12 Successful Predictions of Mental Reality Theory

_{William Murray

October 15, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“Matter” cannot be found to exist in any experiential reality.
Consciousness is fundamental to observational measurement.
The fundamental behaviors of reality can only be explained, or properly characterized, in terms of abstract concepts, such as mathematics, probabilities and logic.
Information, and the logical/mathematic processing of information including necessary observational state variables, will be found to be the root of reality.
Information transfer is fundamentally instantaneous and not intrinsically limited by either time or space.
The mind can directly affect what we call the physical world because the mind is an essential variable in how information is processed into the experience we call “reality.”
Individual minds, or consciousnesses, survive what we call “death.”
Individual minds, or consciousnesses, preceded birth.
Other experiential realities potentially exist and are distinguished from each other by variances in the set of information and the information processing algorithms that express reality experience parameters and results.
These “reality” sets of experience can be shared by anyone accessing the same same base set of information and algorithmic interpretation.
The capacity to visit and have shared experiences in this and of other realities only requires the mental capacity to switch one’s attention from one information/algorithm set to another, and have a broad enough set of identity-defining information that can include this kind of experience.
Potentially, trans-reality set communication is possible.

All of these predictions have been successfully evidenced, including the ones listed as “potential”. The theory doesn’t predict those are necessary extrapolations of the theory, but might be the case depending on whether or not there exist alternate algorithms that can produce identity-sustaining experience sets that differ qualitatively from each other. Since we already have evidence of these alternate realities and have succeeded in visiting there and establishing communication, these potentials have been discovered as valid.

Comments

Mike1962 - I made a new post on this topic. The OMG TOO LONG I don't wanna read all that version: I have said before it's impossible to deny the value of the external physical world theory. In one sense it's true - we have made a lot of scientific progress under that model. However, in comparison to what MRT could have provided and prevented, the overall effect has been disastrous, not just for science, but for the human condition as well.William J Murray_{October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

WJM All I’m outlining here is what I believe to be a better model on all four counts. How does your model improve upon #3 and #4 in any pragmatic way. What predictions does your model make that the "standard" "commonly-held physical reality model" does not? Sidebar: I lean towards the universe as "virtual reality" given what quantum entanglement, erasure, delayed choice, etc., is telling us if the Copenhagen interpretation is assumed. I find the other interpretations to assume things not in evidence while denying the basic fact of my existence: consciousness as primary. So I'm not averse to what your proposing or anything else merely because it's "different."mike1962_{October 21, 2020
October
10
Oct
21
21
2020
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Thank you, William. I had to look up Mandela Effect to see what that meant, but I also have had long-held understandings change when I revisted things I thought I knew about. That's one of the values of discussing things with people in a productive environment.Viola Lee_{October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Mike1962,
By the way, when I wrote, “Shut up and get some humility”, this wasn’t against you personally.
No worries. I didn't take it that way.
Yeah. If you can’t use words to describe the conscious difference between red and blue, how do you suppose you could explain Ultimately Reality with words?
Then let's characterize what I'm doing here in the following manner. People create operational models of their existence. Usually, this involves the model of being a conscious physical being in a shared, objective, independently existing external physical world. Other people have other models. Let's say the value of the model depends on four factors: 1. Does the model account for self-evident and necessary truths? 2. Does the model fit current experience? 3. Is the model useful in terms of predicting future experiences? 4. Does the model provide a framework for expanding testable applications in developing future experiences? There's no denying the value of the commonly-held physical reality model according to this criteria. All I'm outlining here is what I believe to be a better model on all four counts.William J Murray_{October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @74: Wow, talk about a mind-blowing Mandela Effect moment! I just looked it up and it bears little resemblance to what I read many years ago, and definitely doesn't have the meaning I've been assigning to it (at least in this reality.) Thanks for the challenge that led me to this update. I'm going to stop using it.William J Murray_{October 20, 2020
October
10
Oct
20
20
2020
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

WJM, By the way, when I wrote, "Shut up and get some humility", this wasn't against you personally. Just a kind of a re-stating of Psalms 46:10* to everyone who has "ears to hear." *I do not believe it is "divinely inspired scripture", but I do think it's a pretty good operating philosophy for humans.mike1962_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Me: Consider, readers, for a second, humans can’t even describe the difference between the conscious experience of red and blue. WJM: Do you mean other than “they look different?” Yeah. If you can't use words to describe the conscious difference between red and blue, how do you suppose you could explain Ultimately Reality with words? First things first. Tag: #Follymike1962_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Q. I have a high school English teacher friend who teaches the Parable of the Cave in her senior English class, and a few times I have been invited as a guest to talk and lead a discussion on different metaphysical views of reality. Many of the students really liked thinking about these things, as the topic was fairly new to them.Viola Lee_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @74, Exactly! Nicely stated. -QQuerius_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

@WJM You say all experiences are mental which is true. You say there is no external reality which obviously is false. You can ask a 3 year old if external reality exist and you can trust his/her answer.JohnB_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

William writes of Plato's Parable of the Cave,
The allegory of the cave is fundamentally flawed. There are shadows on the wall that you cannot explain in terms of your current correlation of objects in the cave and shadows on the wall. You decide that there is something “outside” the cave that is casting those shadows.
Actually, it is a fire within the cave that is casting the shadows. The ideal Platonic forms are the real "objects" and what we see are the shadows, just as, for a classic example, the real circle is the perfect mathematical circle and we see it manifested in the shadows on the wall. Going outside the cave into the sunlight represents a further state of enlightenment. Once one recognizes the truth of the Platonic nature of things in the world, and adjusts one's vision to the brightness of the fire, one is prepared to go further, out of the cave and into the sunlight, which represents the pure Platonic understanding of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. But it is not the sun outside the cave casting the shadows, it's the fire inside the cave. At least, that's how I understand it.Viola Lee_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

JohnB said:
Well is very simple : to make any judgment you use thoughts and all thoughts are “metaphysical believes”. Logic, maths , morality, imagination are all metaphysical believes among others personal believes like “opinions, values, principles, emotions, preferences”. After all MRT got at least one thing right.
That's not what MRT says.William J Murray_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

John, I think we have a very different idea about what "metaphysical beliefs" are. I think you are saying that the elements of my mind, like thoughts and beliefs, are immaterial things, and even when I experience and think about the external world, I am having to trust my mind. I wouldn't disagree with that, if that is what you are saying.Viola Lee_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Well is very simple : to make any judgment you use thoughts and all thoughts are "metaphysical believes". Logic, maths , morality, imagination are all metaphysical believes among others personal believes like "opinions, values, principles, emotions, preferences". :) After all MRT got at least one thing right. There is not even one thought that doesn't involve a BELIEF. To do science first you have to believe=have faith in logic and math .Why is this a belief ? Because logic ,math can't be scientifically proven( would be circular reasoning).To write a message here you have to believe your mind is working . After you believe your mind is working you have to believe your mind's "value hierarchy "( another mental construct built from many smaller beliefs)is closer to truth than others people. Bottom line :As crazy as it might sound: your green door involve also a chain of beliefs exactly like a religion .JohnB_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Querius said:
Actually, Plato addressed your question initially, but let me ask you, “How could you determine that there’s not an outside?”
The allegory of the cave is fundamentally flawed. There are shadows on the wall that you cannot explain in terms of your current correlation of objects in the cave and shadows on the wall. You decide that there is something "outside" the cave that is casting those shadows. This assumes there there is an opening that is allowing information from outside the cave to be cast on the wall in the form of a shadow. The problem is this: there cannot be an opening to the cave. It's literally impossible for there to be an opening from the cave of mental experience to something else. It's a fundamentally flawed visualization of the "problem" it is supposed to represent. The allegory is itself rooted in the assumption that something can exist outside of the cave, which is, ultimately, as nonsensical a proposition as 4-sided triangles. The cave we are talking about is mind, not a cave. You can imagine something existing outside of a cave; you cannot imagine something existing outside of mind. The allegory of the cave is nonsensical as an attempt to characterize mental experience.William J Murray_{October 19, 2020
October
10
Oct
19
19
2020
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, JohnB.Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

You used a limited(subjective) metaphysical belief unprovable scientific to assert an objective truth (that you presupposed through a second metaphysical belief) while other ideeas must be false:
metaphysical beliefs are a limited human construct.

we have all sorts of opinions, values, principles, emotions, preferences, etc. that can be very important to us but aren’t true in the same way the existence of my green door is true
...but,but ,but ...you use some principles to make a value statement( about your door)whilst you destroy same principle you just used...JohnB_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

JohnB, I didn't say that we don't have the intelligence or tools to gain scientific knowledge, although all scientific truth is provisional because new facts can change it, sometimes in just small ways, and sometimes in larger ways. (And actually, I'm thinking of science here very broadly as facts based on empirical experience that can be shared and consensually confirmed with others: the fact that my front door is green with one small window is empirically true and would not be denied by a normal person even though it is not part of any formal scientific body of knowledge.) Although I didn't mention religion specifically, yes, I think metaphysical beliefs are a limited human construct. They are also a different kind of thing than scientific beliefs. Also, metaphysical beliefs aren't the only kind of non-scientific beliefs we have: we have all sorts of opinions, values, principles, emotions, preferences, etc. that can be very important to us but aren't true in the same way the existence of my green door is true.Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

@Viola Lee Well,maybe I didn't understand...so you believe truth can't be known because in the science we don't have tools and intelligence and on the other side religion is also a limited subjective human construct?
I believe strongly that our scientific understanding can progress, and that paradigm shifts do happen as time goes by

I prefer to be practical, accept my epistemological limitations, and see metaphysical beliefs as useful narratives that are, however, not “true” in any objective sense.
JohnB_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @62, Yep, exactly. -QQuerius_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Hi JohnB. You might notice that I said that I believe there is more to our beliefs and understandings than scientific knowledge.Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

@Viola Lee Science is not the answer. Study of composition of a brick(atom) can't explain the purpose of cathedral (universe). Limit of science is obvious. If God exist then Morality is the answer because is accessible to everyone ,poor or rich, dumb or genius,anytime,everywhere.JohnB_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Hi Q. This is a side topic, but even though Life is a "time-independent finite-state" simulation, there is no reason one couldn't run it with a very, very small constant time period between generations, essentially producing the illusion of constant change and motion. In fact, the question of whether the universe as we know it is ultimately discrete in respect to time, space, gravity, and quantum events is an open question. Rovelli's book "Reality Is Not What It Seems" addresses this issue. And if we want to be science-fictiony about it, it could be that there are pauses between what we perceive as moments of time, but we wouldn't/couldn't notice them because the state of our being, as one of the discrete states, would only be aware of the next state, not the pauses between states. :-)Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Viola. William J Murray,
The allegory of the cave assumes there’s an “outside” of the cave. What if there is not?
Notice that the fire in the cave that's behind the prisoners casts the shadows from the objects in front of the fire onto the wall. The shadows are real so by experience we know that the objects in the cave are real. Actually, Plato addressed your question initially, but let me ask you, "How could you determine that there's not an outside?" P.S. Did you see what I meant with the time-independent finite-state machine patterns? There are several types of fliers in Life and similar CAs. -QQuerius_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Q. I believe strongly that our scientific understanding can progress, and that paradigm shifts do happen as time goes by, but human foibles and fallibility make it a messy affair. I also agree that, as you say, "Science and math team up to create a succession of improved models of causes and effects." FWIW, however, there is more to our beliefs and understandings than scientific knowledge. But whatever the case, I disagree with William, who believes "that the nature of our existence is knowable for any sentient, intelligent creature with any assortment of experiential limitations." I think our consciousness, mind, and intelligence are wonderful aspects of our nature, but I don't think they are such that they transcend all limitations concerning our ability to know the "root of reality".Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

The allegory of the cave assumes there's an "outside" of the cave. What if there is not?William J Murray_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Good points, Viola, and I agree with you, William J Murray. Here's my perspective. Science and math team up to create a succession of improved models of causes and effects. We don't know whether they are true, but they are temporarily useful. Pragmatism. We appear to be trapped in Plato's cave, but we also hear people who claim insights, mostly false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA Change in scientific understanding is based on experimental results that challenge the current thinking. However, new insights and theories are usually rejected until enough of the proponents of the status quo pass away. As Max Planck famously stated this principle:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Thus, after nearly 100 years, physicists and philosophers are still struggling to preserve materialism and determinism. There are four primary factors involved in our scientific pathology: 1. A flood of crackpot ideas that must be fought off. 2. The momentum from a flood or published papers with irreproducible experimental results. 3. The momentum of academic books and teaching that haven't kept up or are doctrinaire. 4. A destabilization of academic and professional power structures and jealousies that are hostile to new participants. On point 3 above, consider that most courses still teach that lift from wings is due to the Bernoulli's Principle. This would disprove the idea that airplanes can fly upside down, which is experimentally falsifiable. Nevertheless, it still appears in books and on tests. For more information on the lift controversy, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Fluids/airfoil.html -QQuerius_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @ 56: I'm also a pragmatist - actually a philosophical pragmatist. I adopt models for their practical benefit in my life, not because I assign them as "objectively true." However, I do find it practical to find the most efficient model that involves the least risk and the most potential reward while proving highly useful in the here an now. That means I explore various models to assess their potential. We do have limited experiential capabilities, but a good question to explore is what those capabilities are actually limited by. Are they limited by physical constraints or mental? As you can probably see just from that question, there could be an enormous difference. It's sort of like when people believed it was impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes. It was considered an experiential limitation. After Bannister accomplished it, it became more common. Why is that? Was it because physical bodies changed? Physics? Or did it have more to do with Bannister visualizing himself breaking it and believing he could, and once others saw it could be done, their internal limitations, or beliefs, were broken down by his example? Furthermore, the idea that our experiential limitations mean we cannot understand - at least in principle - the nature of our existence would require that we know the nature of our existence for that claim to be a rational assessment. It's essentially an argument that can't be made without knowing the nature of the very thing one assumes cannot be known. It could also be that the nature of our existence - at least in principle - is knowable for any sentient, intelligent creature with any assortment of experiential limitations. In fact, I posit that this is in fact the case. Is there any place any sentient, intelligent creature can have an experience except in mind? If not, then the nature of our existence is one of mental reality, and the existential principles derived from that perspective aren't all that difficult to comprehend from any experiential perspective. Like logic, mathematics and geometry.William J Murray_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Because we have limited experiential capabilities of the world that do not extend past certain boundaries, and do not reach the level of "ultimate reality". Also, history shows that human beings are endlessly inventive in making up stories to account for what we really don't know. I prefer to be practical, accept my epistemological limitations, and see metaphysical beliefs as useful narratives that are, however, not "true" in any objective sense.Viola Lee_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee said:
I think that Mike 1962 is almost certainly correct when he wrote, "Whatever Ultimate Reality is (the “root” reality), is beyond human description, apprehension, reason, etc.? Something…. totally… “other”?"
Why do you think that?William J Murray_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply