Replying to Avatar SwapMarket

I read all Monroe books and Campbell's TOE. I also did lucid dreaming myself. I share the view that the universe is informational, but I think his experiences and conclusions are deeply subjective. Also, he does not drill down to the elemental, but builds on the idea that our world is the derivative of higher planes of existence/beings. Much like Federico Faggin and all religions. This answer does not satisfy me. I am more in favor of Wolfram's Physics, that builds informational universe from ground up using strictly math.
Avatar
jess 4mo ago đź’¬ 1

“Read” is not proof of work. The MBT Theory of consciousness has one it’s pillars to be “love is the answer” - have you lived the theory? Or just read it and didn’t like how it sounded. Lucid dreaming is a tool. Being love in daily action is proof of work. Live his theory for a while and then tell me ur opinion of it. That’s like reading the book on Bitcoin and saying u read about a better idea.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
SwapMarket 4mo ago

Love is a highly evolved derivative concept, same as "God". It cannot be a ground pillar of the world. Material objects are derivative of atoms, not other way abound. Love is a derivative of consciousness, which arises in living organisms with neural systems. Does human consciousness affect the physical world around us? Sure. We can will to lift a finger and press a button to trigger a massive change. Living with love is a phychological life hack: you love the world and the world loves you back, you feel great. No way to repeat the same world history without this “proof of work”, to compare and see if it actually made any difference.

I am not seeking to improve my life, it is fine as is. I seek a scientific method to understand the world all the way to the bottom. The concepts of God or Light or Love are not scientific and do not qualify to be at the bottom. The most basic and abstract mathematical structure - hypergraph - does qualify.