
    experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks.
    This immediately renders the equation \(tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}\) flawed one might think.

    But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will
    experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite \(tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}\)

    So I like to talk about the world we see and the time we feel specifically, as a dimension(s). This
    time dimension we feel and sense flow past us, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom which can
    be described as a second imaginary dimension of spacetime. The mathematical relationship between
    \(tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}\)is by treating both individually as conjugates of each other.

    In physics, we often square numbers to evaluate the final answer. A perfect example is Born's Probability
    Law, the rule that the absolute square of the wave function gives the probability (P=| ψ |2= (ψψ*)) of
    finding the system in the state described by the wave function, where psi ψ is an acting conjugate of psi
    star ψ*.

    be a and as b, and use the following algebraic function:

    The Second process just yields yet another conjugate, but has the same final value a²+b². This shows the
    final answer, produced by the original conguates being squared. It also displays the unique relationship
    between tdi and Tdi… the acting variables of the conjugates. Tdi or (b), is a single answer with (a),
    as a²+b². I think the relationship between human experience, and the observed system square together, and
    locks in the relationship of the mind as a vector of spacetime.
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Probability curves, a mathematical discipline in physics, is used to cite the probability of an event. It is a growing theory in physics, that there is a subspacetime realm, where a possibility-wave squares with its conjugate possibility-wave. This is in fact the very same process we use in information physics, to create a single answer. We multiply two numbers all of the time to find single answers, such as:

    1. Force = mass x acceleration
    2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength
    3. Volume = area of base x height
    4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height

    Fred Wolf has been most influential in this model, because it was he who speculated originally a relationship between undulating probability-waves meeting undergoing a sqquring mechanism, so that objective realities are created ''out there'' by the undulating probability-waves ''in here''. This relationship, i concluded was perfect to answer for the reference between the observer and the observed, and more importantly, to this model, the relationship between the dimensions we experience, and the dimensions that are objective.
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Getting Comfy With Subspacetime Realms

    In this section, i studied the form of three new principles for consciousness. I will rewrite them for the sake of this investigation... If you have read the work, and already understood what it all meant, then i advise you just skip it...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Three Principles of Consciousness

    (Recently, my model of consciousness has evolved. I figure that the following results are required for a model of the brain and cognitivity.)

    As much as it might seem at times that the mind is totally ''free'' of the boundaries of time, it really isn't. In fact, it's just that we have a phenomenally-complex outlook on existence, that existence itself seems so ''defied;'' and this illusion is brought on by three principles of mind.

    1. The Principle of Expectancy
    2. The Principle of Uncertainty
    3. The Principle of Certainty

    Time, as we have covered so many times, is consistent of three boundaries (created by the mind). These are the guises of past, present and future. It turns out, that time would not be 'time' without these three boundaries. In fact, without mind, time could not take on these attributes - and without them, we cannot even be sure if we could call time, as ''time'' - it would essentially be meaningless.

    For this reason, time requires the human [certainty] that we have a past. It also requires the [expectation] that time will always be one more than now - but as you might have surmised, we can never be [certain] that it will - this is based on two factors; one being that the universe could end one day - and the more obvious fact that we can [expect] to die one day. And then there is the perception that we are 'moving up' with time, always in the present moment. The present seems to be a record of everything that was past.

    The past can take on in particular, two of the principles set above. We can be either [certain] or [uncertain] about a past event - we cannot [expect] anything in the past, because we do not exist in the past. In the present, all three principles can take hold of us at any time. We can [expect] an outcome.

    We can be [uncertain] about a present outcome. And we can be [certain] about either our existences, or again another outcome made in the present. The future can take on either two of the principles. We can [expect] the future, naturally, and we can be [uncertain] about the future - but i feel, we can never be [certain] about the future, because everything is unfixed - if we could be [certain] about the future, we would know for [certain] any outcome.

    Using these thoughts, we can see that psyche plays a particular dance in knowledge, especially when concerning the past, present and future. This pattern emerged ever since the very low entropy in the beginning of spacetime. In fact, one can see the invaluable nature of entropy, when considering knowledge; because, as far as we know, our gaining of information would not occur, unless it was in this very formation. Thus:

    1. Past = (Certain and Uncertain factors) – \([A,(1,0)]\)
    2. Present = (Expectant, Uncertain and Certain factors) – \([B,(2,0,1)]\)
    3. Future = (Expectant and Uncertain factors) – \([C,(2,0)]\)

    The one principle that seems to play an unwashed effect is the [uncertainty] inherent in life, in past, present and future - and this not necessarily be Heisenberg’s principle of Uncertainty, since the world of subatomic particles don't really concern the average Joe - rather, i am speaking about subjective factors here.

    What is vivid in the set-up, are two main configurations. Those being the apparent swap of [certain] and [expectant] factors inherent in the past and the future. This swap means everything, when it comes to present knowledge. The second pointer, is that the 'liveliness' of the present time is represented clearly through the ability to have (all three) principles at work.

    Though all the three principles are quite psychological, the undeniable thing at play here is that these psychological factors of knowledge play an intrical part in distinguishing the differential barriers in time. The mystery of the mind can be mapped out so; but nevertheless, it makes one wonder just how the mind does it all.

    It seems to me that time can wire together in this fashionable, consistent way through very means of participation; on the behalf of the human. For instance, it is said that the psychological arrow of time is due to low entropy in the past. But this does not answer the configuration of:

    \(A = past = [A,(1,0)]\)
    \(B=present = [B,(2,0,1)]\) and
    \(C=future = [C,(2,0)]\)

    This simple, zero, one two combo related expression with coordinates A, B and C, in this configuration, displays a fundamental rule of the psychological arrangement and pathology of time. [\Qoute]


    Other Postulations

    It may be possible, to use these functions as references to actual events in spacetime!!

    Amazing? Perhaps… In a real quantum picture, these principles are not actual principles of nature externally, because we do have some place in the past, as I was warned by Dr Wolf. Even thought we may never exist in the past, I wanted to reassure him, I meant this strictly in the sense that we only ever exist in the present…

    And since we do only ever exist in the present time frame, these principles of consciousness may indeed have some applications in physics. For instance, not only do I believe they can be used in a model describing our objective outlook on the subliminal linear nature of time, and ultimately the arrangement of how knowledge is perceived, it may be also useful in the sub-spacetime realm theory of mine.

    Roger Penrose takes them very seriously, saying they are akin to Plato’s world of idea’s… Since we have looked into some of the finer points of speculating on a subspacetime realm, there are a few rules, which I must keep.

    1) The mind has unbroken relationships and continual interactions with the subspacetime

    Just like how we go through life, and forget that nearly or just over 80% of all the functions in the brain are working subliminally to keep our hearts going, among other functions, is almost analogous to the manner in which the mind subliminally operates in the subspacetime realm without us ever being personally concerned with it.

    Dr Wolf has a very good way of explaining the notion. Consider the following abstraction,


    The ‘’almost’’ line there, is what he calls the temporal order of consciousness, which is linear by definition, even though time really isn’t linear. From time to time, the mind/consciousness has a focal point, which is marked by the dots.

    (Just to point out very quickly, that these focal points is very similar to the focal points I relate the internal and external dimensions together in the spacetime theory of consciousness.)

    Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point.

    Complex? Keep up!!!  Just read over it again, slowly if things get a bit rough out there…

    Now, the relationship between these focal points and level of uncertainty. We can know nothing about a system until a focal point, for refreshment of trying to simplify this, and we know more about it afterwards. It will be interesting to see how we can fit all these strange concepts into place, integrating my principles.
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Right, so let's continue this.

    Mind the following:

    ''Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point. ''

    This would mean that my principles of consciousness, when concerning uncertainty. If we give each principle three probability values, given as:

    \(2_{a}\) Expectant
    \(1_{b}\) Certain
    \(0_{c}\) Uncertain

    Next, we have to understand what the lower case values represent. They represent real focal points in spacetime. But they have an ascending value, which in this system, represents ascending real values.

    So a focal point being made in the most furthest back in time, will have a value of a, whereas a focal point established in the end, has a value of c, being the future. So present is logically b.

    Since we know that the temporal schematic operates as:


    Where the zero's represent focal points, and the dots represent the uncertainty, or probability of uncertainty if you like.

    If the uncertainty of consciousness reflects the uncertainty inherent in the schematic (1), which Wolf evidently expressed in his musings, then the uncertainty must be psychological as well as being a quantum subject, and it seems that the particular dance as i put it, may hold a key to undersanding this in new ways.

    (1) - I make this connection, because his schematic relates to real time operations on the focal points of the abstraction, with evident values of a more uncertain progress into th future, whilst the past holds more certainty, or less uncertainty. All ready, values are popping up all over the place, and this is going to be my operation to express them in simple relations with the principles.

    Now, lets take the notation we ended up expressing the relationships between the principles and plug in those variables of intensity.

    \([A(1_{b}<0_{c})]\) (Past)
    here the uncertainty located in the future is less than the value of certainty located in the variable \(1_{b}\).
    \([B(2_{a}<0_{c}<1_{b})]\) (Present)
    here, in the present time, i would state that expectant values are more than the uncertain factors of what we expect from the future, and that Certain factors are more than both the expectant and the uncertain factors, because we are very certain about the past.
    \([C(2_{a}>0_{c})]\) (Future)
    And to finish, the future holds for us, an expectant factor that is less than the uncertain factors, because we can expect a lot from the future, but not very certain of anything at all.

    I'll continue the implications later.
  12. Reiku Banned Banned

    It seems as though, that if we certainly experience these psychological functions, where they play different roles reflecting on the time frame they are in, which is always active in the present time (1).

    (1) So it may be very critical to your understanding of the row relation expressions, because you must focus on the present frame B, and imagine the outer frames, A and C, containing also the variables determining expectancy, uncertainty and certainty, are in fact reflections of a conscious being made in the present time! The implication here, is that the natural set or layout of the principles in the present time which are of course


    .. are the most recent conclusion of an observer in spacetime experiencing a set of focal points, in this case, a ''triplet'', as the terminology goes, in subspacetime theories. But we also know that:


    Because of the relationship of past and future sandwiching together the present time, all that uncertainty as well to consider, somehow we find A, B and C play completely the same roles, but not necesserily simultaneously. There is a specific principle UNDERLINING PRINCIPLE that describes such behaviour in a system. The principle of complimentarity. So, it may turn out that the future and the past are complimentary to each other (1).

    (1) - I am certainly not the first to posit this, but i have from different conlusions. Susan D'Amato, Aharonov and David Albert, conluded it was possible to violate the uncertainty principle, by locating the path of a particle in the past, and its location in the future. They are namely ''Two-Time Measurements'', and they creat events in the past and events in the future as complimentary to whatever happens in the present. One solution to this, is actually the Transactional Interpretation. It allows for backwards through time travelling waves of information, including those moving forward.

    If we analyse the structure then, this time taking both expressions into account, you can relate the operations as:


    If we reduce the operations of B, so that only the operation B is used to express the reflections of an observer in the present, it can also be expressed as:


    I like this way, because it makes you the observer, and shows the dual nature of our reflections on our pasts and our future, without worrying about the here and now in general. Keeps it less fussy.
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2008
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    So in theory, there are possibilities for quantum waves of information altering the world in sqauring probabilities of undulating waves from the ''potentia realm'', as Prof. Goswami terms it. The squaring produces the thing, and in the theory of treating the mind as a dimension, we can use focal points to schemise actual actions taken between an observer and the external world as conjugates of each other.

    When the conjugates multiply \((a+bi)(a-bi)=a^{2}+b^{2}\), a focal point is created between the observer and the observed, even if we are talking about a single thought that changed the vacuum statistically and a very small probabilistic state.
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Only one Conscious Mind?

    I found it interesting to learn that quantum physics actually predicted that there was only one mind ever in existence. It was a metaphysical physicist that proved there was only one mind ever present. It was conjected from the musings of Vedanta. So No two minds can ever exist, in a consistent quantum mechanical framework.

    It will obviously appear strange to imagine that we have different thoughts, actions and plans, but find sharing a by-product of a single unit of energy we call the conscious realm of the mind. Surely we are unique? The answer turns out to be a mixed logic, when concerned with quantum mechanics. There can be no separate mind, but only one mind ever existing.

    If this is true, which I surely do believe it is, then there is a complication removed from my theory. There was the chance, one could have argued that my theory would in fact be a lot more complicated than a single subspacetime dimension for consciousness, because the line of thought would say that there have been many minds, so many different dimensions we would need to make note of.

    But if independent minds are proven by quantum mechanics to cause problems, then a single mind, created by all the ‘’illusory’’ of separation and identity, is in fact lost to all the networks operating interdependently, again as one single unit. Dr Wolf argues that this is the Mind of God, and he has not been the first to postulate such notions, as they extend right back to Plato’s time.

    Then there is one mind, and there is no need to worry about how to treat so-called ‘’individual’’ conscious minds in a mathematical framework for a quantum field model, because we can remain safe describing all ‘’conscious minds’’ under the same single dimension.
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Everything Is Relative

    We find, that there is no absolute time frame in the universe. Everything must be relative to another framework. And because of the this, nothing is moving, and nothing is standing still. For instance, we find in relativity that time is actually a frozen lake, that does not flow at all, and everything that exists in the history of the universe, it is found to be all layed out, existing like side-by-side graphs, or myraid sheets. Single frames of existence, all layed out like a breath frozen by the cold air.

    But its not such a wimper, with the term of zero-point energy in quantum electrodynamics. If you could freeze the vacuum down to absolute zero, -273 K, there is still movement in the vacuum. Everything is still vibrating in the absolute cold temperature. This is the zero-point energy, and it is seen as the spontaneous frothing of energetic and material quantum bubbles. John Wheeler coined this famously as ''quantum foam.''

    Even when you think you could freeze something, there is still something happening. This sea is a virtual electromagnetic sea, and is required as a model in the Dirac Sea, where an electron moves through spacetime, and moves in a jitter-bugging motion, as the virtual negative electroparticles are bouncing the poor electron back and forth. Dirac, by formulating quantum mechanics and relativity together in 1926 (a big year in physics), found that the electron could move at near light speed, and whenever we observed it moving through spacetime, it would appear to move slower, because it followed a jagged path through the vacuum.

    Weird stuff eh? It predicted the electron quite well, and dispite the little attention of the media concerning such things, the notion of the Dirac Sea has been enlightened again as quite possibly somehow the same thing as the zero-point energy field itself.

    If thoughts come from the zero-point field, as speculated by quite a few physicists in the field, then it may also be something we need to use to model a system to how we come to know something.

    Dr. Walker, a physicist who works deep in the field of cognitive science, also took a quantum mechanical approach, among three seperate groups of scientists at the time who where working on such models, back in the 80's. He proposed hidden variables to answer for how we come to know something. He is a really smart scientist, but the idea never really caught on so much.

    What most of the models did generally conform to, was the collapse of the wave function upon a measurement, and perhaps a collapse in the psyche. The collapse is obviously an operation that works in imaginary time, but it has been speculated by Bertrand Russel that the imaginary dimension of spacetime is somehow the same realm as consciousness. Again, this never really caught on either, but it is still the foundation of the possibilities of spacetime theories ~ the so called relationships between objective and subjective dimensions...

    ..anyway, from my babbling on, the collapse of the wave function responsible for consciousness, is seen as the process of the two-dimensional image cast into the three-dimensional phenomena.

    How do we come to know something?

    We tend to say that we gain information, just by analyzing a particular event, and by thus processing it in our neural networks. However, where does this information come from? Does it come from the outside? In fact, the last question is taken seriously by physicists that the very information we gain flows into our beings from the outside. But what if it doesn't?

    I've always had a problem accepting the idea that information comes into our beings. I'm not exactly sure why. I have always thought of the human being, as being a gigantic memory unit, storing all information in a potential mixed state. Indeed, such an idea shouldn't be difficult to understand, based on two premises:

    1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

    2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

    Now, if we take premise one seriously, thought and memory exists beyond the observer. As much as this might just be a psychological illusory of the mind, we might even consider taking such an idea seriously. For instance, the human observer exists in the present, and we can have memory about the past. However, whenever we come to remember the past, we do no such thing as jumping backwards in time and recollecting the memory being asked for. Instead, we reevaluate an experience we had, and recreate the past in the present as memory. Thus, the real question is, when we do come to experience the future (in the present), how is it that the future already exists as memory? Does thought and wishes exist beyond the observer?

    I think so - but perhaps not in the way I’ve been making out. You see, one might think that the mind jumps into the future, and this is how thoughts can exist beyond the observer... memories of the future. However, as we have seen, the mind is bound to the present time. The only other way to explain this, is if we have a complete record of future events in our beings, just as we have a record of the past; but the record of the future must be seen as a record we can potentially remember, but cannot, because experience must activate these memories (just as the experience of the past activates our memories of a past event).

    Thus, the record of the past can be now put in terms of ''real'', and we can say that the future is a record that is ''virtual''; this is only an idiosyncratic method I am going to use, to distinguish the differences. I would like to note, that the past and future have no existence... the past makes up the present time as a record. The only difference with my interpretation is that the future also makes up a record in the present - but this record differs quite a bit from any other type of record we might suspect through subjective knowledge.

    It turns out, I believe, that both the past and the future is made up of conscious experience (1), which in turn, exists in the present time as a record of memory - one real and the other potentially real. We must be the perfect machines capable of storing these records, as one exists as memory, and the other is unfolded to us as memory.

    If we take the second premise seriously, then we might ask how we come to process information [almost] as instant as we come to measure something. One example, is how we come to analyze written language, and know it almost just as quickly? In fact, how can blind people touch brail, and equally know it just as fast? How do we bind optical and other sensory perceptions into the phenomena of knowing about it almost just as quick?

    Let us put forth another mystery concerning consciousness. How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, this 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes?

    The only way (I believe) consciousness can perform such tasks, is by saying that we do in fact have a record of all-information about spacetime... Thus, when push comes to shove, consciousness can process the knowledge of a system, because that information is already contained within us. Indeed, such psychic phenomena such as 'Deja Vu' might be explainable, if certain sensory perceptions are abnormal, and certainty get's mixed up with the uncertain realms of knowledge. In fact, psychic predictions of the future might be explainable, if we do indeed have a record of the future in embedded in our consciousness!

    (1) This applies only to real time. And consequently, the only time something exists.
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Then using the final equation here, without introducing superfluous probability values right now, the present time frame, in which A and C functions are complimentary to each (the so-called, Complimentarity Principle of Quantum Mechanics),


    Since function A, called in the mathematical principles of my spacetime theory consist experience as temporal focal points in real time stimulations, which I, after a few hours, came to my memory of past musings, that relativtsic time coordinated systems in special relativity could be integrated as an observer-dependancy.

    Imaginary Time concludes through the notions in spacetime, concerning an event, in this case can very speculated to be simply and observer invariant relevance within the mix of the empirical equations:

    (a) ~ ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

    And in time frames relevant to this, is also a dependant variable of a non-conscious influenced observation, or general relationship, since the equation (a) works in real space: The definition that the observer operates in symbiotic mathematical laws whenever we experience and memorize the system being observed.

    Then there is this…

    In timelike conditions, we define the paths in real time, the conditions we experience for instance, but only is very slow durations. Truth is, we experience more time in the imaginary time than what we do in real time, or imaginary space, as it is also known as.

    ∆t = ∫(√ - η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

    And here, we have the coordination of a lego piece of time as imaginary values. These are the points where a conscious, memorizing system of the outside world, (and there is no proof to suggest we lose thoughts at all. There are cases, concerning strong evidence where old people find they can remember more about their youth, and maybe the old metaphor of ‘’the older the wiser,’’ is in fact a truth of psychological astrangement.

    So in conclusion, I believe that the whenever the human observes an object, and disturbs the wave function so that the particle collapsed, then we must also consider that even the spacetime equations ~

    (a) ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)
    (b) -∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

    resembles a physical interaction, because I concluded that the equation (a)-bove, expresses physical attributes, so the observer must have the proof that not only does the mind exist only ever in exist real focal points in space, they are ultimately tied to the world she measures.

    If we state, instead of reducing the left hand side, just to keep things simple as possible, and state the variable of change, and its constant s, we shall give it a negative time direction, the variable (-∆s) becomes negative instantaneously, then the overall construction will remain negative. So to be proper, it really should be expressed as the equation:

    -∆s ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ)

    @Notes Now

    {i = √-1} !(the square root of negative one), should be used to describe the Echo Vector State and field of probability of \(Tdi\), while {i = √1} represents the square root of a positive answer, which will describe the collapse in the ‘’external world,’’ by logic of reasoning, unless there are any errors in my math, despite me not believing there certainly isn’t.

    And can satisfy a+bi, and its conjugate, creating a single value of \(((a+bi)(a-bi)=[a+b])\) but, its not new to plug in comprehensive varibles to change a construction, so long as the superfluous mathematical contributions are, in effect, possible and play a role in the configuration.

    Let us use subvariables, that act as a Kernal Operation, given by \(k\).
    If we also treat the conjugate with the negative solution, as \(i^2\), the we can make

    \(i^{2}*k^{2}\) to use as a bold operation by applying two

    subvariables acting also as conjugates that a

    \((a + bi)+(_{a+b})(_{a-bi})=0\) which would give the real solution, and a possible mechanism for the collapse bwteen the observer-and-observed system of a relative frame to the equation \(a=b=c=k^{2}^{2}\). I will do further work to see this is this remotely possible to do - - - - But anyway... carrying on, back from planet Mickey Mouse,

    Where \({a+b}\) is a real time wave, and operates alongside the VERY POSSIBLY the equations of probabilities made in the OP. For instance, the probability between \({a+b}\) active at any given time, and I stress this rule, the negative time direction ‘’could’’ represent the positive time direction, or the psychological arrow produced by the low entropy.

    {a-bi} is the imaginary time wave, where in algebraic, makes a zero total. By reducing it, to show you how this is done, is by adding my own unique subvariables in a simple process:

    We should apply to the subvariables in this function which MUST be proportional to some kind of operation that is analogous to the mechanism between matrix solutions of advanced vector calculus.

    \(|(abi)^{2}=(-a_{(ii)j+b_{i(ij)})=1]\) and let \(k^{2}*i^{2}=a\)

    And the subvauables give a value as:


    which act as operations that simplify it into a values of 1, the conjugate operation inherent So… I equate:

    (ζ )~(\((k^{2}^{2}_{*b^{2}_{i(ii)j}(i)=(-a_{(ii)j}+b_{i(ij)})=1=\) ± \(a\))

    Which is expressed as a non-wavelike equation (1)

    (ζ*)~(\(a =\) ± \(\sqrt{a-bi^{2})=(a – b)+(-1)=1\))
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2008
  17. Reiku Banned Banned

    Phase velocity of a Qauntum Time Wave

    Look at this wave equation i devised ages ago:


    Which can be solved as

    …has a set of solutions:

    \(u = Acos( ax - bt )\)

    \(c^2 a^2 - b^2 + w^2 = 0\)

    Which are ‘’sine waves’’ propagating with a speed,


    The problem here, is that they are moving at a speed which exceeds ''c'', at tachyonic speeds that would oscillate in the imaginary time dimension, and spend no time in real time.

    … just gonna get to some more conclusions which lead to something quite interesting things to consider, even if you don't go away a believer...
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    The usea of the equations, i feel, can describe posible (TTTI), ''two- time measurements and the Transactional Interprtation. The theory involves how quantum time waves, that could be totally analogous to the ones provided above.

    A state vector, |S> deteremined the probability of the field of the original wave. If the orginal wave does not compute, it simply cancles out. An Echo Wave, |E(t,1)> meeting an Offer Wave <(t,2)O|, moving at superluminal speeds, just like the wave equations i made above.
  19. Reiku Banned Banned

    Afterall, not all information should be speculated to move necesserily at the same speeds, which is accepted as lightspeed. But information is far more etheral than a photon, and may have abilities that are of significance.
  20. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    write a book
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    That's far too kind. I haven't even recvieved a National Diploma yet.

    Sufice to say, once i have that behind me, i will go out my way to not only publish a book on spacetime theories, but hopefully give enough reasonings that one is certaintly needed.

    Thank you again
  22. Reiku Banned Banned

    I'm only speculating here, but why haven't the mathematicians run into here yet? And if they have, i take it the math is correct then, depending on its use?
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Using mainstream technical terms you don't understand as buzzwords doesn't make it less crack pot.

Share This Page