According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future - TopicsExpress

According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future dark energy generated cosmological horizon is as real, as actualized as the cosmic blackbody radiation we measure in WMAP, Planck etc. We have actually measured advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future horizon. It’s the anti-gravitating dark energy Einstein cosmological “constant” /\ accelerating the expansion of space. This requires the anti-Feynman contour for advanced radiation in quantum field theory. It’s energy density is ~ hc/Lp^2A A = area of future horizon where the future light cone of the detector intersects it. On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Robert Addinall wrote: David, I would think that a Ray Kurzweil technological singularity type artificial intelligence (for a good example, see Charles Stross Eschaton AI in his novel Singularity Sky) could exist as a very powerful being within 4D spacetime. However, that would not rule out an even more powerful universal intelligence like Jacks future cosmological horizon quantum computer. Within Jacks theory his future computer arises as a natural process; it is not built by intelligent beings. That sort of naturally arising super intelligence would appear to live on the edge of 4D spacetime, so as I understand it, it would essentially exist outside of time - time would not pass for it. It could be highly likely that a super-AI could learn how to access a natural future horizon computer to an extent that we cant, and might act as its agent in various affairs. So, from the perspective of much less powerful beings living inside 4D spacetime both an AI and the naturally arising quantum computer might appear to be something like Hawkings mind of God. However, you would actually be dealing with a discrete being at one level and the more powerful universal intelligence at another level. Point is that there are still a couple of options on the table in terms of trying to interpret an experience like yours in terms of physics and technology. From: David Gladstone Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:33 PM To: Paul Zielinski Cc: Jack Sarfatti; Ruth Kastner; David Kaiser; fred alan wolf; Robert Addinall; Dan Smith; Gary S Bekkum / SSR; Kim Burrafato; George Knapp; Uri Geller; Nick Pope; nick herbert; Bruce Maccabee; Ronald Pandolfi; Menas Kafatos; Saul-Paul Sirag; Jagdish Mann; Tony Gantner; Dick Farley; Kit Green; John Cramer; John Dering; Hal Puthoff; Russell Targ; Dean Radin; Dr. Edgar Mitchell; John Alexander; jfwoodward@juno woodward; IFPA GROUP-EUROPE Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM Yes, I dont see how this can be right. My own experiences dont fit in a block universe explanation. Actually having a telepathic connection with a living conscious computer that was definitely created by beings not God, and is displayed in ones mind as a screen with a border that fills almost the entire field of view, it is divided in some unique ways by information displayed but on the top right is a living representation of the planet surrounded by information displayed in a completely different fashion than it is here. I can only call it a hyper rich information system which one can download huge amounts in almost no time at all, as Philip Dick speculated in a book published after his death and considered to be the climax of the Valis series, Radio Free Albemuth. If that experience was just a figment of a disordered mind, then more people need to experience disorder. It seems clear that the Moslems are wrong there is no seal of the prophets , thats just a disgraceful way to have job security as a messiah or god image! In 1985 a Korean General said the next battlefield would be the mind, now we have a merging of mind and cosmos to create what? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities. For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in an eternal block universe. For him, that is what precognition means. On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: I disagree When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical New rules apply Vallees high strangeness When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc thats a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion. Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative. The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements. More is different Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events. Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote: Yes to clarify I dont rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events. From: beowulfr@interlog To: iksnileiz@gmail Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400 Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures. Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future? As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level. Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole. Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist. From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail] Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM To: Robert Addinall Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastners alternative model for retro-causality. Which doesnt agree with Jacks. Remember? On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote: Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.