Kathy said: "Whoa Albert... you have a lot of questions I don't know the answer to. PM me and I'll give you Tom's email address. He's winding up a lecture series in London and is probably behind in answering emails, etc., but I'm sure if you email him with your questions he would respond as soon as he can. I'll try to answer as many as I can... in my own understanding/opinion of course. Or you could go ask them on Tom's forum. I'm sure Ted, who helps Tom out with the forums could answer these for you."
Albert: "If I suggested things to him that contradict what he says, in the interest of reducing his entrophy and keeping an open mind while remaining skeptical, would he consider what I say? I mean no disrespect when I asked this, I just thought it would be funny to ask what I asked.
I don't know his theory well enough to speak about it in an autoritative manner, it is just that as I listened to some of his videos and the questions I presented in my previous post occurred to me."
Kathy: "Yes, as Beau mentioned, TC indicates that nothing is infinite because infinity cannot be mathematically calculated. Matthew kind of got into this in another post."
Albert: "I didn't read the other post you speak of, and I'm no math wizzard, but I'd be surprise if you can determine whether or not infinity exists on the basis of whether it can be mathematically calculated. I was assuming he has a more substantial reason for claiming that existence is finite."
Kathy: "In TC's model, the greater whole of consciousness need only appear to be infinite, it does not have to be infinite in order for his model to be plausible. We all use words like unlimited to indicate a very, very large number of probabilities for example... I think what he really means is there exists so many probabilities that they cannot be counted or known by us and may seem to be an infinite number when in actuality there would necessarily be a limited number of probabilities. That probably does seem contradictory, but I think it is more word usage/semantics."
Albert: "I like to make certain that semantics don't prevent us from figuring out what's true.
Kathy: "I'm not sure what you mean by "in an energetic sense" but it seems reasonable to me that the greater consciousness system is certainly organized enough to keep track of and separate actualized memory (database) and unactualized memory, as well as being capable of calculating future probabilities based on actualized memory. Tom uses fractals as an example of how this works. Patterns developed within consciousness that are ever changing as evolution takes place. He calls them Process Fractals and has a forum dedicated to explaining these."
Albert: "Whether we are speaking of actual memory or hypothetical memory, in order for each memory to exist in some way, some amount of energy would need to be used. Therefore, if Tom's theory contends that all probabilities exist in either a manifested or unmanifested form, the energy exists. If as "some" physicists contend every possibility exists, then an infinite amount of energy would be needed."
Kathy: "Hmmm... I either don't understand your examples of probable paths followed or I don't think they are plausible. The way I think this could work is that I, Kathy, at any given point in time have a number of probabilities available to me that were calculated based on the choices I've made in the past. In other words, I have developed patterns in my past history that are likely to continue until I make a conscious decision to change the pattern. I am always free to make any choice available to me. Once I make a choice, more probabilities are calculated based on that choice and I make another choice... and so on. It's the choices I make that moves my consciousness along its path. At any time within my "decision space" I can choose another path by making a different choice that would take me in a different direction where different patterns could be developed. Hopefully the majority of my choices would promote my spiritual growth. However, in order to have freewill, we must be completely free to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?"
Albert: "When I listened to Tom's video, I got the impression that he supports the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, only with the added thought that only some of these probable worlds become actualized.
When it comes to the multiple universe viewpoint, it isn't a matter of a person making a choice and using his (or her) energy to create accordingly. It is a matter of there being one universe where choice A exists, one universe where choice B exists, and so on.
If Tom spoke of multiple universes in the way some people speak of them his premise that you use freewill to reduce entrophy so you can live according to love would be negated, because it would simply be a matter of whether you find yourself in a universe where you make choices considered to be appropriate.
Tom's alternative way of viewing the many worlds theorem would provide an alternative answer, except that in order for it to be valid, a soul would need hop around amongst different probable universes according to which probability it chooses, and this brings us back to the issue of how does a soul get all of the souls it interacts with to do the same."
Kathy: "As I understand it, the unactualized database memory isn't like a "parallel world" if that is what you are referring to with the "probable reality split" question. The unactualized database is simply like a computer that has memory stored within it. We can access this memory and revisit other choices that were available and didn't choose. It might even be possible to follow an outcome had we made a different choice and see how that would have affected our path, but we could not change the outcome of what was actualized... the choices we did make."
Albert: "Perhaps we are dealing with semantics now.
Whether you deal with an alternate universe that exists as some form of holographic projection or play of energy, or access a database, your consciousness would separate itself from the souls it shares a database with, as soon as it decided to take part in a differing part of the database.
For example, if Beth was married to Bill, and Bill wanted to be a criminal but Beth didn't, Beth and Bill would become seperated from each other when they become involved with different parts of the database. Beth would tune into the love channel, while Bill would tune into the crime channel.
On the other hand, if it isn't a matter of universe surfing, and we simply experience our creative energy according to how we make use of it, we don't have to worry about how our soul ends up in the same universe (or the same part of the database) as another soul."
Kathy: "I think the whole point of our existence is to interact with each other and it is through our interactions that we learn and grow in the kind of love that changes our inner core being. I'm not so sure we could ever negate someone else's freewill because freewill is an attribute of consciousness itself. What our interactions do is present choices not only to ourselves, but to others as well. We are in control of and are free to choose how we think and feel, how we react, etc."
Albert: "I agree. This is one of the key reasons I find it hard to accept the many worlds interpretation as presented by some people. It negates the principle of free will.
Another reason, it isn't a matter of something such as a photon of light being either a particle, wave, or both, it is a matter of it being a unit of energy that exists in an unknown manner where it can seem like either a wave or particle, depending upon how you look at it.
Also, I find it odd that some physicists get caught up in the non-local issue, since they are speaking of a level of reality that is beyond 3d linear reality. Perhaps things are set up so you could never completely split a subatomic particle into two (I have the EPR thought experiment in mind at this point, not the two-slit experiment). Especially when you consider that all moments of a particle's history aren't actually seperated from each other, and everything is connected as one."
Kathy: "I don't know if this helped or not."
Albert: "I don't know if what I said helps. I don't know how much you know about quantum mechanics, not to suggest that I'm expert. Going by his video, Tom incorporates quantum mechanics principles into his theory of everything, therefore, I believe a person needs to be familiar with basic quantum mechanics priniciples to know what Tom is talking about.
Someting else occured to me. Perhaps Tom believes that as opposed to there being multiple universes that exist in a substantial way, there are numerous possibilities that become a part of the universe we take part in when somebody makes them a part of this universe.
In a way, this interpretation makes more sense than the Copehagen and many world interpretations, because it allows for the possibility that probabilities can be experienced within one universe."
Home
Pages: 
