Dr. Doug Matzke, Quantum Computers and Extended Consciousness |487|

#2
It's good to know that higher spatial dimensions are today being given serious scientific consideration. I'd like to point out, though, that they had been posited back in the nineteenth century by the likes of Karl Friedrich Gauss and his student Bernhardt Riemann. They, of course, did not have any technological toys through which they could make their physics tangible, so their work has largely been forgotten. As you rightly stated Alex, 'we are enamoured of technology', but the degree of our cultural fascination with gadgets has meant that today we often confuse technology with science. without realising that the the former is entirely dependent upon the latter. This makes for some fundamental misconceptions. For instance, in my own field of research, academic archaeologists have failed completely to recognise that bowls hewn out of blocks of stone in the ancient Andes and filled with water (called water mirrors or espejos de agua) , were in fact devices used by the shamans of old to project their consciousness into what we may call Dr William Tiller's mirror space. Instead, the 'experts' tell us that these water mirrors were used simply for studying the heavens. It never occurs to them that ancient Andean peoples simply could have looked up into the sky if they'd wanted to do that. Why should the archaeologists think any differently? The materialistic/mechanistic science they have absorbed tells them that higher spatial dimensions and extended consciousness cannot exist, and they would not want to risk ridicule anyway. The shamans of old knew differently. There is so much that we need to re-learn.
 
Last edited:
#3
It was hilarious to watch this guy desperately bob & weave to avoid addressing Alex's questions about A.I. being used for Evil.

"It's all quantum maaan. All is Love!! All is One!!" like it says on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

Few things are more disgusting than rich hippies living in a fantasy land where they can avoid contemplation of the real world.

 
Last edited:
#4
It's good to know that higher spatial dimensions are today being given serious scientific consideration. I'd like to point out, though, that they had been posited back in the nineteenth century by the likes of Karl Friedrich Gauss and his student Bernhardt Riemann. They, of course, did not have any technological toys through which they could make their physics tangible, so their work has largely been forgotten. As you rightly stated Alex, 'we are enamoured of technology', but the degree of our cultural fascination with gadgets has meant that today we often confuse technology with science. without realising that the the former is entirely dependent upon the latter. This makes for some fundamental misconceptions. For instance, in my own field of research, academic archaeologists have failed completely to recognise that bowls hewn out of blocks of stone in the ancient Andes and filled with water (called water mirrors or espejos de agua) , were in fact devices used by the shamans of old to project their consciousness into what we may call Dr William Tiller's mirror space. Instead, the 'experts' tell us that these water mirrors were used simply for studying the heavens. It never occurs to them that ancient Andean peoples simply could have looked up into the sky if they'd wanted to do that. Why should the archaeologists think any differently? The materialistic/mechanistic science they have absorbed tells them that higher spatial dimensions and extended consciousness cannot exist, and they would not want to risk ridicule anyway. The shamans of old knew differently. There is so much that we need to re-learn.
It's good to know that higher spatial dimensions are today being given serious scientific consideration. I'd like to point out, though, that they had been posited back in the nineteenth century by the likes of Karl Friedrich Gauss and his student Bernhardt Riemann. They, of course, did not have any technological toys through which they could make their physics tangible, so their work has largely been forgotten. As you rightly stated Alex, 'we are enamoured of technology', but the degree of our cultural fascination with gadgets has meant that today we often confuse technology with science. without realising that the the former is entirely dependent upon the latter. This makes for some fundamental misconceptions. For instance, in my own field of research, academic archaeologists have failed completely to recognise that bowls hewn out of blocks of stone in the ancient Andes and filled with water (called water mirrors or espejos de agua) , were in fact devices used by the shamans of old to project their consciousness into what we may call Dr William Tiller's mirror space. Instead, the 'experts' tell us that these water mirrors were used simply for studying the heavens. It never occurs to them that ancient Andean peoples simply could have looked up into the sky if they'd wanted to do that. Why should the archaeologists think any differently? The materialistic/mechanistic science they have absorbed tells them that higher spatial dimensions and extended consciousness cannot exist, and they would not want to risk ridicule anyway. The shamans of old knew differently. There is so much that we need to re-learn.
Great guest!!! where I work there is great interest in this subject! A 1 and 0 are the same but in two different universes, thing is you need special hardware for this computing.
 
#5
That was an extraordinary interview! Doug seems to straddle the gap between science/technology on the one hand, and the lesson we are learning from NDE's and other altered states of consciousness, better than almost any of your guests.

I must listen to this interview again, because I am still not sure how he manages to associate hyper-dimensional spaces with qualia, if you like. There still seems to be a conceptual gap somewhere.

For a while we seemed to attract many of the interviewees into the forum discussion. I really hope Doug comes and spends a little time with us.

I have always though of quantum computing (QC) as being closely related to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. In that interpretation, no 'dice' get thrown and wave functions do not collapse, instead, at each and every quantum transition reality bifurcates so that both possible states still exist, but are completely independent of each other.

However, clearly in a QC the various realities do still interact enough to be be useful. However, my point is that the Many Worlds interpretation of QM seems to me to be a mathematical abstraction. I mean, every wave function collapse in the entire universe splits reality in this way - but maybe my understanding needs a bit of fine tuning!

Leaving aside the dangers of such technology, I can't help wondering if QC will really work on a useful scale. Modern technology is hyped beyond reason. We only need to think of those driverless cars that were supposed to be with us by now - and by driverless, I mean a car that can drive in any conditions that a normal human can manage. QC's may be get talked about a lot, but then get forgotten about.

@Charley Primero
If you reach the point where you attack anyone who has contributed to computing in general, you alienate a lot of people here.

David
 
#6
If you reach the point where you attack anyone who has contributed to computing in general, you alienate a lot of people here.
There was nothing in this interview about contributing to computing. It was a Dr. Bronner's soap label.

If you want to learn about Quantum Computers, you can rent one and play with it...

https://quantum-computing.ibm.com

Our crypto-currency guys rent them to attack our systems in order to find weaknesses.

TL;DR = "Quantum" computers are theoretical mathemagical B.S. just like Black Holes, Big Bang, etc.

You really should listen to the David Harriman lectures I sent you.
 
#7
Great guest!!! where I work there is great interest in this subject! A 1 and 0 are the same but in two different universes, thing is you need special hardware for this computing.
Yes, Doug seems to read a bit more than just science journals; he's familiar w/ aboriginal people's ways of tuning into the cosmos. I never did finish the Tao of Physics that I started long ago. I should go back to it. Doug's book is exactly the kind of angle we need to take to help people see that hyper-dimensionality is a fact that is reflected in mystical literature & philosophy. I really liked his take on bringing humanity into an awareness of multiple dimensions so that they 'lose their taste' for all that dark stuff.
 
#8
....to help people see that hyper-dimensionality is a fact that is reflected in mystical literature & philosophy.
The first primary principles of Thoth/Mercurius/Hermes (Hermeticism) maybe apt.

1.Mentalism.

The universe is the embodiment of higher mind. Basically philosophical idealism. The mind of the all.

Reality is stitched together with each collapse of the wave function. The accumulation of information in the mind of the all unfolding in thought giving rise to time and perception giving rise to space.

2. Correspondence.

Our own minds reflect that of the all, so the mathematical formula that can model the behavior of quantum mechanics likewise can be used to model the process of decisions, memory, language, conceptual understanding in the emerging field of quantum cognition.

Or as above so below.
 

Alex

Administrator
#9
It was hilarious to watch this guy desperately bob & weave to avoid addressing Alex's questions about A.I. being used for Evil.

"It's all quantum maaan. All is Love!! All is One!!" like it says on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

Few things are more disgusting than rich hippies living in a fantasy land where they can avoid contemplation of the real world.

I didn't get the feeling that doug was dodging. I felt like he was more concerned with the spiritual... and I kind of agree with him... evil ( AI or otherwise) gets too much press :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#10
That was an extraordinary interview! Doug seems to straddle the gap between science/technology on the one hand, and the lesson we are learning from NDE's and other altered states of consciousness, better than almost any of your guests.

I must listen to this interview again, because I am still not sure how he manages to associate hyper-dimensional spaces with qualia, if you like. There still seems to be a conceptual gap somewhere.

For a while we seemed to attract many of the interviewees into the forum discussion. I really hope Doug comes and spends a little time with us.

I have always though of quantum computing (QC) as being closely related to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. In that interpretation, no 'dice' get thrown and wave functions do not collapse, instead, at each and every quantum transition reality bifurcates so that both possible states still exist, but are completely independent of each other.

However, clearly in a QC the various realities do still interact enough to be be useful. However, my point is that the Many Worlds interpretation of QM seems to me to be a mathematical abstraction. I mean, every wave function collapse in the entire universe splits reality in this way - but maybe my understanding needs a bit of fine tuning!

Leaving aside the dangers of such technology, I can't help wondering if QC will really work on a useful scale. Modern technology is hyped beyond reason. We only need to think of those driverless cars that were supposed to be with us by now - and by driverless, I mean a car that can drive in any conditions that a normal human can manage. QC's may be get talked about a lot, but then get forgotten about.

@Charley Primero
If you reach the point where you attack anyone who has contributed to computing in general, you alienate a lot of people here.

David
his book does a good job of explaining this leap. and it's free if you have kindle unlimited.
 
#11
I can tell you for a fact quantum computing is still somewhat far off to be an everyday reality. By the way, I loved the interview but I hear this term thrown around a lot "hyperspace and outside out time and space" etc …… I understand it could be another term for other dimensions but what do they mean, when they say it; they being the interviewed ? I would stop and ask them. What did they mean by that term , and can they prove what they say in another way besides math, explaining it in detail.
 
#12
I can tell you for a fact quantum computing is still somewhat far off to be an everyday reality.
Agreed - this is my understanding.

I also suspect there may be a gotcha buried in quantun computing somewhere. For example, if someone gave you an analog computer that was super accurate, you could multiply several numbers in parallel by combining the numbers into one much larger number for the purpose of this operation. The catch is that you soon run out of accuracy!

Very many years ago, I worked with NMR spectra in which several spins (effectively qbits) were coupled together. If more than about 7 spins were coupled in this way with all coupling with all, it became difficult to resolve all the individual peaks - the result looked more like a mush! With better NMR spectrometers, probably that number 7 can be pushed a bit higher now - say 10, but even so! The number of couplings goes up as N-factorial - effectively exponentially.
his book does a good job of explaining this leap. and it's free if you have kindle unlimited.
It was only £6.93 without Kindle Unlimited! Without all the gimicks - unlimited, prime, etc, Amazon is totally free until you actually buy a book (and Kindle books are usually cheap) - I like it that way!

David
 
#14
All of this is too far outside his familiar playground for this Christian to contribute much to the conversation. But I pray that certain members of humanity do not unlock more of the knowledge best kept pray God forbidden, lest we become yet more doomed than we are. We need first to overcome permanently the ever lurking Darkness within yet too many of us; the eagerness to steal, to kill and much worse.
 
#15
It was hilarious to watch this guy desperately bob & weave to avoid addressing Alex's questions about A.I. being used for Evil.

"It's all quantum maaan. All is Love!! All is One!!" like it says on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

Few things are more disgusting than rich hippies living in a fantasy land where they can avoid contemplation of the real world.

HA HA MAN! I don't know if quantum is evil or not, but the tooth paste graphic is hilarious!
 
#16
Gary, couldn't the Quantum theory guys respond with the same kind of despondency about Christianity? What is it that makes Christianity more true than Quantum theory or Quantum computing? Perhaps I should spell "Quantum" without a capital Q, but you get the point. In Christianity, we are all expected to believe that everyone of us is a sinner piece of garbage that needed God to send his Son to be murdered for, in order to absolve these sins. Does that make any sense? Is that a sensible reality? Likewise, maybe, fundamentally, all these "Quantum" scientists are full of shit. However, if they are, then we need to realize what is full of shit about our own beliefs.
 
Last edited:
#17
I can tell you for a fact quantum computing is still somewhat far off to be an everyday reality. By the way, I loved the interview but I hear this term thrown around a lot "hyperspace and outside out time and space" etc …… I understand it could be another term for other dimensions but what do they mean, when they say it; they being the interviewed ? I would stop and ask them. What did they mean by that term , and can they prove what they say in another way besides math, explaining it in detail.
That's the problem isn't it.. how do we talk about something when it's not directly, day to day, part of our conscious waking experience? It's outside of it hence the vocabulary is not there except in...?
 
#18
That's the problem isn't it.. how do we talk about something when it's not directly, day to day, part of our conscious waking experience? It's outside of it hence the vocabulary is not there except in...?
One of the fundamental questions, I think, is whether they understand qualia. The term doesn't appear in the index of their book, which gives me an uncomfortable feeling.

David
 
#19
Gary, couldn't the Quantum theory guys respond with the same kind of despondency about Christianity? What is it that makes Christianity more true than Quantum theory or Quantum computing? Perhaps I should spell "Quantum" without a capital Q, but you get the point. In Christianity, we are all expected to believe that everyone of us is a sinner piece of garbage that needed God to send his Son to be murdered for, in order to absolve these sins. Does that make any sense? Is that a sensible reality? Likewise, maybe, fundamentally, all these "Quantum" scientists are full of shit. However, if they are, then we need to realize what is full of shit about our own beliefs.
Belonging to no church in particular, my belief in Jesus and His instruction to use the power of prayer directed at our Father Spirit has gotten me impossible results in times of desperate need, Shane. Need I say more? Thus I am a Christian unshakable and fearless by my faith. I have found my crutch. I feel sorry for those who have none in the time approaching us.
 
Last edited:
#20
Gary, couldn't the Quantum theory guys respond with the same kind of despondency about Christianity? What is it that makes Christianity more true than Quantum theory or Quantum computing? Perhaps I should spell "Quantum" without a capital Q, but you get the point. In Christianity, we are all expected to believe that everyone of us is a sinner piece of garbage that needed God to send his Son to be murdered for, in order to absolve these sins. Does that make any sense? Is that a sensible reality? Likewise, maybe, fundamentally, all these "Quantum" scientists are full of shit. However, if they are, then we need to realize what is full of shit about our own beliefs.
Absolutely!

I don't think the standard Christian story makes sense. I was a Christian until I went to university, and got in with a crowd known as the "God Squad". They took the Bible really seriously and particularly the idea that not only did Jesus die for our sins, but a just God could have it no other way!

I realised afterwards, that most churches - such as the ones I attended as a boy - fudge over the awkward bits of the Bible.

The real story may even involve a God, but as I see it, it simply cannot simply be 'standard' Christianity - though to be fair, I am not sure Garry is a 'standard' Christian.

David
 
Top