I hosted an online VR/video chat with mathematician Ralph Abraham and physicist Sisir Roy, authors of “Demystifying the Akasha: Consciousness and the Quantum Vacuum.” Full video, slides, and first impressions below.
We used our VR studio powered by the awesome Terf by 3D ICC, a simple to use 3D immersive environment, with instant live audio and video, and on-line collaboration tools. Here’s the full video of the chat:
I am writing a longer essay on future Akashic Engineering enabled by new Akashic Physics. In the meantime, here are some preliminary thoughts. See also my previous essay “The quest for Akashic physics.”
The maverick genius Nikola Tesla, an early proponent of a synthesis of Eastern mysticism and Western can-do engineering spirit, boldly dared to imagine Akashic engineering. In “Man’s greatest achievement,” Tesla imagined Man’s “most complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning achievement which would place him beside his Creator and fulfill his ultimate destiny.”
Following Tesla, I imagine future Akashic Engineering using technologies based on theoretical Akashic Physics to achieve fine control of psi phenomena like telepathy and remote viewing, do grand “magic” in the sense of Clarke’s Third Law, and perhaps even bring back the dead in some sense.
“Demystifying the Akasha” outlines a possible theoretical foundation for Akashic Physics with a cosmic memory field that stores permanent records of everything that ever happens in the universe.
The “pre-geometry” model of Abraham and Roy is based on a dynamic cellular network – a graph with a huge number of nodes and internal dynamics similar to cellular automata – beyond space and time, from which the geometry of space-time is derived. The graph QX “contains all times” and fluctuates in an internal time-like dimension, not to be confused with ordinary time. Ordinary space and time emerge from QX.
Stephen Wolfram has similar ideas. “One needs something in a sense ‘underneath’ space: something from which space as we know it can emerge,” says Wolfram. “And one needs an underlying data structure that’s as flexible as possible. I thought about this for years, and looked at all sorts of computational and mathematical formalisms. But what I eventually realized was that basically everything I’d looked at could actually be represented in the same way: as a network. A network – or graph – just consists of a bunch of nodes, joined by connections. And all that’s intrinsically defined in the graph is the pattern of these connections.”
Abraham and Roy don’t intend to propose a “final” unified theory of everything (there is no “final” in science). Rather, they intend to show a template mathematical model of reality, compatible with current scientific knowledge, which includes an Akashic information and memory field. “Our intention is to contribute a theory, more precisely a mathematical model, in which all paranormal phenomena may be understood, including quantum entanglement and the measurement problem.” In the discussion, Abraham and Roy note that the work is very much in progress and envisage further iterations, for example new electronic versions of the book.
See the notes below (and of course watch the video) for an extended outline. Abraham and Roy cover a huge territory in a thin book, including Western and Eastern philosophies and religions, the foundations of quantum physics, and recent advances in quantum gravity theories and the digital physics of discrete space-times. Fully understanding everything requires specialized knowledge of all those fields, but the book is readable and has something for everyone.
When I talk about Akashic Engineering I usually say something like “of course, we are talking of very speculative, far future technologies,” but Abraham and Roy are more daring. Abraham notes that science advances not only with incremental little steps, but also with sudden catastrophic (in the mathematical sense) jumps, and imagines that a sudden scientific revolution could bring about Akashic Physics and Engineering much sooner than I hope.
Tesla said something similar: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
Abraham noted that such momentous and catastrophic scientific advances are unlikely to happen in the conservative environment of academic research. In fact, revolutionary developments like chaos theory, cellular automata and fractal geometry were initially developed largely outside of the mainstream academic circuits. Roy noted that India, which is becoming a hotbed of futuristic science and technology, could provide a more open and culturally supportive environment than the conservative US and Europe for the development of the new science. Could Akashic Engineering be developed rapidly, perhaps in India, with the participation of mavericks and citizen scientists worldwide?
This is a theme that I look forward to developing at the forthcoming India Awakens Conference in Kolkata, on February 12, 2017. Please watch the India Awakens Conference presentation video and consider contributing to the soon to be announced fundraising campaign to make the conference happen.
Nupur Munshi participated silently – but she does speak when she has to, and says beautiful things: listen to Nupur here. Lincoln Cannon participated and explained what Christian and Mormon transhumanism have to do with the Akasha and all that.
Creating a good spiritual, cultural, and scientific environment for the emergence of Akashic Physics and Engineering is a noble task. Following Tesla, Abraham, and Roy, I think of Akashic Engineering as a synthesis of Eastern mysticism and Western can-do engineering spirit. Stay tuned for a forthcoming essay with an Akashic Engineering manifesto, and I hope you will join our quest.
I used a slide presentation to summarize the digital physics explored in the book. The text of the slides is difficult to read in the video, so I pasted it below.
The objective is to build a “toy model” of fundamental reality with “Akashic Records” – a memory field beyond space and time, which can accommodate psi phenomena.
The Abraham-Roy model is based on a dynamical graph QX, beyond/before space and time, with a huge number of nodes and directed links – a generalization of cellular automata. The graph evolves in a time-like dimension (microtime) t according to dynamical laws.The internal states of the nodes are updated at each t step, as well as the links, which can be reversed or switched on/off. Space and physical time T are emergent properties of the dynamical graph.
The graph doesn’t live in physical space and time and doesn’t have a built-in metric. A pseudo-metric space is derived by considering the cliques of the graph (the maximally connected sub-graphs) as space points. A concept of superbonds (directed links between cliques) is defined , and a pseudo-metric is introduced, with the distance between cliques given by the strength of the superbonds (pseudo-metric because the triangle inequality is not necessarily satisfied).
The pseudo-metric can’t always be embedded in Euclidean 3-space, and therefore an optimized approximate embedding in a metric 3-space must be found. It’s to be expected that there are cases where the pseudo-metric, defined by global optimization, has local glitches – for example two points that are close before the embedding become far after the embedding. This could help making sense of quantum entanglement, psi etc.
A “condensation” process creates physical space and time T from the underlying QX graph. “We propose now to obtain macroscopic spacetime from the condensation process applied repeatedly to the entire QX object, which contains all times, although it is rapidly changing… We consider a memory device, controlled by the cosmic-time function, T. Between cosmic timeT1 (corresponding to network time t1) and cosmic time T2 (with its network time t2) the memory device records all of the finite states of QX between network time t1 and network time t2, and condenses this finite set of QX states into a spacelike continuum corresponding to the discrete cosmic time T2.”
The objective is to build a “toy model” of fundamental reality with “Akashic Records” – a memory field beyond space and time, which can accommodate psi phenomena. Mind and physics emerge from the QX graph, and come up entangled because both are linked in the one underlying QX. Could this ethereal mathematics conceivably become practical engineering someday? Could we conceivably one day learn how to read QX and tweak the condensation to acquire fine control of psi phenomena and perhaps even bring back the dead in some sense?
HERE’S THE TEXT OF AN EMAIL Q/A BEFORE THE CHAT, WITH SOME COMMENTS:
The objective is to build a template “toy model” of fundamental reality with Akashic Records – a memory field beyond space and time, which can accommodate psi phenomena, and perhaps reincarnation or resurrection.
The AR model is based on a dynamical graph with a (finite but) huge number of nodes and directed links. The graph evolves in a time-like dimension (microtime) t according to dynamical laws. The discrete internal states of the nodes (integers) are updated at each t step, as well as the links, which can be reversed or switched on/off.
Question 1: is this the most general dynamical graph? For example, what about countably infinite nodes? What about loops (links in both directions between two nodes)? – It seems to me that it’s important to start with a graph as general as possible. Graphs are more general than Wolfram’s (and Conway’s) cellular automata because they support arbitrary connection patterns and don’t pre-define a metric N-dimensional space (I guess N could emerge as the smallest N for isometric embedding).
Answer (RA): here is my initial response to #1
i am referring to our book at:
*** Sec. 6.3. Dynamical Cellular Networks (DCN), and
*** Appendix #3. Technical summary of the AR model” – part A, the system QX (especially statements A1,…,A7
i understand the question thus: a DCN is an example of a “dynamical graph”, or DG, what would be a convenient definition of a general DG ???
Here are some thoughts.
Re A1: a finite graph. In graph theory, countably infinite graphs are allowed, so we need not restrict DG to finite graphs. Also, a finite DG need not have a fixed number of nodes, why not allow increase and decrease of the number of nodes. One way to accommodate this is to embed in an infinite graph.
Re A2. The node-state might be much more general than an integer.
Re A3. Loops should be allowed.
Re A4. Multi-dimensional time might be useful for some applications.
Re A6. Changes of state would conform to A2 above.
The graph model doesn’t have a built-in metric. A metric space is derived by considering the cliques of the graph as space points. The best intuitive analogy that I can find for considering the cliques of the graph as space points as as follows: In a social network graph, for example a Facebook conenction graph, a clique (a maximally connected group of friends) can be considered as one in a given context. For example, all nodes in the clique can be thought of as voting for the same party, liking the same football club, coming from the same university, etc. Similarly, the nodes in a clique act as one for derived local physics and can be thought of as one.
Question 2: is the analogy correct and/or useful?
Answer (RA): in the ST level of the AR model, we propose a pseudo metric based on the overlap of two cliques
cliques are defined via graph theory alone applied to the QX (micro) graph, and there is thus far no property of the nodes of QX that might be interpreted as a club, church, or school
however, such attributes might be included when generalizing the definition of a CDN as described under #1 above
thus, i think the analogy is not correct for our models as currently defined
Comment (GP): The club of space-time points! The nodes in a QX clique contribute to macroscopic physics at the same point in space-time.
The cliques of the graph and the associated superbonds (directed links between cliques) define a metric space, with the distance between two cliques given by the strength of the superbond. The metric can’t always be embedded in Euclidean 3-space, and therefore an optimized approximate embedding in a metric 3-space must be found. It’s to be expected that there are cases where the metric, defined by global optimization, has local glitches – for example two points that are close before the embedding become far after the embedding. This could help making sense of quantum entanglement, psi etc.
Question 3: is the above paragraph correct or have I misunderstood everything?
Answer (RA): I think this is essentially correct, except that we may never have the triangle inequality satisfied. That is, replace “metric” in the above with “pseudo-metric.”
Microtime t and cosmic time T:
In the book you cover time in 8.3 The two time dimensions: “We propose now to obtain macroscopic spacetime from the condensation process applied repeatedly to the entire QX object, which contains all times, although it is rapidly changing…”
What I don’t understand is: “We consider a memory device, controlled by the cosmic-time function, T. Between cosmic time T1 (corresponding to network time t1) and cosmic time T2 (with its network time t2) the memory device records all of the finite states of QX between network-time t1 and network time t2, and condenses this finite set of QX states into a spacelike continuum corresponding to the discrete cosmic time T2. One method for the condensation of a finite set of QX states is the sum algorithm… As giant steps are still very small compared with the resolving power of macroscopic science, cosmic time appears to be continuous.”
So, you don’t use the whole evolution of QX(t) to determine cosmic time T, but only a window from t1 to t2, and the corresponding cosmic time step (T2 – T1) is smaller than macroscopic time scales. Then, it seems to me that you are moving away from the initial objective of describing a cosmic memory field that never forgets. This memory field seems to forget very soon!
Question 4: please explain.
Answer (RA): It did not seem to practical to me to have an infinite memory… so if the memory device has a finite memory, it must forget… BUT, some large number of cosmic time steps (like recorded history) might be remembered.
Comment (GP: OK but the wording in the book gives me the impression that the memory span is measured in microseconds of cosmic time, not millennia… (see text of the question).
Question 5: How about treating 3-space and time covariantly as 4-spacetime, embedding the cliques and superbonds of QX(t) in a Minkowski spacetime? I am sure you must have thought of that.
Answer (RA): embedding in space-time would mean assembling successive condensations in discrete position in 4D, assuming a global cosmological time… good idea