PART 4 CONCLUSION: Lucy dreams of lucy dreaming of dreams of Lucy

[ismokecrystals]

I am god too!

I had a eerily similar experience albeit with much more "keys" in my body and I came to the same conclusion.

I was given the option to "ascend" and leave this plane of existence to rejoin the One but I opted against it so that I may continue to share my love with those around me and awaken them to their "mistakes".

This read has made me very happy to realize that I am not alone and that I am not the true creator of this universe but others may also have the same experiences. Thank you for your exposition, jbark!

 

[jbark]

...But no one to my knowledge has asserted that quantom mechanics is random - probabilistic, yes, but random? Not that I am aware. Asserting randomness assumes knowledge of the absence (or presence) of a cause, or source, which in this case seems to fall out of the purview of the scientific method.

In fact, the copenhagen interpretation asserts that it is the act of measurement, and hence the observer, that forces the hand of quantum mechanics, causing a particle that exists in two states at once to display its existence in only one. The outcome of this observation/measurement, while appearing random - or more accurately probabilistic - could also however be a product of determinism (all outcomes of measurement being potentially predetermined, like the outcome of any phenomena).

Maybe its just me, but I can't wrap my head around, or i guess reconcile, the two notions that time is a collapsible illusion and that free will can nevertheless exist... IT MAKES MY MONKEYBRAIN HURT!!:?

JBArk

One example of randomness without the involvement of measurement is radioactive decay. I don’t know much about quantum mechanics, but my understanding is that certain core aspects of nature are considered truly random – occurring without an underlying cause.

I personally don’t believe this (I’m a Hugh Everett fan myself) and Einstein was uncomfortable with the idea as well:

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

My belief is that the universe is deterministic, but the point I was making is that non-determinism doesn't imply free will. (Obviously, a deterministic universe precludes free will.)

But in arguing for randomness are you not expressing support for a non-deterministic universe? With all due respect, are you not mistaking randomness for unpredictability? Given that the act of predicting is a projection into the future to accurately determine a given outcome, it is fair to say that an unpredictable universe is not incompatible with a deterministic one... But a truly random one IS, no?

Comidas por reflexion,

JBArk

 

[gibran2]

But in arguing for randomness are you not expressing support for a non-deterministic universe? With all due respect, are you not mistaking randomness for unpredictability? Given that the act of predicting is a projection into the future to accurately determine a given outcome, it is fair to say that an unpredictable universe is not incompatible with a deterministic one... But a truly random one IS, no?

Comidas por reflexion,

JBArk

Actually, I’ve been arguing both sides.

Most physicists, based on the experimental data they’ve generated, believe in a truly and fundamentally non-deterministic universe. I tend to believe (irrationally) that the universe is deterministic. But the point is that free will is an abstraction, and a non-deterministic universe doesn’t change that. (How does non-determinism - randomness - imply free will?)

As far as randomness and unpredictability go, all random events are of course unpredictable, but not all unpredictable events are random. For example, when you throw dice, the movement of the dice macroscopically conforms to classical physics (deterministic), yet the outcome of your throw is unpredictable. This is because all of the data needed to accurately track the movement of the dice is not known. In theory, every dice throw is predictable. In theory, every unpredictable non-random event is predictable. The unpredictability in such cases is due to a lack of information.

However, quantum physicists consider many phenomena to be truly random:

This forces us to one of the most uncomfortable conclusions of quantum mechanics: you can set up a situation in which the initial conditions are exactly the same, and get different results. In other words, there is true randomness in the universe. We can predict statistically where a photon is likely to go (based on the patterns that emerge), but not where an individual photon will go.
(It might occur to you to wonder if the initial conditions are really the same. Maybe there is really something different about the photons which makes them go to different places, even though the light source does the same thing every time as far as we can tell. This kind of idea is called "hidden variable" theories since it assumes that the photons' paths are determined by some properties which we can't measure, but which make the initial conditions different each time. While it's an appealing idea, most physicists feel that these theories can not satisfactorily explain the data, and that quantum mechanics does imply true randomness.) (source)

 

[ismokecrystals]

What if "random" could be influenced? Imagine a Gaussian or normal distribution; now bend that curve slightly to your favor. Randomness could be influenced to be on your side.

 

[gibran2]

What if "random" could be influenced? Imagine a Gaussian or normal distribution; now bend that curve slightly to your favor. Randomness could be influenced to be on your side.

Ahh… Good question, and it has been asked of physicists before.

What is NOT random in quantum mechanics are the particular statistical distributions. So altering random outcomes in a way that changed the distributions would be evidence of some non-random process or “influence”.

But if you were to change particular outcomes, yet preserve the overall distribution, then I guess it would not be possible to detect the underlying non-random process.

 

[Saidin]

I like your folding torus analogy, but I imagine it to be eternally unfolding – eternally opening.

We need a new word. Neither folding nor unfolding capture it adequately on their own. How about FoldolFing? the universe is eternally FoldolFing, eternally clopening...

Michael Talbot does a good job of describing this in his book The Holograpic Universe. He uses Bohm's ideas of adeeper level of reality called the Implicate Order (enfolded) and our own level of existence called the Explicate Order (Unfolded). The manifestations of all forms in the universe are the result of countless enfoldings and unfoldings between these two orders.

Kinda like what you guys are saying.

Great writeup...makes me want to drop some acid...been 20 years and I would love to do it again if I could only find some.

 

[jbark]

My belief is that the universe is deterministic, but the point I was making is that non-determinism doesn't imply free will. (Obviously, a deterministic universe precludes free will.)

If a system is wholly non-deterministic, it MUST be one of free will, no? If nothing determines our choices beyond our own consciousness, then our consciousness is engaging the choice, and exercising true free will. To my understanding, that is... No?

JBArk the determined free willer

 

[gibran2]

My belief is that the universe is deterministic, but the point I was making is that non-determinism doesn't imply free will. (Obviously, a deterministic universe precludes free will.)

If a system is wholly non-deterministic, it MUST be one of free will, no? If nothing determines our choices beyond our own consciousness, then our consciousness is engaging the choice, and exercising true free will. To my understanding, that is... No?

JBArk the determined free willer

See my response in the free will thread.

 

[Shayku]

That was an awesome read, Jbark. One thing you really conveyed well is the "heavyness" of an LSD trip. I'm always amazed to see others "have fun" on LSD while I get all tangled up in existential thought, somewhat like you describe, only with a lot more personal emotion/relationship-related content. That "key" has never taken me much beyond an enhanced, obsessive and at least slightly psychotic view of my own life. Only k, nitrous and DMT have done that.

I like the idea of the contract. I often get that feeling that we somehow "chose" to be alive and to arrive here with nothing. Were we trying to prove a point? Entertain our "selves"? Are we succeeding? Is some form of success an issue?

Psychedelics have also reconciled me in part with some incarnation of the idea of progress. I amuse myself with the idea that this contract is one that encompasses everything that our known existence contains. Life, evolution, consciousness, civilisations. Starting at square one, we seem to be on a mission towards divinity, or oneness, or whatever we want to call it. We stand here in the middle of the construction process which should ultimately take us back to the moment before the contract was signed, possibly so that we may sign it again, roll the dice and go for another round. Because we can. Because that's how God gets to feel something, play, exist. As it stands, we have this "time" thing happening to us which I find absolutely strange, but these keys, as you say, give us a glimpse not just of the end, but of how dice roll can also turn out.

I'm rambling. That's a sign that your reports inspired me

 

[Metanoia]

Amazing reports. Reminds me of some of my old journals back when I used to drop acid a lot. The whole quantum mechanics discussion is, admittedly, over my head. I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics. A difficult subject for me to learn about, for some reason.

Still, great write up.