Does mindset affect the DMT experience or just the interpretation of it?

[SnozzleBerry]

But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.

There is no proof that 1+1=2 is an objective truth and has any meaning outside of what we humans ascribe to it.

The proof is that when you grab a pencil and then grab another pencil, you have two pencils. That is the proof.

When a planet orbits a star, then it is orbiting one star. One star. That is another proof.

No it's not, as you obviously need a human participant/observer in either case and as we all know, observers are not objective, and you therefore can't state what would happen without the observer. It's an irrelevant side point that DeMeNtEd and I got involved in, and there's really no-need to re-hash it, but there's no need to attempt to steamroll it with ridiculousness.

 

[clouds]

There is no need for an observer so that planets can orbit stars.

 

[mandelbrot]

There is no need for an observer so that planets can orbit stars.

 

[clouds]

:d


Edit: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[gibran2]

There are concepts in our universe that are, appropriately enough, universal. Our perceptions tell us that we live in a universe of discrete objects. This gives us a concept of number. In our universe, objects tend to have stability. This allows us to bring groups of objects together to form new groups – larger groups. This property gives us the notion of addition.

But imagine a universe that didn’t behave like ours. Maybe objects are constantly morphing or changing – parts coming into existence, other parts disappearing out of existence. In such a world, there would be no concept of number or addition. At least not concepts similar to our own.

Also, I most certainly can define 1+1=3. I could base a whole mathematical system on it! Admittedly, this system would not be very elegant and not at all useful, but within the system, it would be true that 1+1=3.

A real example of this is modulo or “clock” arithmetic. For example, in modulo12, 7+7=2, 6+10=4.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

But imagine a universe that didn’t behave like ours. Maybe objects are constantly morphing or changing – parts coming into existence, other parts disappearing out of existence. In such a world, there would be no concept of number or addition. At least not concepts similar to our own.

Ooooooooo yes, imagine such a place indeed...a magical land one could access with a GVG and a couple deep tokes

We have no clue just how much we know (or don't). That's all I was getting at, clouds, which is also why I was saying there was no need to focus on that jaunt in conversation.

 

[clouds]

Yep, that's more or less the example I was trying to make in post 74, when I said that one could create a system in which 1+1=red.

But imagine a universe that didn’t behave like ours. Maybe objects are constantly morphing or changing – parts coming into existence, other parts disappearing out of existence. In such a world, there would be no concept of number or addition. At least not concepts similar to our own.

Keyword: parts.

Parts is something that can be measured mathematically. Even if the parts exist for milliseconds.
Maybe their stuff disappears or turns into something else... but it exists and can be measured. Just like they do it in the LHC.

 

[ragabr]

Keyword: parts.

Parts is something that can be measured mathematically. Even if the parts exist for milliseconds.
Maybe their stuff disappears or turns into something else... but it exists and can be measured. Just like they do it in the LHC.

But do parts actually exist? All of our concepts of separation are just concepts, they don't have some objective existence. At any level, it's the decision of an observer on where to set the limits of a system. We project them.

 

[clouds]

But do parts actually exist?

It is my opinion that parts can be measured and counted. Are the parts real or are the parts unreal? I don't know.

 

[clearlyone]

Quantum mechanics indicates the state of a system exists in a superposition until measured. For example Schrodinger's cat is neither dead or alive until an observer intervenes. While based in math, it points to an interesting role of the observer. For example, there would be no dead or alive cats without the observer. Hard to make parts out of something in superposition; which everything is without an observer.

gibran2 your description of an alternate world where things are always morphing is indeed a description of our observed world is it not? (Perhaps you agree and this is a good persuasion technique The Heisenberg uncertainty principle points to the fact that we cannot say were something is and its velocity at the same time. Isn't this somehow a problem for a concrete notion of parts?

 

[DeMenTed]

Cleaarlyone, shrodigers cat is a theory just like everetts theory which i prefer

In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process. In the many-worlds interpretation, both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the already-split cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat, and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no effective communication or interaction between them.

 

[JamesLove]

The problem I have with the many worlds theory is that...boy...anytime any entity, human, frog, whatever, makes a decision, that would suggest a new universe.

Then you throw in other solor systems, other planets, other entities.

That is a lot of multiple universes out there if this would be the case.

Maybe this is the way the world works, but things can get out of hand pretty quickly.

 

[JamesLove]

Oh and one more brief technicality..Schrodinger's cat isn't a theory per se, but a thought experiment similiar to Spooky Action at a Distance.

How to explain Schodinger's cat (and Spooky Action) is where you start branching off into the different theories of QM.

They have tested Spooky Action and indeed there is spooky action.

I do not think they have tested the cat and I am not sure how they would.

 

[clearlyone]

In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process. In the many-worlds interpretation, both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the already-split cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat, and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no effective communication or interaction between them.

Your comment inspired some research. I found Tegmark's classification of various levels of multiverses interesting. (quoted from: Multiverse - Wikipedia which quotes this from his works) Especially enjoyed his retort to Occam's Razor:

" A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."

Apparently multi-worlds theory in QP proposes a level III multiverse set (according to Tegmark's classification). The highest level he proposes is Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble. Now that just sounds inspiring.

 

[clearlyone]

Oh and one more brief technicality..Schrodinger's cat isn't a theory per se, but a thought experiment similiar to Spooky Action at a Distance.

How to explain Schodinger's cat (and Spooky Action) is where you start branching off into the different theories of QM.

Yes the cat is a thought experiment. But these explanations which branch off ... technically are aren't theories per se, rather interpretations. (sorry couldn't resist ) Of which the Copenhagen interpretation was (1997 survey) most popular.

The most interesting aspect IMO is the interpretation of probability. Does it represent our knowledge of the system or does it say something more fundamental about the nature of reality. Is there a self sustaining reality or only a self sustaining probability until observed? ... Or, neither?

Not suggesting we will have an answer, just that its a bit humbling to try and get your mind around that. Even more so to consider this in light of experiences of SWIM.

 

[Robbie]

DeMenTed wrote:
1+1=2 isn't true because a human mind understands it, its true because it's a fact of our reality.

But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.

Well we have 1 brain split into 2 parts, 2 half brains = 1 full brain. That fact was true before humans could grasp the concept. Maths is intrinsically sewed into the fabric of physical reality.

All of this is filtered through a human mind. I hear what you're saying, but you can't escape the fact that everything we "know" is limited by our being human. You can't omnisciently comment on what "objectively" is, outside of the human experience. There is no proof that 1+1=2 is an objective truth and has any meaning outside of what we humans ascribe to it. You can make arguments as to why this is the case, or why "it must be" the case, but that simply does not mean you have proved that it is the case.

I find it too hard to accept that all the meaning of 1+1=2 is just given to it by people. It seems to grasp at some sort of reality that is outside of us.

 

[lyserge]

The Mandelbrot set is actually a good illustration of my point: the Mandelbrot set does not exist. A mathematical expression that conforms to what we call the Mandelbrot set exists. Computer algorithms capable of generating visual approximations of it exist, visual approximations of it exist, mental concepts related to it exist in the brains of individuals who know something of it. But the Mandelbrot set doesn’t exist (and in our universe, could never possibly exist). What does it even mean for a mathematical set to “exist”?

Well in this sense the Mandelbrot Set "exists" in the "limit" sense, if you're familiar with calculus. We can approximate the Mandelbrot set, which is "simply" a set of complex numbers with a certain property (set of complex numbers c for which the orbit of z=0 under the function z^2+c remain bounded), as much as we like, but we can't output a final image or list of that set. It "exists" in the very real sense that we can find complex numbers that are elements of it, complex numbers that are not elements of it, we can prove all sorts of interesting properties about it, etc., and we can approximate it as precisely as necessary (taking into account computer error). In all these mathematical senses, it "exists", and it quite apparently exists outside of the human brain, since the steps we took that lead to the discovery of it were "natural": the complex numbers arise in the study of all sorts of natural and theoretical processes, as do quadratic functions (z^2+c), and orbits. All the concepts that give rise to the Mandelbrot Set arise in the study of natural processes, but the Mandelbrot Set itself doesn't "exist" in our physical universe.

Also, I most certainly can define 1+1=3. I could base a whole mathematical system on it! Admittedly, this system would not be very elegant and not at all useful, but within the system, it would be true that 1+1=3.

To do this you'd have to define 1,+,=, and 3 within your system, in a way that's internally consistent and such that 1+1=3 in the system - unless you're doing something trivially like swapping the meanings of '2' and '3'. I don't know how you would come up with such a system, certainly not using modular arithmetic or anything of the like. If your system behaves at all like the integers, it would imply that 0=1 in your system, which would further imply that all the numbers in your system are equal to each other. A very trivial 'system' indeed, and one not at all based in how mathematics has arisen in our development.

Anyways this is kinda pointless and overly, well, abstract. The key point for me is that a large percentage of mathematicians, professional or otherwise, and DMT explorers, both claim that the respective abstract spaces (or Hyperspace) they study/explore exist independently of the human mind. Both groups hold this view for the same reason: within these spaces they have found fascinating order and mind-blowing properties, even "entities" - like DMT explorers some mathematicians talk about certain structures and spaces as if they have "personalities" or "characters" of their own.

I'm glad to see others on here have made this connection as well...

 

[SnozzleBerry]

DeMenTed wrote:
1+1=2 isn't true because a human mind understands it, its true because it's a fact of our reality.

But as everything we observe, discuss, or reflect on is filtered through the human mind (complete with its limited understanding) you can't prove this statement.

Well we have 1 brain split into 2 parts, 2 half brains = 1 full brain. That fact was true before humans could grasp the concept. Maths is intrinsically sewed into the fabric of physical reality.

All of this is filtered through a human mind. I hear what you're saying, but you can't escape the fact that everything we "know" is limited by our being human. You can't omnisciently comment on what "objectively" is, outside of the human experience. There is no proof that 1+1=2 is an objective truth and has any meaning outside of what we humans ascribe to it. You can make arguments as to why this is the case, or why "it must be" the case, but that simply does not mean you have proved that it is the case.

I find it too hard to accept that all the meaning of 1+1=2 is just given to it by people. It seems to grasp at some sort of reality that is outside of us.

I agree...my statement only asserts that you cant prove it, as we are human . You can't experience anything from a perspective that is not human (again, why this was referred to as a triviality).

 

[gibran2]

My issue isn’t with mathematics in particular. Mathematics was used as an example (I can’t even remember for what now ), and the question veered off to one concerning the existence of mathematics. So the broader issue is that of existence. What is required for something – anything – to exist?

I suggest that for something to exist, it must be “embodied” or “instantiated” in some way. Mathematics as we understand it exists “embodied” in the physical universe – in the physical constituents that exhibit mathematical properties (all of the matter and energy in the universe), including the brains of human beings.

There are no mathematical ideas that don’t have “embodiment” of some sort. In fact, there will never be mathematical ideas in our universe that are not embodied either in physical matter/energy, or more specifically, in human brains. If you can think of an example where this isn’t true, then please elucidate.

My disagreement has been with the idea of an “abstract world” where concepts have existence in a “disembodied” form. To not be instantiated is to not exist. To claim that something exists and is not instantiated seems to be a contradiction.

Regardless, I’m one of those people who believe that DMT shows us things that exist independently of our minds. But I also believe that these things exist in some sort of instantiated way. These places may not have matter and energy as their basic constituents, but they have something that allows for their existence. With DMT, even when we become physically disembodied, we continue to exist in some form – we remain “embodied” in consciousness. I’m using “embodiment” in a different sense – in the sense that for something to exist it must be something.

Mathematics, consciousness, anything you can imagine, cannot exist in nothingness.

 

[KinkyJohn]

DeMenTed wrote:
I find it too hard to accept that all the meaning of 1+1=2 is just given to it by people. It seems to grasp at some sort of reality that is outside of us.

I agree...my statement only asserts that you cant prove it, as we are human . You can't experience anything from a perspective that is not human (again, why this was referred to as a triviality).

Ultimately, any belief system gets stuck on the human interpretation of it. The only thing you can possibly know for sure is that you exist and everything else is merely your belief in what you have observed.

Even mathematics works in this way. I studied geometry in great detail once and at it's heart, geometry is defined by axioms which are fundamental statements of truth. For example, there is a point or all points connecting two points is a line. These are taken as fundamentally true and from them the laws of geometry and linear algebra follow. Mathematics relies on the belief in the axioms to work, but there is no such thing as the axioms. What is a point? where does it exist? those are questions with no exact answer although it is more than possible for a human to abstract them. Over the top of these axioms grows a web of transformations and understanding that hint fundamentally at the structure of the real world, but they are ultimately imperfect because the axiom doesn't exist. It is easy to take this to a place where the geometry no longer actually describes reality very well and you wind up in quantum mechanics or some area of physics I've never been to before. Maybe one day ...