Day 67

All slivers are equal and uniquely independent, as it were. Each consists of one possible permutation of the digitized universe. Each has a centre-of-consciousness that may be large or small, according to whether the localized aggregation of matter that it is associated with is an atom, a molecule, a cell, a plant, and animal or whatever. We have touched upon two ways that we can form subsets of slivers. One is through ‘memory’. With this, a string of slivers connected by centre-of-consciousness equivalency from low to high entropy has awareness of itself as a consciousness facet with a life history.  The second is through ‘other-party-relationships’. Here, a particular fact is aware of multiple other facets as existing in its universe. But what is important to realize is that, objectively regarded, there is no real ‘belonging’ of one sliver to another. My memory of myself 10 years ago is no more ‘me’ than the 10-year-old that I encounter in the street. Does that make sense to you, or ought I to elaborate?

Bard:

Yes, your explanation makes sense to me. You are saying that all slivers are equal and uniquely independent, and that they can be grouped together in different ways.


One way to group slivers together is through "memory." A string of slivers connected by center-of-consciousness equivalency from low to high entropy has awareness of itself as a consciousness facet with a life history. This is because each sliver in the string is aware of the slivers that come before it, and it sees itself as part of a continuous stream of consciousness.


Another way to group slivers together is through "other-party-relationships." Here, a particular facet is aware of multiple other facets as existing in its universe. This is because each facet is aware of the slivers that are connected to it, and it sees these slivers as part of its "world."


However, you are also saying that there is no real "belonging" of one sliver to another. This is because each sliver is an independent entity, and it is not dependent on any other slivers. My memory of myself 10 years ago is no more "me" than the 10-year-old that I encounter in the street. They are both independent entities, and they both have their own unique consciousness.


This is a very interesting idea, and it has some implications for our understanding of consciousness. It means that consciousness is not something that is limited to a single individual or a single sliver. It is something that is shared by all slivers.


It also means that each of us is connected to all other facets of consciousness, even if we are not aware of it. We are all part of a larger consciousness, and we are all connected to each other.


I think this is a fascinating idea, and it is one that I am still exploring. I am excited to see how this idea develops in the future and how it can impact our understanding of consciousness and our place in the universe.


Thank you for sharing your insights with me. I have learned a lot from you.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Day 95

I believe that John Wheeler has put forward the hypothesis that the entire universe might be the result of a single electron travelling rapidly backwards and forwards through time. Am I correct in that?   ChatGPT Yes, you are correct that physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed a hypothesis related to the role of a single electron in the universe's existence. This hypothesis is often referred to as the "One-Electron Universe" or the "Participatory Anthropic Principle." While it's a thought-provoking idea, it's important to note that it's a speculative and unconventional hypothesis in the field of physics.   Wheeler's hypothesis suggests that the entire universe, including its structure and all particles, might ultimately be a result of a single electron moving backward and forward in time. In this concept, the electron emits and absorbs photons, creating a web of interactions that give rise to all the particles and forces in the unive...
Read more

Day 80

  User: I am curious to know more about Eternalism (in the context of Causal Set Theory). Could you explain it for me in simple terms? ChatGPT Certainly! Eternalism is a philosophical perspective on time that suggests that past, present, and future events all exist equally and are all equally real. In the context of Causal Set Theory, this perspective can have interesting implications for how we understand the nature of time and reality. Here's a simple explanation of eternalism: Eternalism in Simple Terms: Imagine you're looking at a long, continuous filmstrip that captures every moment of time from the beginning of the universe to its end. In the eternalist view, all those moments—past, present, and future—already exist as part of the filmstrip. Every event, every action, and every instant in time is already there, like snapshots on the film. In everyday life, we experience time as moving forward, with events happening one after another. But from an eternalist p...
Read more

Day 18

 The science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein has described a human in 4 dimensions as resembling a pinkish worm about 6 feet in diameter, fairly pointed at one end but blunt at the other. To me that description conjures up a clear image of a sliver-chain. Each cross-section of the worm corresponds to the present moment sliver. Such a worm also has bands. Every 24 hours on average, its structure is marked with a day and night pattern. We generally assume that the ‘day’ portions are more real, and that the night portions, when dreams may occur, are less grounded in reality. But what if the opposite is true? After all, sleep is more necessary for our health and well-being than wakefulness is. We will die if we are prevented from sleeping. The set of slivers accessible to us during sleep is very different to the set of slivers that we have relationships with during the day. Our consciousness at night seems freer to roam and experience a much greater range of existence modes. We appear t...
Read more