The Much Coveted Jump Factor - Friend or Foe

[morricab]

You can use that quote on the stupid Multiverse, which is in principle unobservable, and thus will always remain a purely mathematical construct that has nothing to do with genuine science.

Same for string theory, which is an embarrassment for real science.

OT, Al, but what model to you think best describes the Universe? The one where we are actually on the inside of a black hole already is interesting as is the "living" in a simulation.

 

[Al M.]

OT, Al, but what model to you think best describes the Universe? The one where we are actually on the inside of a black hole already is interesting as is the "living" in a simulation.

Those models may be interesting, but are not science. The wider origin of the universe is not for science to answer, since observations 'beyond' the Big Bang are physically impossible. As an analytical chemist, Brad, you know very well that science is based on observation and experiment (as an experimental biochemist I am acutely aware of that too). Mathematical models are useful and necessary to interpret these, but on their own they are not science. Unfortunately in their misguided hubris some theoretical physicists want to pervert the meaning of science, but in the end they will not succeed. I hate fake science just as much as I hate fake news.

From a philosophical perspective I have my own ideas about the origin and nature of the universe, but these necessarily go beyond what science can probe. For the reason mentioned, there cannot be a 'scientific' view of what caused the Big Bang, or if we live in a simulation or not, for example.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I believe the term Jump Factor was created for The Big Bang.

 

[Al M.]

ROFL!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, if you really must do that, you may well find the screw you lost on the floor a few months back. That'll really give you quite the Jump Factor.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Those models may be interesting, but are not science. The wider origin of the universe is not for science to answer, since observations 'beyond' the Big Bang are physically impossible. As an analytical chemist, Brad, you know very well that science is based on observation and experiment (as an experimental biochemist I am acutely aware of that too). Mathematical models are useful and necessary to interpret these, but on their own they are not science. Unfortunately in their misguided hubris some theoretical physicists want to pervert the meaning of science, but in the end they will not succeed. I hate fake science just as much as I hate fake news.

From a philosophical perspective I have my own ideas about the origin and nature of the universe, but these necessarily go beyond what science can probe. For the reason mentioned, there cannot be a 'scientific' view of what caused the Big Bang, or if we live in a simulation or not, for example.

I love the observation of science and of separating out the perspective of the philosopher but maybe there is some evidence Al that we do live in some grand simulation just by the number of us desperately seeking a simultaneous squeezing of a complete and perfect Boston Symphony into our living rooms.

 

[Al M.]

I love the observation of science and of separating out the perspective of the philosopher but maybe there is some evidence Al that we do live in some grand simulation just by the number of us desperately seeking a simultaneous squeezing of a complete and perfect Boston Symphony into our living rooms.

Hehe, sure, but I don't believe in the simulation . What we humans do is just too crazy for that.

 

[DaveC]

Buddhists believe the totality of existence is unknowable as human beings because we are inhabitants of a lower realm, samsara. IMO, the Samsaric portion of reality we live in is probably very similar to a simulation, or maybe a mass hallucination. The way the world is put together makes this seem very likely, the fact the math is the same for all physical phenomenon is a huge clue.

 

[the sound of Tao]

So perception is simulation, the phenomenon of experience a constant coexistence of shared points and the innate temporal jumps between retention (the past experience) the present experience and expectation of the future experience... jump factor chases reality... a convoluted argument flowing outwards and therefore seeking the inevitable return (and safely back again on the dry land of the original topic... sorta kinda).

 

[Al M.]

Buddhists believe the totality of existence is unknowable as human beings because we are inhabitants of a lower realm, samsara. IMO, the Samsaric portion of reality we live in is probably very similar to a simulation, or maybe a mass hallucination. The way the world is put together makes this seem very likely, the fact the math is the same for all physical phenomenon is a huge clue.

That the math is the same througout the universe is indeed a gigantic clue, as is the apparent extreme fine-tuning of the physical constants. But to me philosophically this points to something entirely different, not a simulation or mass hallucination.

 

[Al M.]

So perception is simulation, the phenomenon of experience a constant coexistence of shared points and the innate temporal jumps between retention (the past experience) the present experience and expectation of the future experience... jump factor chases reality... a convoluted argument flowing outwards and therefore seeking the inevitable return (and safely back again on the dry land of the original topic... sorta kinda).

Good luck with getting back to the original topic . At least if the Big Bang provides the Jump Factor, there is a chance...

 

[the sound of Tao]

Ha... wise words Al. The jumps between varied states of perception (from memory Piaget referred to it as sharp change) is what I think jump factor actually is, that dynamic experience that snaps your perception into the focal point of the music in an exciting way and then holds you there and the excitement is heightened by the sharp (instantaneous) temporal shift.

 

[DaveC]

That the math is the same througout the universe is indeed a gigantic clue, as is the apparent extreme fine-tuning of the physical constants. But to me philosophically this points to something entirely different, not a simulation or mass hallucination.

Language makes it difficult... IMO our reality is likely a preschool of sorts, something/someplace to train the mind. Currently, very few of us has much mental stability, we can't maintain an unbroken stream of consciousness and don't have a firm grasp on cause and effect. Much of what we do is unconscious reactions based on our previous experiences and actions, with much less deviation from this than we might think... to the point some scientists have questioned free will as being an illusion. I think the goal of our existence here is to master our mind and comprehend reality without filters.

Whether or not we currently reside in a literal simulation or some sort of natural arising of unconscious mind is hard to say and maybe impossible to actually know for now.

I do know from being around more advanced Buddhists that it is certainly possible to maintain an unbroken stream of consciousness that never wavers, to make decisions and act/speak consciously all the time, and to perceive things as they actually are. The issue is, there may only be a few people on Earth that have accomplished this at any given time.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I think the problem itself may be in thinking... there is a case to consider that this reality is not at all about thinking but rather it is about being... we are after all human beings and not human thinkings.

According to Buddhist tradition Gautama Buddha is not the only Buddha set for this age, there is also predicted the Buddha that comes, the Maitreya, who may not be centred so much in enlightenment but more so in an even more central kind of kindness. For we may be even more human kind than we may ever be human enlightened. But as we kindly digress OT so i’ll just jump factor right out there.

 

[DaveC]

I think the problem itself may be in thinking... there is a case to consider that this reality is not at all about thinking but rather it is about being... we are after all human beings and not human thinkings.

According to Buddhist tradition Gautama Buddha is not the only Buddha set for this age, there is also predicted the Buddha that comes, the Maitreya, who may not be centred so much in enlightenment but more so in an even more central kind of kindness. For we may be even more human kind than we may ever be human enlightened. But as we kindly digress OT so i’ll just jump factor right out there.

I think you are right!

Well, thinking in and of it's self is no problem and can be useful at times... but clinging to thoughts that arise is a huge problem. Thoughts are often replays of the past or fantasies about the future displayed to us by ego, and clinging to them distracts you from the present moment... not only that it may make you dissatisfied with the present moment. Ego is also the source of wishing for our own happiness, which is the cause of all of our suffering. IMO thoughts define the human experience and are a characteristic of the untamed mind, simply "being" is a very advanced activity that a massive majority of humans are not capable of.

If you define "being" as thoughts not arising from ego, then that is also the natural state of mind... it is what we are here to find, or to remember.

Maitreya is the Buddha of the next age, there are a lot of stories... for me it's hard to know how literal any of them are. But he arrives after Shakyamuni's teachings have all but disappeared and unfortunately, the next 1000 years or so are predicted to be degenerate and marked by decreasing lifespans and more difficulties. Seems about right with the climate and pollution issues we currently face...

 

[the sound of Tao]

Dave love the above. Without treading to deeply on this I see the notion that any cycle has a moving out and a returning phase. With the evolution of human kind (not just Buddhism) the movement of the last few thousand years has been outward and upward and into the light. We are I believe more than enlightened enough but perhaps what we aren’t as a species is particularly kind. The enlightenment of civilisation fired up humanity and now the planet is burning. The cure for fire is always water... the next age will be very much about water.

With regards to Buddhism and the philosophy it would make sense that if there is to be a next phase, a next Buddha, then it would not likely be just more of the same but rather a signal point of turning. A revolution. Whether Maitreya is imagined to be a literal or symbolic Buddha, and to be just the one or to be the many is not perhaps important but Maitreya is being kind and that is the central tenet of that way forward.

Given the nature of the world ahead I do believe we only have two choices. To continue the predator model or for us to become the herd. I believe/hope/wish that kindness is the way we find and that we nurture, shepherd and care for and not continue to recklessly consume, compete and destroy. So to become at last truly human kind... to become still, to let go, to fall back in and to dissolve, this is the way to completion.

 

[morricab]

Dave love the above. Without treading to deeply on this I see the notion that any cycle has a moving out and a returning phase. With the evolution of human kind (not just Buddhism) the movement of the last few thousand years has been outward and upward and into the light. We are I believe more than enlightened enough but perhaps what we aren’t as a species is particularly kind. The enlightenment of civilisation fired up humanity and now the planet is burning. The cure for fire is always water... the next age will be very much about water.

With regards to Buddhism and the philosophy it would make sense that if there is to be a next phase, a next Buddha, then it would not likely be just more of the same but rather a signal point of turning. A revolution. Whether Maitreya is imagined to be a literal or symbolic Buddha, and to be just the one or to be the many is not perhaps important but Maitreya is being kind and that is the central tenet of that way forward.

Given the nature of the world ahead I do believe we only have two choices. To continue the predator model or for us to become the herd. I believe/hope/wish that kindness is the way we find and that we nurture, shepherd and care for and not continue to recklessly consume, compete and destroy. So to become at last truly human kind... to become still, to let go, to fall back in and to dissolve, this is the way to completion.

And yet, science has shown that the brain size of Homo Sapiens has gotten smaller over the last 25,000 years from its peak during the last Ice Age. We have lost approximately 10% of our brain size (1.5L vs. 1.35L today). So, if there is any kind of physical evolution in Man it is in a direction that perhaps we didn't want to go. It seems that it accelerated once we stopped being nomads and then started specialization of tasks, provided a basic level of protection for people in need etc. In modern times, you can survive and reproduce without much worry of survival...at least in the western world but increasingly worldwide. If there is an evolution upward it is more of a cultural upward trend and not a true evolutionary trend it seems. I think there is little question in science that intelligence is directly linked to computing power and so far, at least on this planet, the human brain was the pinnacle of that computing power. All the complexity of our current societies derives from the ability to abstract beyond ourselves and to encompass others and others actions in our own actions leading to civilization. If that dwindles too much, you might see civilization collapse. It took us 2 million years to get to 1.5L and only 25K years to lose 10%...think about it...

I think we have always had a predator class and herd class of humans...maybe psychology will find out that the predators were humans that are deficient in empathy (i.e. sociopathic) towards their fellow man. It seems that certain professions have a higher percentage of those types of people...politics, big business etc. There are a couple of books out there on the subject. Possibly nobility classes were similar in the middle ages?? Don't know if someone has looked carefully into this or not.

 

[morricab]

Those models may be interesting, but are not science. The wider origin of the universe is not for science to answer, since observations 'beyond' the Big Bang are physically impossible. As an analytical chemist, Brad, you know very well that science is based on observation and experiment (as an experimental biochemist I am acutely aware of that too). Mathematical models are useful and necessary to interpret these, but on their own they are not science. Unfortunately in their misguided hubris some theoretical physicists want to pervert the meaning of science, but in the end they will not succeed. I hate fake science just as much as I hate fake news.

From a philosophical perspective I have my own ideas about the origin and nature of the universe, but these necessarily go beyond what science can probe. For the reason mentioned, there cannot be a 'scientific' view of what caused the Big Bang, or if we live in a simulation or not, for example.

I disagree that it is not really science. It is true that there is a limit to which the scientific method can be followed as no real experiment can be constructed to be potentially falsified. However, this is a more modern interpretation of science due in part to Popper and his philosophy of science.

There has been a number of cosmic observations that spark the development of these hypotheses and the math to construct them. Things like the cosmic background radiation, for example and black holes. The predictions of dark matter, which seems to be real but so far undetectable. These are all observations that led us to understand that the "standard model" was inadquate.

I do agree that there is now a return to a sort of science and philosophy confluence as there was many hundreds or thousands of years ago; however, in the past this was due to ignorance of the tools of science to test ideas and currently it is due again to a lack of tools to experimentally test the ideas that the math suggests could be true. Maybe we will never gain those tools but maybe we will. That the math suggests some things is probably better evidence than what our ancestors had to work with.

 

[morricab]

Back OT. Last night I went with my wife, MWG and Christoph to Exil club in Zürich to hear Nik Bärtsch's Ronin in concert. This is a smallish music club in the heart of a rennovated industrial area of Zürich that has a number of cool music clubs and bars (and is the temporary home of the Tonhalle Orchestra). Nik is an ECM recording artist that makes a type of repetitive and minimalistic jazz that he calls Zen Funk. It includes a lot of bass and percussion to have a driving and sometimes very funky groove. Nik is on piano and there is also a bass clarinetist/saxophonist in addition to electric bass and drums. We sat in the second row and while the concert was amplified ...it was not much as far as those things go and we sat so close we got tons of direct sound...particularly from the drums!

Simply put, it had jump factor in Spades! The music often progressed from slower passages to absolutely explosive outbursts that frankly startled me several times. No, I didn't jump out of my seat but more than once my attention was grabbed, shaken and stirred. The ferocity of some attacks on the cymbals or snare were surprising. Given the size of the venue, it surprised me that the drummer was really going full bore and not softening his blows at all. Also, the bass hit you in waves but was tight and driving...no boom but unlike what you can get in a home system (perhaps recording limited?). As if I needed any more examples of jump factor and the ability to startle live this was a perfect example.

 

[the sound of Tao]

And yet, science has shown that the brain size of Homo Sapiens has gotten smaller over the last 25,000 years from its peak during the last Ice Age. We have lost approximately 10% of our brain size (1.5L vs. 1.35L today). So, if there is any kind of physical evolution in Man it is in a direction that perhaps we didn't want to go. It seems that it accelerated once we stopped being nomads and then started specialization of tasks, provided a basic level of protection for people in need etc. In modern times, you can survive and reproduce without much worry of survival...at least in the western world but increasingly worldwide. If there is an evolution upward it is more of a cultural upward trend and not a true evolutionary trend it seems. I think there is little question in science that intelligence is directly linked to computing power and so far, at least on this planet, the human brain was the pinnacle of that computing power. All the complexity of our current societies derives from the ability to abstract beyond ourselves and to encompass others and others actions in our own actions leading to civilization. If that dwindles too much, you might see civilization collapse. It took us 2 million years to get to 1.5L and only 25K years to lose 10%...think about it...

I think we have always had a mixed predator class and herd class of humans...maybe psychology will find out that the predators were humans that are deficient in empathy (i.e. sociopathic) towards their fellow man. It seems that certain professions have a higher percentage of those types of people...politics, big business etc. There are a couple of books out there on the subject. Possibly nobility classes were similar in the middle ages?? Don't know if someone has looked carefully into this or not.

Yes, we have been part predator part herd since pre Neanderthal but going forwards the issue for us as the predator is that it tends to consume and grow in an almost linear way which is great for the predator as long as resources are infinite. Which they aren’t. Predators eat and grow till they eat everything and then leave themselves nothing to eat and nowhere to go.

Brad the trend in brain size might not equate directly with the spread of enlightenment which i believe is an issue for us as a species. Enlightenment, knowledge and education has most certainly been on the upwards trend in terms of traditional quotients and certainly a generally increasing movement towards a greater conscious awareness while perhaps also then a diminishing connection with the unconscious. This growth towards the light of the conscious has been a trend since the initial rise out of the great river cultures (Nile, Yangtze, Ganges, Tigris and Euphrates) and then became expanding, invading and colonising cultures and it’s been especially on steroids post the Industrial Age and also the accompanying great expansion of a growing educated middle class. Life and culture was initially born out of the water. I believe that is where the return to engagement with the feeling nature could be our salvation as perhaps we view the connection with the unconscious as a shared potential point of developing super consciousness.

So information has been on the rise for thousands of years but perhaps wisdom has been on the fall over that same period. These are I believe phases of development and that empirical knowing, science, information and technical understanding certainly have been the principle focus on the radar for the last few hundred years especially. Not that this is essentially bad but rather just in some ways essentially a phase that now needs redressing because in the water of the unconscious and instinct is also our innate knowing that may even outcompute the computer but more importantlyour more instinctual, intuitive and even savant selves may also be even a greater compass to our survival and development than our conscious selves.