From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism; for other uses, see Deconstruction (disambiguation). Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, literary analysis, or other fields. - and now physics. Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an aporia in the text, and terms deconstructive reading "aporetic." J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."
On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:14 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, JRJ wrote:
JRJ was at the Theosophy meeting, but he is not a Theosophist.
Dear Dr. Sarfatti,
It was wonderful to have been able to attend your talk at my uncle's place last night. I particularly enjoyed the personal stories you related. Here are a few of my questions/concerns about the cosmological views you presented:
1) You mentioned the remote viewing program that grew out of Puthoff and Targ's research at SRI. Consider three phenomena observed in that program: i) the ability to remote view the past; ii) the fact that remote viewers would sometimes become so fascinated by a site that they would 'bilocate' there (i.e. have an out of body experience) and break communication with their interlocutors at the facility; iii) instances where remote viewers were able to exert psychokinetic influence on the environment of the target site or people within that environment. There is no reason why these three phenomena could not be combined into a form of psychical time travel.
My main interest is remote viewing of the future - strong retrocausal signal nonlocality. I mentioned the case reported by Russell Targ at the June 2006 AAAS at USD.
It seems to me that an empirical test of your theory could be devised on this basis. According to your theory all of us are simulacra of a quantum computer...
It's not really my theory. The original credit or discredit for this really crazy idea is Gerard 'tHooft and Leonard Susskind. I have merely pointed out that their hologram cannot be the past particle horizon of our observable universe, it must be our future event horizon in the sense of Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 c. The question is, is this crazy idea, crazy enough to be true?
... projecting the phenomena of this observable universe backwards in time, and the quantum computer in question is co-extensive with the space-time fabric of this universe.
I suggest that the computer is our 2D future horizon - and that the interior bulk 3D space (accelerating expansion) is its retorcausal hologram image.
(There may or may not be others that have been constructed in other universes.) This suggests that: a) we cannot travel to parallel physical universes (any more than holographic characters in Star Trek can step outside of the holodeck);
b) any instances of apparent time travel can only effect self-consistent loops in space-time.
Well, what if a remote viewer bilocates to the past and is tasked with slightly changing an aspect of the past that his interviewers at the remote viewing program have all studied (but one that should not directly alter his past or the conditions of him carrying out the mission in the present)? Changing an aspect of the past is not possible in this theory. The past is what it is because the time traveller has gone back to the past to make it what it is in a consistent loop - if there is such a time traveler at all of course. If he were to return to the present with different memories of the event targeted for change, then it would appear that one of two things has occurred: either he has wiped out large segments of the time line of his own universe (this means that some people who were originally born may not live the entire lives they have as a consequence of his actions, etc.); or, alternatively, he has crossed over into a parallel universe (and his co-workers who share his memories of the event targeted for change are still back in his original universe, where either the event never changed or his consciousness never made it back into his body from the past).
Yes, if you believe David Deutsch's model something like what you say there. There is a conflict between the two ideas - Deutsch's vs Novikov's.
Under both interpretations, you seem to have a problem. One trial would prove nothing, but if remote viewers tasked with carefully altering the past repeatedly returned to the present with different memories than their coworkers in the program, I think we might have an empirical falsification of your theory.
That's not my theory, but it's a possible theory I suppose. In my theory, any attempt to change the recorded past will fail.
2) The metaphor of the hologram is vague, and when you speak of being able to compute on the surface of a black hole or of a cosmological horizon similar to it, it is not clear what you could possibly mean from an engineering perspective.
It's not my theory it's the theory of MIT Professor Seth Lloyd:
The Ultimate Laptop: A Black Hole - 2 visits - Jan 18
Some people may be convinced that they already have a black hole laptop, imploding at the worst possible moments and irretrievably swallowing data. ...
www.ar-tiste.com/qcomp_onion/.../UltimateLaptop.htm - Cached - Similar
Professor Seth Lloyd talks about the world's smallest universe, quantummechanics, quantum computers, and pushing Moore's Law beyond ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c - more videos »
Seth Lloyd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts ... Lloyd, S., Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd - Cached - Similar
2.111 Quantum Computation
web.mit.edu/2.111/www/ - Cached - Similar
Amazon.com: Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist ...
In Programming the Universe, Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and the designer of the first feasible quantum computer, ...
www.amazon.com › Books › Computers & Internet › Programming - Cached
An interview with Seth Lloyd » American Scientist
Seth Lloyd Click to Enlarge Image. Such are the dreams of quantum computing, an emerging science that enlists elementary particles to process information. ...
www.americanscientist.org › ON THE BOOKSHELF - Cached - Similar
Wired 14.03: PLAY
Quantum mechanic Seth Lloyd says we really are controlled by a computer. Previous: Anatomy of a Nerd | Next: Clean Getaway ...
www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4 - Cached - Similar
Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE
SETH LLOYD is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT and a principal ... feasible design for a quantum computer, demonstrating the viability of quantum ...
www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_index.html - Cached - Similar
Technology Review: Q&A: Seth Lloyd
Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, is among the pioneers ofquantum computing: he proposed the first technologically feasible design ...
Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on ... - Google Books Result
Seth Lloyd - 2006 - Computers
In this clear, informative, and entertaining narrative, a quantum computer scientist examines the history of the universe through the lens of a new theory--that ...
Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe
Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd— Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first ...
www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/ - Cached - Similar
Searches related to seth lloyd quantum computer
(By contrast the concrete engineering involved in a Dyson sphere, while colossal, is conceivable.) A computer, even a quantum computer, is a machine. Now suppose you could sketch a suggestive engineering picture of the machine that you postulate exists in our future (please try to do so), then your theory is really another type of Simulation Argument (e.g. Nick Bostrom, Jim Elvidge).
Seth Lloyd has done that as well as Dyson I think - the basis is the paper by Hawking & Ellis on cosmological de Sitter dark energy horizon thermodynamics - back in early 70's before dark energy was discovered in 1999.
In that event I wonder how you would avoid a logical fallacy that I think plagues theories of this kind: It is on the basis of problems of physics that you deduce that we are living in a computer simulation, but if we are living in a computer simulation, there is no way to be sure that our so-called 'physics' is anything even close to an isomorphic model of the physics of the first order 'reality'.
What is "first order reality'? I don't see any logical fallacy here.
"Problem solving" within the context of this so-called 'physics', of the kind that led to this theory in the first place, would in that case be a fool's errand, since 'physical laws' could be modified at whim by the operators of your Omega Computer. (In fact, such whimsical 'reprogramming' might be suggested by more radical paranormal phenomena than remote viewing or precognition, such as psychokinetic materializations that appear to violate the 'physical law' of the conservation of energy.) It seems to me that epistemologically grounding empirical research in the sciences as a meaningful (self-consistent and productive) endeavor entails a refutation of any type of Simulation Argument, including yours.
Yes, I agree with you about the paranormal. I don't see any force to your other argument here. Indeed you should look at Max Tegmark's Level 4 "Different fundamental equations of physics." In fact John Wheeler suggested that our laws of physics are, perhaps, not unique. Agreed, however, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary falsification possibilities. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
3) Let's assume that you can somehow answer these objections, and others that I could possibly raise. Then (with your postulation that the 'holographic computer' is in our future) you've contributed (together with 'tHooft et al.) to the most significant discovery in the history of Physics. In that event, you should not obfuscate this discovery by drawing a very superficial analogy to Teilhard de Chardin's faith-based metaphysical speculations on the 'Omega Point' and the 'Noosphere'.
Au contraire - that is what is important to the laymen - the unwashed masses so to speak. You don't expect them to be able to understand the details of mathematical physics. There is nothing in Teilhard's idea that requires irrational faith unsupported by evidence. Indeed, that may be why The Vatican regarded him with suspicion like they did Galileo?
I haven't read Teilhard since I was a teenager, but as I recall Teilhard's view of the convergent evolution of consciousness in the cosmos is based on a conception of time as duration and of an inherently non-predictable evolutionary growth that is similar to that developed by Henri Bergson. For them the telos towards a cosmic intelligence is broadly discernible, but the specific processes that actualize it cannot be mathematically schematized the way that your development toward the holographic computer could be in principle (Tamara Davis' mapping project). Teilhard's view of consciousness is the furthest thing from a CPU clocking of information at discrete intervals in a state machine, no matter how small the intervals (10^-43 seconds?).
So what? I am not saying Teilhard got it 100% correct, but he came very close. I don't care about this or that quibble - minor details. The point is that the modern idea of consciousness as signal nonlocality combined with the idea that curved spacetime horizons have thermodynamics and are hologram computers, and the Wheeler-Feynman ---> Hoyle-Narlikar ---> Cramer ----> Aharonov-Vaidman are what is important here in a new physics of final cause as well as efficient cause. My point about Teilhard is that he came quite close to the ultimate picture via is own precognitive remote viewing - indeed I think all creative thought is Nietzsche's self-rolling wheel (The Will to Exist) - the Novikov loops in time. Of course Nietzsche did not have the modern physics in which to couch his thoughts. I am deconstructing Teilhard & Friedrich you might say? ;-)
The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25 , ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And ...
Free Online Library: Nietzsche, Friedrich - Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book For All And None... a game, a self- rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
nietzsche.thefreelibrary.com/Thus-Spake-Zarathustra/3-1 - Cached - Similar
Nietzsche — Excerpt from THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA: “The Way of the ...
Feb 2, 2010 ... A self-rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee? ...Nietzsche on Black Nationalism: The Most Hu… ...
whitesurvival.wordpress.com/.../nietzsche-excerpt-from-thus-spoke- zarathustra-the-way-of-the-creating-one-17/ - Cached
Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2)
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (excerpt, part 2) .... A self- rolling wheel? Can you even compel the stars to revolve around you? ...
praxeology.net/zara2.htm - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy: Immaculate Perception, Zarathustra ...
Nietzsche's philosophy of aloneness as a necessity of Creation. ... self-rolling wheel? Can you also compel stars to revolve around ...
saliu.com/Nietzsche.html - Cached - Similar
The Nietzsche Channel Message Board: Zarathustra: The Three ...
Apr 18, 2007 ... Post a Response | The Nietzsche Channel Message Board ] ... a new beginning, a game, a self- rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
members3.boardhost.com/nietzsche/msg/1176924497.html - Cached - Similar
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Google Books Result
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - 2008 - Philosophy - 252 pages
Then show me thine authority and thy strength to do so! Art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? A self-rolling wheel? ...
What would Nietzsche do?@Everything2.com
Nietzsche has explained this in his masterwork, Thus Spake Zarathustra. ... a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yea. ...
everything2.com/title/What+would+Nietzsche+do? - Cached
Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra - Philosophy Collection
1891 THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA by Friedrich Nietzsche translated by Thomas Common PROLOGUE ..... a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
philosophy.eserver.org/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt - Cached - Similar
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Friedrich Nietzsche Full Text EBook. Previous Section The Three Metamorphoses Next Section ... a game, a self rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. ...
www.lexido.com/.../THUS_SPOKE_ZARATHUSTRA_.aspx?S=2 - Cached
Furthermore, unlike Teilhard, you do NOT get back anything like an Aristotelian final cause in your theory (as you suggested that you do, in our brief exchange last night).
Retro-causation (Future to Past influence) = Final Cause in my book
What you referred to as a 'final cause' would be, in Aristotelian terms, just another kind of efficient causality – an efficient retro-causality affecting the past from out of the future. Final cause, for Aristotle and for Teilhard, is apriori – in other words both universal and necessary.
So they got it partly wrong. ;-) I saying what they would have said if they knew modern physics - a counter-factual definite allegation. Or you can say, I am saying what they should have said had they had sufficient knowledge of future discoveries. It's obvious to me that they and other poetic visionaries came quite close to what will be the ultimate cosmic narrative - the mainstream memes - in my opinion. Or you can say I stand on their shoulders? ;-)
While you call your Omega Computer the 'mind of God' it is not at all universal or necessary in this sense.
I don't understand how you use "universal" and "necessary" and why they are important? I think Richard Feynman would dismiss them as philofawzical quibbles.
It is more like a demiurge than the mind of any 'God', and while there might be similar demiurges in other universes, there might also be many other universes without one at all, or where life never even evolved, or where it evolved and was immediately snuffed out.
Precisely - that is chaotic inflation theory. OK so God is an Afghan Cosmic Warlord - His Fiefdom is our observable universe sandwiched between our past and our future horizons. Note that the cosmological diagrams are very coarse grained where a point is an entire galaxy - so we are only giving a rough picture.
Our observable 'universe' should not be conflated with the 'universal'.
Red Herring, never said it was. Also the "universal" is not a useful idea in physics.
(I've always thought that to speak of parallel universeS is nonsense; "uni-verse" properly meant the one and only all-encompassing Cosmos – another term should be used for parallel subsets of this, and 'parallel words' is not much good either.)
That's because you have not studied how the term is actually used by physicists. I am a Wittgensteinian I suppose - the meaning is in the use.
At any rate, you can see that your theory is actually fundamentally opposed to Teilhard's theological view.
I don't think so. Even if it was, it does not matter. What matters is that there is a VALIS in our future in this theory and that is the essence of what Teilhard was saying.
You allow for an ultimately meaningless Cosmos (with this computer projected universe as a subset of it), ...
I never said that. I don't know how you inferred that from my talk? I think your notion of a "computer" is too narrow. Look at Commander Data in Star Trek - does not an AI have aspirations, emotions even?
... while his whole project is to restore man at the center of a divinely meaningful, purposively teleological, Cosmos.
Exactly what I said. You have inverted my message.
Let's start with these three points. I would very much appreciate your responses to these objections and reflections. I return to our native New York tomorrow night, and hope to see you there some day in the not too distant future.