I’ve been looking into the evidence for morphic resonance from Rupert sheldrake and people who agree with him and I’m pretty convinced.psychic staring effectmice learning cell cultures getting better at surviving and multiplying in toxic environments mice learning to solve mazes from their parents or mice separate from them etc>This is the key part. Using the same strain and setup, both the trained line and a parallel untrained control line showed progressive, marked improvements in learning speed over generations. Rats in Melbourne (and to some extent Edinburgh) started performing at levels comparable to the end of the Harvard series i.e., they began “where the Harvard rats left off” and continued improving. The improvement was not confined to descendants of trained parents, and statistical analysis showed that factors like general vigor/fertility explained only a small part (~16%) of the variance. The effect was across the breed, not just lineage-specific.I also worry morphic resonance or whatever this is is sort of difficult to prove because it won’t allow itself to be proved like when you start measuring and documenting it disappears but idk
The psychic staring effect (scopaesthesia)Key data (tens of thousands of trials across his 21 experiments + 37 school/college sets):Results: 55% correct overall (55-65% on looking trials, 50% on not-looking; highly significant, often p < 10^-6 to 10^-376 in aggregates). Hits rise with more repitation Sheldrake (1998) school experiments: https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Experiments-in-Schools.pdf Sheldrake (1999/2000) “confirmed by simple experiments”https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Confirmed-by-Simple-Experiments.pdfSheldrake (2005) JCS overview (Part 1): https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Part-1-Is-it-Real-or-Illusory.pdf (includes NeMo Science Centre’s 18,700-trial dataset)Sheldrake (2005) Part 2 (implications): https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/The-Sense-of-Being-Stared-At-Part-2-Its-Implications-for-Theories-of-Vision.pdf Full book The Sense of Being Stared At (2003): https://archive.org/details/senseofbeingstar0000shelSchmidt et al. (2004) meta-analysis of 15 CCTV/physiological studies (positive effect d=0.13): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15142304/ Sheldrake research summary page (all papers + protocols): https://www.sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at2005 JCS special issue home: https://www.sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at
Maybe from the universe's history, it would be a compact formula that expands with photonic relaying.
has morphic resonance made any predictions that were subsequently confirmed by experiment, or does it only explain already-observed results?
>>16917545>>16918011Morphic resonance is magical thinking. You can't just lay claim to every spooky phenomena and cite them all as proof of your own particular spiritual worldview.
>>16918034>Reality isn't real and consciousness is all that exists.Physics/reality are an interface for consciousnesses to communicate with one another.You can see this testing conspiracy theory tech in private: it will work a bunch of the time, pretty much any time you believe it.If you get overly excited and show it to a physics PhD it will fall apart.If you show it non-physics-educated people, then stoner nerds, then nerds obsessed with physics but not formally educated, then those formally educated in physics but not working professionally in it, THEN a physics PhD, the effect will hold, but typically the physics PhD will obsess over it for a month or three then move on to something else because they never actually had a mind for physics to begin with (that's more or less what academia selects for these days.)Controlling reality in private is easy, pushing those effects to a wider audience is harder because reality is an interface to communicate, not a real thing. All parties involved need to be able to not necessarily make sense of or comprehend it, but for it to mesh with their own worldview/reality.A good example is relativity vs quantum mechanics - both are "real," both work, both have predictive capacity, and both are completely irreconcilable with one another - essentially two distinct rulesets for reality which were widely held by everyone who cared to look and accepted as truth by everyone else until they became real.Electrodynamics and aether theory imo pose the greatest potential currently to merge+expand on "physics," just keep in mind it's all a bunch of bs and try not to paint yourself (and everyone else) into a corner like they did with QM and GR by failing to understand that
>>16918058It’s a theory So is gravity
>>16918062It is not a theory. Theories make novel predictions which, if shown experimentally to be false, would falsify the theory as a whole.Morphic resonance is overfitting. It latches on to preexisting data points as justification for its existence.
>>16918062Morphic resonance is a hypothesis
>>16917545>the rats learn mazes without learning mazesInteresting. Have they ruled out something like this?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_HansIf rats can smell human fear, maybe they can smell human excitement as well, so the effect might be due to the researchers gradually developing irrational hopes and expectations rather than the rats developing irrational abilities.
>>16918134>rats take a right turn in a maze when they smell the labcoats getting exictedsounds totally plausible, lol
>>16918134>>16918520What about evidence for morphic resonance on the cellular level?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MC6ljzgRVfY36 minutes and 23 seconds into this video
>>16918134Sherlock Holmes will arrest a pretty lady at a dinner party because he smelt gunpowder and noticed a speck of blood on her shoe. The other dinner guests gasp in amazement. They all possess the same senses as Holmes, they had access to the same data, their brains just filtered it out. The rats don't even care about the dinner party, the blood and gunpowder are the things they even notice. I can't even begin to comprehend the hubris it takes to believe some bespectacled egghead with a clipboard is going to outsmart an animal like that, it's honestly baffling to me.
>>16918551Mice can’t pass a mirror test
>>16917545There is a self-similar informational, non-spatial and atemporal field substrateThis ""field"" is called Aether (and it also goes by countless other names)That's it, that's the rundownModern basedience depends on reddit tier materialist theories of the universe to keep the grift going, that's why they piss and shidd themselves in anger when Aether is mentioned anywhere lol
>>16919585>>16919585This mentions the Aether do you think it’s correct?>The aether theory bears special mention here due to the fact it is widely considered to be ruled out by the Michelson-Morley experiment. I'm sure there will be people who take offense at this concept, but the Michelson-Morley experiment did not rule out the aether as a viable theory. Contrary to popular interpretation, the Michelson-Morley experiment only ruled out a subset of aether theories positing a static aether - which itself is a laughable concept because if there were a static aether imparting drag everywhere the universe would have ground to a halt by now. >When the aether theory is mentioned within the context of this theory it is the relativistic version Morley believed in up to his death (after spending most of the remainder of his life following the famous Michelson-Morley experiment repeatedly proving the existence of a relativistic aether with numerous experiments involving induced aetheric flows.)
>>16919740https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm
>>16917545>Is something like morphic resonance probably true?It's not up for debate at this point. The biological reductionist paradigm pioneered by Dawkins and his ilk has failed entirely.
>>16918134You can't assume every single one of those scientists had the same exact range of emotions.
>>16918752>Mice can’t pass a mirror testMaybe if you ask politely and give them a piece of cheese they will teach you the difference between mice and rats.
>>16918061someone with an LLM subscription summarize this for me please
>>16920031For funzies I asked Brave's shitty LLM to summarize and evaluate it:SummaryThe text argues that:Physical reality is not objectively real, but rather a shared interface through which consciousnesses communicateBelief shapes reality, and anomalous/"conspiracy tech" effects work when believers are present but collapse under rigorous scrutinyAcademic physics selects against genuine insight, so PhDs debunk anomalous effects not because they're wrong, but because academia filters out true understandingQM and GR being irreconcilable is offered as evidence that "reality" is just competing belief-based rulesetsAether theory + electrodynamics are suggested as a more promising path forwardEvaluationThis is a mix of interesting philosophical intuitions and significant logical problems:Where it has merit:The philosophy of science does debate the nature of reality (instrumentalism, constructivism, etc.)QM/GR incompatibility is a genuine, unresolved problem in physicsWhere it breaks down:The "works when you believe it, fails under scrutiny" framework is unfalsifiable by design — it immunizes itself against any counterevidenceAether theory was experimentally ruled out (Michelson-Morley), not just academically dismissedDismissing credentialed skeptics as "never having a mind for physics" is a classic conspiracy reasoning patternOverall: This reads as a sophisticated-sounding but internally self-sealing worldview. The unfalsifiability is the core weakness.
>Clearly communicating in a different way>Morphic resonanceembarrassing
>>16919982based
Evidence for macro evolution https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/AlsoOne pretty devastating argument for evolution comes from the fossil record. More primitive organisms show up in deeper fossil layers. This is exactly what we’d expect on the supposition that evolution happened—the less evolved organisms arose a long time ago. Additionally, we can track the development of traits over time by looking at the rocks they’re buried in. In contrast, if there was a global flood, for instance, the pattern of developmental features displayed in the following chart is not predicted:https://benthams.substack.com/p/young-earth-creationism-is-extremely
>>16918011I've noticed this too, cats are sensitive to being looked at but I never noticed it with dogs. If you see a cat walking along doing cat things and pay attention to it, the cat will often stop and look around to see who is looking at it. The first paper you linked talks about people who report being lucky having a higher frequency of knowing when others are observing them. I've always felt a higher than average level of luck, and have often felt when others are looking at me. It makes me walk funny, like I have trouble using my legs all of a sudden. That's not very lucky I suppose.
>>16920951Very interesting
>>16918551You clearly have schizophrenia.>>16919987>You can't assume every single one of those scientists had the same exact range of emotions.I didn't assume that anywhere.
>>16920031>>16920054>muh aikys
>>16920887Wait until you learn that "natural selection" is also a christian superstition and that YEC was a psyop from the very beginning, little guy. They're both wrong though.
>>16920887>morphic resonance is anti-evolutionsmartest /sci/ poster.
>>16920764Cope.
>>16921565I’m open to evolution and morphic resonance being compatible. The evidence for evolution and especially a really old earth seems really strong but some stuff about evolution doesn’t add up like mentioned by jimbob https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t1GMMLeeHWQ
This is /x/ material, not /sci/. Take your schizobabble over there.
>>16921604morphic resonance has a lot more supporting evidence than dark matter/energy
>>16921634Based!I would say the same thing about God>The unfortunate task of the creationist is explaining an old world as if it is young, a world with biological life shaped by evolutionary forces without invoking evolution. The creationist’s error is not minor; they believe that the forces that were most fundamental inshaping the world are not real, and must invent implausible, gerrymandered explanations of many features of the world. The creationist’s worldview is implausible on two fronts; there are both things that their theory wholly fails to explain without utterly absurd stipulations, like the universal genetic code, and there are so many things that their view explains poorly, that it makes terrible sense of the world.>The implausibility of creationism doesn’t just come from the things that the creationists are totally unable to explain, though there are many things like that. It comes from the fact that evolution naturally explains almost everything in biology, so creationists are reduced to ad hoc stipulations to explain hundreds of different biological features.
>>16921653>The creationist is not special in this regard. One who tried to explain the features of a car without invoking design would be in for mammoth explanatory inadequacy, for there are so many features of a car that make no sense except in light of design. While believing in design won’t necessarily clear up all the mysteries—perhaps one still wonders why features of the car are set up a certain way, especially if they’re not a mechanic—it vastly reduces the mystery of the car.>I claim that the atheist is in a rather similar situation. The atheist denies the existence of the fundamental cause of all things—as a result, the implausibility of atheism comes in two forms. The first is simply the fact that there are some phenomena that atheism has no remotely plausible explanation of, that are so puzzling on an atheistic worldview that they single-handedly provide substantial reason to abandon atheism. The second is that, even if the atheist can explain lots of specific features of the world without invoking God, there are so many features of the world that are better explained by theism that atheism’s inability to explain them cumulatively costs them dearly. Just as the young earth creationist is left scrambling to explain dozens of separate features of biology, so too is the atheist left scrambling to explain dozens of separate features of the world
Here’s another common objection to fine-tuning: we can’t get evidence for God from fine-tuning because we didn’t predict it in advance. Evidence comes from experimentally discovering stuff that a theory predicts! But because no one used the God hypothesis to predict fine-tuning in physics before it was discovered, fine-tuning can’t be evidence for God.Once again, I think this objection is based on a confused view of evidence, that would rule out our knowledge of continental drift, most of the evidence for evolution, and evidence for dark matter. https://benthams.substack.com/p/dark-matter But it can be rebutted more simply, just by noting that it would make the “made by God,” design argument illegitimate. If evidence needs to be in the form of correct predictions, then so long as no theists predicted the initial conditions spelling out “made by God, through love,” in every language, that couldn’t be evidence for God. But obviously, it could! In fact, it would be insanely strong evidence for God’s existence! Therefore, this objection proves too much.
>>16921658A prediction does not confirm anything. You really have to get that out of your head. God told me you will be hungry in the future. You better believe in him when that hunger finds you infidel.Predictions are factually irrelevant to empirical claims.
>>16921684Does theism offer a significantly better explanation of that specific claim than atheism?I think God better explains consciousness than atheism but I don’t think God better explains moral facts or logic. https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-dont-buy-the-moral-argument
>>16921690Can you explain what you mean by better? Empiricism holds no claims on any moral facts whatsoever. And this makes me wonder also what you mean by atheism insofar as you mean something separate from empiricism. For example, a kind of all-god or one-god model could be atheistic in the syndrome sense - we are all god and there is no distinguishable god. Is morality just preferences?
>>16921700>>16921700Being conscious is a very surprising fact. Somehow, when you put bits of matter together into brains, an associated private, mental inner life appears. In perhaps the most shocking event in the history of the created order, there’s something it’s like to be certain bits of arranged matter. Were (per impossible) a non-conscious observer to look on from the sidelines, they would not expect this qualitative shift, wherein properties exhaustively described by mathematics somehow give rise to an inner life.Now, suppose that like me you are a dualist. You hold that mind does not reduce to matter, no matter how it is arranged. This is supported by an array https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-dogmatic-physicalism of very powerful arguments, https://benthams.substack.com/p/marys-room-refutes-physicalism most convincingly laid forth in David Chalmers’s magnum opus, The Conscious Mind. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conscious-Search-Fundamental-Theory-Philosophy/dp/0195117891 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conscious-Search-Fundamental-Theory-Philosophy/dp/0195117891In this case, mind is utterly unlike everything else in the created order. It is a prerequisite for at the very least most of the world’s value. Additionally, if dualism is right, it is not explained by other bits of the created order, but instead is built in at the ground level. Dualists hold that there are basic laws of the form “when physical arrangements like this exist, mental states like that exist.” These are called psychophysical laws they’re about the relationship between the material world and the mind.
>>16921706To a theist, the presence of psychophysical laws is not at all surprising. We would expect the world to contain laws giving rise to the source of all or at the very least most of that which is good. God’s plan in creation makes no sense in a barren world devoid of any conscious beings.In contrast, on atheism, the existence of psychophysical laws is quite a great mystery. Any time an extra fundamental law is posited, the probability of such a thing will be low. It’s quite surprising that there are laws operating at the level of human brains that give rise to the primary source of the universe’s value. Were an atheist and a theist who hadn’t yet been told that there were psychophysical laws to bet on the odds of there being such things, the theist would predict psychophysical laws with higher credence.Now, suppose that you accept that the mind is fundamentally physical, that all that’s needed for consciousness is the right arrangement of atoms. Should you still find this argument convincing? Yes for two reasons.First, even if consciousness is physical, and the physical statements that give rise to mental states do so necessarily, it’s still surprising that there are such things. Imagine that there was a chemical compound which gave rise to crystals spelling out made by God. Even though they’d do so necessarily, it’s surprising that there is something that does that necessarily. Consciousness is surprising on atheism, even if it’s necessary.Second, in order to get consciousness, one needs various physical states. Only some kinds of physical states can give rise to consciousness. But theism makes it likelier that those physical states would exist than atheism does. Thus, even a physicalist should be moved by the argument from consciousness.I think this argument is quite decisive on the best view of consciousness non-physicalism. On physicalism, it has some force, but not as much.
Imagine that there is a planet upon which 860 billion marathon runners are performing a relay race. Each is equipped with batons which can be configured in over 10,000 different ways. Each configuration of a baton represents some kind of information, like turn right or left, slow down or speed up, and each runner knows and will execute each instruction perfectly whenever a baton is handed to them. You might imagine that once this game gets going, there could be quite some spectacular and fascinatingly complex patterns which emerge from this.The crucial question in the thought experiment is this: Is there ever going to be a point (with sufficient complexity and information exhange) where you imagine that this game (not the runners, but the singular entity of the game itself) becomes conscious?P1. If the answer is no, then you are also committed to the idea that matter alone can never become conscious (because the game can always be modified to accommodate whatever disanalogy you might think there is).P2. The game would never become conscious.P3. Therefore, matter alone can never become conscious.P4. We are conscious.P5. Our brains are entirely made of matter.C. Therefore, there is something beyond our material brains which accounts for our consciousness.This argument, if sound, refutes all forms of physicalism and panpsychism, except elimitavism in the strongest, most literal (and therefore least plausible) sense. Neither emergence nor combination survives this argument, unless you bite the bullet on P2.
>>16921711You could have the runners interact with the planet’s environment such that each runner came to represent a cell, and the game would be parallel to a body.Also"When they fire, they don't just pass a message; they create electromagnetic perturbations that affect their neighbors simultaneously via the field"So we can give the runners walkie talkies, or even better, smartphones and a wifi signal."A brain is an analog continuum, like a wave"A particle-wave distinction would not resolve the public-private distinction. But the game could also have wave-like events occur within it anyway.As far as speed and timing goes, it seems that an apt analogy may be that a slowly-flipped animation book continues to look like still pictures. I don't know if that actually does work, but it doesn't seem probable to me that if the runners moved at superhuman speed, that would really change anything.Now granted, the more modifications we make to the hypothetical, the more it starts to look like an actual brain, and so the more likely a physicalist or panpsychist is to bite the bullet on P2. I'm just not willing to go there myself, and I suspect a lot of physicalists and panpsychists are not, either.
>>16921711>This argument, if sound, refutes all forms of physicalism and panpsychismIt's not sound. It's plainly fallacious. At most, it's an intuition pump against Computationalism. Computationalism is not materialism and materialism is not physicalism.
>>16921780computationalism/functionalism isn’t literally identical to every possible version of physicalism or materialism but that’s not the pointThe point is that you can keep modifying the game to match any physical mechanism a physicalist claims is required for consciousness. Add whatever disanalogy you want “it needs specific biochemical ion channels” “it needs quantum effects in microtubules” “it needs a continuous analog field” and we can macro-analog it with the runners batons gadgets planet environment until the causal structure is identical.At that point1 You bite the bullet and say yes the singular “game” entity becomes conscious (which almost no one actually believes it still feels like 860 billion separate people passing sticks)2 You admit that no amount of physical complexity in this setup produces a unified conscious subject which means matter alone (in the right arrangement) isn’t sufficient after allSo which is it? Are you a functionalist who thinks the relay race would wake up? Or are you smuggling in some special physicalism (type-identity to wet neurons only, biological naturalism) where the runners can never replicate the magic?
>>16921706Likelihood in this sense is conditioned on perspective. Both angles won't hold to know everything so a possibility could be more or less likely depending on new information. A material explanation hinges on a whole bunch of facts and not facts, such as there must be an explanation of life. And of these, abiogenisis is a possibility. So if the conditions arise for abiogenisis, a most unlikely event, then further down unlikely events are no longer an impediment.Argument from likelihood is not a good approach because you will run into the modal arguments that all have to individually be swatted away - it could be, it might be, etc.>>16921711The AI bug that has infected the internet is nothing but a tool here. Computation is not consciousness. Among the examples are arguments like yours which demonstrate state machines don't contain physical mechanisms to support it. The dunces may also say nothing is hiding in the brain either and consciousness don't exist at all, or its just some phenomenon, but these couldn't admit any truths to begin with. So specifically, the arrangement of batons must be able to arrange themselves to 'think' about another arrangement of batons arranging themselves. And for closure, all possible baton arrangements would have to be conceptualized, but this blocks the baton arrangements for any other thinking. The computational argument is a bit trickier because there are programs and processors and some arrangement is to denote the processor itself as a symbol in the program which gets to statements of unknown characteristics, such as not knowing if process(x) terminates or not among everything else. You arrive at conclusions of like 'if consciousness is computation, then it is not any computation we can currently define"Still LLMs presents a problem for wordcels who believe meaning is somehow imbibed in words. And by manipulating words an AI is creating or changing meaning. map=territory kind of idiot.
>>16921799someone can believe ai will become and can become conscious and still believe in souls and dualism https://benthams.substack.com/p/can-artificial-intelligence-be-consciousNow, I share the sense that it is very surprising that water and pipes could give rise to a mind. But I find it similarly surprising that a fleshy, oatmeal-like substance shooting electric blasts (colloquially called a brain) can produce consciousness. Despite its surprisingness, I accept it, because we have significant empirical evidence for such a thesis.What brains do is a lot like what could be done with water and pipes. There’s no reason why electricity is a better conduit for mind-stuff than water and pipes. So while it is very surprising that water and pipes could produce a mind, this is surprising in exactly the same way that brains producing minds is. Once we know that brains can produce consciousness, we shouldn’t be that surprised that water and pipes can too!For this reason, I don’t find the main argument against AI consciousness very convincing. It’s pretty weird that you can make consciousness out of silicon, but it’s also weird you can make it out of carbon. Thought experiments—like a brain the size of China made out of water pipes—are deceptive, because that’s basically what brains are, just made out of a different material.An aside: I’m not saying that consciousness is the fleshy stuff in brains. I’m not saying this because I don’t think it is (I’m not just being political). I think it’s non-physical. But it’s clearly caused, given our laws of nature, by the fleshy stuff in brains, so I don’t see why other stuff that works the same way as the fleshy stuff in brains wouldn’t be able to cause it.
What you're describing sounds most like **Emergent Dualism** (sometimes associated with philosopher William Hasker).The core idea is that the soul is not a pre-existing or independently created thing — it *emerges* from the physical organization of a sufficiently complex brain and body. So matter is primary and comes first, but once arranged in the right way, it generates a genuinely distinct non-physical substance (the soul), not just a new physical property. This makes it dualist because the soul is considered ontologically real and separate, not just reducible to brain activity.The interesting tension it resolves is that it avoids the classic dualist problem of "where did the soul come from and how does it get into the body?" — it just arises naturally from physical processes, like a new entity bootstrapped into existence by biology. But because it's a genuine substance and not just matter, it can in principle survive the death of the body and continue existing without it, grounding belief in an afterlife.It's distinct from Cartesian dualism (which treats the soul as fully independent of matter) and from property dualism (which says mental properties arise from matter but aren't a separate substance). It's also distinct from creationist soul views where God directly creates and inserts a soul.
>>16921792>you can keep modifying the game to match any physical mechanism a physicalist claims is required for consciousness.Proof?
>>16921780>and materialism is not physicalism.it literally is. physicalism is just a stop-gap to grant materialism a more ironclad defense against naysayers.
>>16918551>I can't even begin to comprehend the hubris it takes to believe some bespectacled egghead with a clipboard is going to outsmart an animalYou can't possibly be serious with this bullshit. You can't comprehend a human outsmarting a mouse? Really?I know that being pointlessly contrarian is the norm around here but you're supposed to stop before you go full retard.
>>16921818Not my burden Give an example of a physical mechanism
>>16921805An AI can run on a set of punch cards and a mechanism to read and write from punch cards. Where is the consciousness? Can you show me the developer manual for a graphics card where there is a consciousness flag? How does I set it to 1?How did Turing build a consciousness machine> (From first principles please)Can you even define consciousness?
>>16921872>You can't comprehend a human outsmarting a mouse?You don't even know the difference between a mice and rats and you're just gonna construct some rube goldberg bullshit that will fool a rat's pattern recognition such that magic is the only explanation for the results? Fuck outta here.
>>16921890>An AI can run on a set of punch cards and a mechanism to read and write from punch cards. Where is the consciousness?I don’t think that type of ai is conscious >Can you show me the developer manual for a graphics card where there is a consciousness flag? How does I set it to 1?I never claimed technology currently is at the point of in organic consciousness Your question sounds like >show me where the consciousness is in a Soil nematode>Can you even define consciousness?I can’t infinitely reduce it but it’s having a mind. Experiencing qualia
>>16921882>if the argument is sound, then my conclusion follows>unsoundness gets pointed out>o-o-ok, but that's no my point!>my point is that i can always make a version of the argument that works>soundness of the claim gets questioned>i-i-it's not my burden to prove anythingThat's a very concise concession for someone otherwise long-winded. Looks like you're intellectually intimidated. :^)
>>16921882>Give an example of a physical mechanismWho said the brain is a mechanism? Physicalism =/= mechanistic reductionism. Your style of argument relies on constructing and enacting something, so it fails for organic and continuous systems. Nevermind brains and consciousness. Do you think you could so much as replicate a microbe this way? Clearly not, there is no self-sustaining process, your game participants can pause at any moment, record their simulation's state and then continue later. There is no continuous process but only its appearance.
>>16917545The effect is known.Similar structures do have better chances to behave similary on quantum level.There's no model to explain it tho.If I have to make a guess, whenever something collapses, the result is propagated as an signal of some sort, across the other instances of the universe.With some sort of analog signal it may be possible to manifest the effects in similar structures, despite interfences from all other matter composed of the same compounds.It's definitely not an effect restricted to the same particle across the many-worlds. And since that seems the case, I can't come up with any other way that might work with a time-based interaction to show an effect.The "why" could be explained as a way to propagate some kind of positive feedback (like producing more variations? more information?)
>>16922071Here’s two https://montalk.net/matrix/122/timeline-dynamicshttps://www.quatism.com/theory.htm
My preferred theory is the fundamental substrate of the universe is photons. Matter is just condensed photons. Photons are timeless and the big bang didnt happen, the universe is steady state and not finite.
>>16922192Photons can be regarded as the fundamental information carrying subtrate. Luminous beings we are, not this gross matter
Bunp
