Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Gyenge Valeria: on 6/8/14 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Jayakar! Thanks Jayakar for your comment. You write: "'Thought' is...

Jayakar Joseph: on 6/8/14 at 5:55am UTC, wrote Dear Valeria, In relevant to your statement, 'our thoughts are mere...

Gyenge Valeria: on 6/3/14 at 7:57am UTC, wrote Dear Petio! Thank you for your comment, and your appreciation of my essay....

Petio Hristov: on 6/2/14 at 19:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Guende We, the cosmos and all that exists are a fruit of the...

Gyenge Valeria: on 5/27/14 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus! Thanks a lot for your appreciation and your high score. ...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 5/27/14 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Gyenge first of all thanks a lot for your comment on my thread, you...

Gyenge Valeria: on 5/27/14 at 11:29am UTC, wrote Dear Aaron! Thank you for your respect, and rating my essay with high...

Aaron Feeney: on 5/26/14 at 22:36pm UTC, wrote Hi Valeria, Thank you for your post on my page. I was aware of most of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Is There a Simulation for a Thought Experiment of Who Should Steer What Desirable? by Gyenge Valeria [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay emerges from a learned person's critical thinking. Because thought underlies our actions and interactions, understanding and seeking its physical and metaphysical origin, there is a risk, if we are not able to adequately assure our own thoughts and how we act factually to materialize things steered by thoughts, we should incur manipulated by our own...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Valeria

I really enjoyed your reasonable (i.e.) well-reasoned essay. You tend to steer the reader into a solipsist moebius strip world reflected between parallel mirrors - trying to decided first the nature of reality and what to do about things (if there are things). If one of those delightful creatures you drew in the nested worlds of your illustration should look up to see a pot of geraniums hurtling directly down on his or her or its head, should he or she or it run away fast or conduct a thought experiment about gravity and the possibilities of its being a simulated pot of geraniums? What would The Brain That Wouldn't Die do?

With best wishes from (I think)

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir (I think :)

Thank you for your comment.

Let me apologize, but I won't watch this addressed film. I mentioned in my essay I found uncanny the idea someone's brain could be downloaded to a body either artificial or transplanted to one whose body is somebody else.

I can agree however the continuity one's thoughts with development.

What I drew in my illustration is one's thoughts development during several incarnations (the latter is unscientific term yet, albeit the present modern physics e.g string theory, M-theory can quite well describe) of which memories are folded into light bodies which are factually wave-fields.

The so called actual genetic make-up e.g one's physical, biologically arranged body (see: The Body Electric - Electromagnetism and a foundation of Life by Robert O. Becker M.D, Gary Selden) need to fit to express what his actual (Levels of Energy - An introduction to spectral consciousness by Frederick E. Dodson) can read as one's approachable memories held in those wave-fields e.g. Light bodies.

I suggest studying too, Gariaev's work about wave genetics.

I think, one's only brain conserved is not enough to hold him/her alive or at least only a portion of his/her knowledge should be getting back, without conserving his/her full genetic and also etheric memory complex. Even more his/her bodily resurrection requires very careful genetic technology.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 05:14 GMT
You are welcome Gyenge

I watched that film when I was a kid and saw it again yesterday it is a crude concept of what life and mind consist of, compared to modern thinking. You test various scenarios about the evolution of humans or computers or an amalgam of both to reach some state of intelligence that can cope efficiently with life on earth. At least you do not advise leaving Earth, as many do to start life on some other planet or star, merely transplanting our possible stupid mistakes somewhere else.

I will look at the researchers you mentioned, but in my remaining life on Earth I would rather smell some real roses (whether they are a simulation or not) and leave to more specialised researchers like you the larger questions of what is real, how resurrection can be achieved by technology (not just by mothers and other organism continuing the species) and related questions.

Vladimir (I am almost sure now)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,

I must congratulate you for you have written a really terrific essay.

As I have pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, only unique exists. The computers rely on the existence of seeming identical states existing. Whereas it might appear that the more “intelligent” an artificial “intelligence contraption becomes, the less “intelligent” real human intelligence must decline, this is an aberration. Unique is not measurable.

I think that a gang of modern super active Luddites will soon start dismantling technology backed by religious governance.

I do wish you well in the contest,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Joe!

Thank you for your comment.

I agree, the existence is unique!

However as per my understanding the 'reality' can be seen and apprehended severally. I'm lucky, because my language (Hungarian) distinguishes two words concerning 'realitás = should mean things being in actuality' and 'valóság = what should mean ISness'. So the latter most closed to similar meaning in English as existence.

I think, you are right again today computers rely on mimicking processes how natural beings with higher cognitive functions process information by their thinking about their reality. Nowadays computer technology can be speeded up using silicon instead of carbon so beings seem should be replaceable silicon based too.

I think, surely there are positive considerations why should be better a silicon based biology than carbon. For example, what a quite sophisticate quantum governor computer that misses all natural human factor presumably won't never do - error! However, all human development based on errors to repair! How to develop forward for an utmost quantum society? How boring should that be eventually.

Probably, religious aspects also involved :)

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Ms.Gyenge,

As I tried to point out in my essay, the biggest hindrance to understanding reality is the English language. Unique reality cannot be tensed, or possibly be durational, or be systematic. Yet the English word reality presupposes that there could be an opposite state of unreality that could exist simultaneously with reality. Worse, arrogant scientists somewhat smugly insist that they can accurately measure, or identify both of these supposed opposite states of reality and unreality.

Unique reality has no starting point. Any device that attempts to produce a simulated reality identical to real reality is doomed to failure because it has to have a starting point. The brain in the bottle would have to “start” thinking. It would also have to know the supposed difference between rational and irrational thoughts. All human thoughts are unique. Those thoughts are neither rational or irrational. One seems to spend as much of one’s brainpower activating the scratching of one’s backside when it itches as one does in trying to understand the government’s policy on immigration.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Joe!

I feel some misunderstanding your mentioned 'UNIQUE reality' interpretation.

In English the word 'unique' as an adjective has 4 meanings

1.Radically distinctive and without equal

2.(followed by 'to') applying exclusively to a given category, condition or locality

3.The single one of its kind

4.Highly unusual or rare but not the single instance

To which meaning of 4 do you refer to?

As a noun from which unique deriving from is 'uniqueness' what means > The quality of being one of a kind

What kind of quality of being do you refer to?

The noun 'reality' also has 4 meanings.

1.All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you

2.The state of being actual or real

3.The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be

4.The quality possessed by something that is real

To which meaning of 4 do you refer to?

The existence does not come into existence. So it truly has not a starting point. But the meaning of existence really does not equal with reality. So in this manner the existence can be unique(1).

I think, also there is a misunderstanding in that a thought or the thinking can start. The thinking process continuously and unconditionally inherent thus so unique as the existence itself. The problem is nobody stated yet exactly what the thought is, that can be a kind of energy too. But that is interesting one can control thought voluntary or not. So it seemingly can be started/stopped.

You may be right, in the rest what you write, I deem to understand what you wish to say..

Best wishes,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir!

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, you understand my essay concept well. I'm truly glad! Because, if there may be an only person who understand, it is worth to write down. I truly hope my essay can act at least as a catalyst leading us for bringing optimally balanced decisions sustaining our original human life form on Earth.

Yes, I think there is 'only Planet', at least we do not understand yet what a planet should mean as a coherent life supporting system at severally structured levels. Buckmister Fuller worked hard and you surely heard about his famous concept 'Spaceship Earth'.

I deeply sympathize with your thought about smelling some rose either or ... even more I'd like only enjoy and appreciate the ISness :)) However if we suppose there is a kind of life program running yet (we should name pre-destination and incarnations reaching a proper self-identity) I'm afraid of we cannot so simply escape as pushing a button on a computer...

I will continue this post on your essay site, because I deem it best appropriate for putting that there.

Thank you for your understanding.

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 17:25 GMT
Eine Frage, sollte eine potenzielle Straße zu folgen.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Anselm!

Thank you for your comment.

(I don't understand German unfortunately, but I translated it)

Kind regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Valeria.

I read with interest your profound essay. I think it is very important for the development of artificial intelligence. I note especially your conclusion :

«The man is a complex universal structure of being who has an inherent capability to conceptualize his both non-physical and physical structure and all possible changes of his structure even he can direct his path what to do with his knowledge, thus equipped to create. "

"Structure" - a key concept. About understanding well said Gregory Gutner "Event held in grasping structure means understanding" (G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse)

Overcoming the «crisis of understanding» is possible only when the would be able to "grab " the fundamental structure of Reality, the fundamental structure of the Universe. Overview for secure management of the Future - Freedom, Faith, Hope, Love.

I wish you success in the contest and research!

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gyenge Valeria wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir!

Thank you for reading my essay and your profound admiration.

I will be looking after and examination of your essay too, and the given links.

I wish, all of us being in success achieving the real goal behind for which this essay contest invited us taking our mutual effort in sharing our thoughts in this very essential and crucial moment in the NOW!

Kind regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:36 GMT
Valeria,

I am having difficulty understanding your message, so please let me know if your message is any of the following:

What I see as real,is reality for me; what you see as being real, is reality for you. Because you and I are different people, we see reality differently from each other and everyone else.

It is impossible to simulate what to do and who should do it simply because Reality is different for different people.

Am I understanding your message?

Thank you,

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
Dear Ajay!

Thank you fro reading my essay.

Actually, you truly do not understand my message.

In a nut shell: I distinguish two states about the 'Reality'. I suppose there is an 'Original reality' as an unconditionally given existence, may be called 'Natural order of things'. This reality contains the stratum of all living being both material (crystals, plants, animals) also non-material kinds may be called energy, information, consciousness, thoughts etc. At the apex of existence, I suppose there is an - original naturally arranged and cosmic Man- theologians label GOD-Man. WHO is composed of all both material and non-material inside and outside of his environment. This Man as the sum total of originally not created Nature can live his life either he knows about how all inside and outside him should work. This state may be called the - non-causality - going on its own course, a non intentionally steered evolution. However, owing to this Man also has an unconditionally given inherent capability for thinking, so he is always propelled to know about his inner and outer environment. That is the phase of his self-recognition. The latter - we should call CREATION - during which one would make simulations separately running from his natural living, somehow both may be synchronized, even one can research himself with real-time. The everlasting questions is - what to do with the knowledge one gains during his self scrutiny I supposed, and suggested a model how one (on solipsistic simulation way) could do researches with very himself, and how else ones might be involved unintentionally. Even, I gave a kind of else simulation technology where a team might be involved. I pointed out those simulation technologies not necessarily based on contemporary computer technology, and of what basics for our present us is not yet completely apprehended, but our recent technologies should exceed the original conception.

You are right in that, "...we see reality differently from each other and everyone else...". However did you ever think; - You may be seeing a reality by your present focus which is a holographic projection of One who is actually researching about himself in several kind of roles and even information, thoughts, energy configurations, simultaneously being been some sort of material, genetic assortment and assemblage, a very separate real you even so a thread part of same self? I'd liken this watching several movies in a theater where there is only producer and actor in several roles and behind scenes, and his goal to decide - Whether what is worth to steer intentionally and how? Don't you put this question sometimes in your present personal life too?

Did you see Matrix? Did you see, how Star Trek Holodeck can work?

In my essay, I did not state anything being a truth! I only, examined a thought experiment, giving a probability question it is worth considering.

I've not read over yet your essay but reading the abstract it seems me you advocates scientific development. So, I suppose you may be interesting further reading over some links regarding this possible creational technologies.

The first one can give strong scientific answers to: As how many-worlds of thoughts real(M) alternate and can even so interconnect cyclically giving rebirth and reinterpreting the thoughts regarding to same theme but looking for a different but possible coherent view.

What is the multiverse, and what is its significance?

Lord Martin Rees: 'We May Be Living Inside A Computer Simulation' - Wait, What?

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

Historical Simulations and the Future of the Historical Narrative

Historical Simulations - Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues

All is basically for to understand how the thinking process is working, and how it can express itself through a substantial medium being been both solid, material, physical, genetically coded, stored in a body and simultaneously living non-material, non-physical as the latter attributed to consciousness.

The real question and MESSAGE however behind being put for my essay - Whether is the unconditional naturally given body implicating consciousness at manifold levels enough for us to grasp our everlasting existence or we need expand it toward for getting or creating a 'better us' resulting which consequences or risk? Which kind of technologies are applied for it or need to be? And who and why implement those with which kind of responsibility? Just that are under question, but not in far future or past, much rather all thoughts and several of manifestations both are realistically living in just right in time and space simultaneously in the now.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Michael Allan wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Valeria,

I've a question, please. Unfortunately I can't evaluate your essay (cannot rate it) because it lost too much in the translation. The title and abstract are ungrammatical and I'm unable to parse them; they make no sense in English. The essay body is better in places, but still I could not understand your overall thesis. Only once did I understand (I think) one of your claims, and this is where I have a question or two.

You claim (page 4) that the answer to the question "how to steer" depends on whether we are "(1) original, (2) simulated, [or] mere (3) illusion", with the difference between 1 and 2 being especially important. Here I picture something like a computer simulation with people as artificial beings (2) in an artificial universe, while the external builders/users of the computer are natural beings (1) in a natural universe. You claim that we should figure out whether we're the natural ones ("originals") or the artificial ones ("simulated") because this difference matters. Do I understand you on this point?

Mike

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear Mike!

Thank you taking effort for reading my essay.

Do you mean, you are trying to translate my essay from English to ? language, but the translator can not translate because my written English grammar errors?

Regarding to your question, my answer is you understand the point well.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share


Michael Allan replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 19:04 GMT
You're welcome Valeria, I only wish I could read it with better understanding, as it deserves.

I'm sorry nobody told you earlier, but your English is difficult to read. I was thinking you originally wrote the essay in Hungarian and translated it, and that's why I spoke of translation. But maybe it's just grammar errors. Your English is good enough that I can understand you in dialogue (here in the forum), but the essay is generally more difficult, and the abstract and title are worse still; they don't make sense.

Thanks for answering about originals vs. simulated. I suspect our best strategy is to continue to assume that we're natural ("originals") and try to steer the future accordingly without worrying too much about the possibility that we're artificial ("simulated"). I want to learn why you think otherwise, so I have some more questions. Do you agree that beings (like us) cannot ever learn that they're natural beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, the only truth they could learn with any confidence is that they're artificial ("simulated"), right?

Mike

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear Mike!

1. Thank you for your explanation about my English. Yes, that is not my native language, but I never use translators. Sometimes I make errors, (mainly using singular and plural, + mixing tenses) when I'm just thinking in English not in Hungarian, due to the two languages has many grammar differences and interpretation of meanings. (I mentioned that lengthy on Joe Fisher's page,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 07:57 GMT
Hello Gyenge ~

You ask “What is the best state that humanity can realistically achieve?”

As I say in my essay “How Should Humanity Steer the Future” by Margriet O’Regan, evolutionary biology is crystal clear on the matter. If we obey nature’s laws to the letter – one of which is ‘female centrality’ (see my essay) – we will achieve this universe’s highest existential plane, which is that state of existence in which we thrive but do so without inflicting any waste, loss or damage on anything or anyone else including ourselves as a species – in short we live in perfect harmony with ourselves & all the rest of creation.

Cognition & consciousness are both features of evolving life & in us have evolved to the point where we can know not only that we are destined to be nature’s crowning work but also exactly how to achieve that state.

As ‘information’ is one of my other favourite topics I also entered last Fall’s 2013 FQXi’s essay competition “It From Bit or Bit from It” in which I claimed to have discovered exactly what ‘information’ is as a phenomenon in its own right, & not just what any of it ‘says’ or ‘means’. My discovery of ‘information’s’ true ontological status (& it is not ‘bits’ & ‘bytes’ – any amount or configuration of them or regardless of what is ‘crunching’ them up as abstract numbers (computers are just glorified, fully automated abacuses!!)) – led me to some very interesting & very compelling conclusions.

I enjoyed your essay,

Margriet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Margriet!

Thank you for your very thoughtful and being agreeable to my views comment.

I will read your works with admiration.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Gyenge,

I find your essay very interesting and foundational. There are no other essays that go into the nature of human thought and how it is fundamental to how we can even make any sense of what it means to steer the future.

Thanks for your contribution,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Don!

Thank you for your respect and a high score given me supposedly by you.

Unfortunately, the 9 pages for this essay were not quite enough to properly unfold that matter what I wished to draw to our attention.

I lack, and think we are tending to put the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Valeria,

Thank you for your post on my page. I was aware of most of that material, but it was nice to get the transcript for one of the interviews. You are the only person here who has mentioned anything "off the beaten path" in relation to my work.

Your paper is quite amazing in it scope. I like the areas you explore. I think you will really like Lawrence B. Crowell's paper, "Duality in Cosmology and the Limits to the Acquisition of Information," as it discusses in great detail what would be required in order to simulate our world as we find it. He argues very effectively that we will soon be able to mathematically prove that we are not in a simulation someday, if that is indeed the case.

Your work is a valuable contribution and I have rated it highly. Best wishes to you.

Warmly,

Aaron

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Aaron!

Thank you for your respect, and rating my essay with high value.

I thought, you might be aware of some of those materials :) and right, those were not included in a kind of competition such we've done here. However, those all admitted to/on a larger scale of our reality.

I basically have not a concern about the competition here, as I've answered to your comment...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Gyenge

first of all thanks a lot for your comment on my thread, you are one of the few who understand the message behind this writing..

But indeed you are also are aware that our TIMELESS KNOWLEDGE is "compressed in the Eternal NOW Moments , and that our causal prison is only one of the eternal ways of Total Simultaneity (GOD) of BEING, this only facet of the Kaleidoscopically ONE, and of course one facet is not able to reveal us the infinitely amount of beautiful images that are available.

Human thought is only a blink of the one facet I mentioned above , but we can evolve....

I appreciate your essay and rated it accordingly.

best regards

and maybe keep in touch

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus!

Thanks a lot for your appreciation and your high score.

Yes, I understand your message, and also what you write here about the only facet is not able to reveal the whole. However I'm aware of that too, I may be here at this present moment of the Total Simultaneity, because the two (and only two parallel exists and only the holographic one can contain many alternative facets of being and in only the latter one may exist a total simultaneity) realities convolutes in a never was so dangerous just right now moment.

I keep, and know there is not else utmost capability and power than the thought which may have no form even can contain every information and a proper shape in it. So that is a very dangerous capability for not adequately trained ones who are not fully naturally advanced humans.

Keep in touch, if you feel so. I wrote down here which presently max be enough to know for a proper decision making.

High regards,

Valeria

Bookmark and Share



Petio Hristov wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Guende

We, the cosmos and all that exists are a fruit of the “idea” of the thought. On academic level it is even debated that we live in a kind of computer simulated world.

Are we an illusion? The reality that we all perceive, our physical existence and our thoughts are mere results of a dynamic, virtual processing of information.

We live in an illusion because we cannot see reality. The General theory of illusion is the always opposite of the Theory of Unity and can be expressed via the Theory of Relativity.

We at best can learn from the nature recognizing our inner outer nature its unconditional interconnectedness. To overcome the nature or conquer the cosmos should mean creating an autocratic power over us. We are connected with nature and we will learn from it. We are not above nature. The scale inflation and the scale cycle determine our life and the reactions are controlled by the idea.

I believe your essay should be rated highly.

I wish you good luck on the competition.

Regards,

Petio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear Petio!

Thank you for your comment, and your appreciation of my essay.

I think, we - our original beingness - are basically not an illusion. But some part of our consciousness how to think about our reality, what we may know about our original existence, had been advisedly engineered not necessarily with a kind of simulation of which fundamentals lie on contemporary computer technologies. We are in a very crucial moment in the JUST NOW on a culmination points of our alternative (realities) ideas to decide: Whether may we need to recall our lost knowledge gained from our natural origin if we want to keep our humanness or we would finally lose our natural origin.

I wrote much about it, on my last comments put on your essay page. I'm curious: Whether did you read it or not?

I also look forward for our mutual progress in a project which can bring together such specially dedicated scientists who are able to maintain a consensus about those ideas which are adequate for keeping our humanness and steering our fate at that stage which is desirable to steer.

I'm look forward for hearing from you and your books.

Kind regards,

---If I will be Anonymous here that is because the time elapses for typing my text, and the system will log me off. -----

Valeria (Gyenge)

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear Valeria,

In relevant to your statement, 'our thoughts are mere results of a dynamic virtual information processing', I would like to emphasize that:

'Thought' is the result of real-time information process rather than virtual.

While my interpretation on your assumption, 'The light being as a pure existence not a standalone entity independent from a physical structure, but the concept which is an instant imprint about an entire physical body structure what the mind is able to apprehend at a speed of its own conceptualization instantaneously and it may be named light, or anyhow.' is explained as:

Light and ion are expressional from the eigen-rotational energy of string-matter continuum, in ECSU paradigm.

Thus, 'thought' is the real-time process of information by the eigen-rotational energy of string-matter segments of molecules of Central Nervous System; that is unique for the higher species of living organisms.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gyenge Valeria replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Jayakar!

Thanks Jayakar for your comment.

You write: "'Thought' is the result of real-time information process rather than virtual." I think so too.

However, I distinguish at last two realities may co-exist. One is the original in which not necessarily exists any control system, but may be created with a kind of special technology which establishes sensing the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.