The Empathic Universe

[Gibsense]

Maybe you could try and summarise then? At the moment I am struggling to separate your input and AI's and how it relates to my post.

Your post (with a very physical/mechanical description) conveyed a sense of Wholeness; whatever the communication method. I was trying to think how wholeness could be a communication method where, in a 3D space, the speed of light is a limitation.
I came up with the simple idea of changing the nature of the space (as a reality we do not easily recognise), therefore, how might things work in 4D space?

In 4D space, things we take for granted (like you cannot pass through a wall and knots are secure) are different, so maybe (I do not know the answer—need to check) the speed of light is different or something. Then perhaps wholeness would be relevant in 4d .

Taking your description as an analogy, then maybe empathy could be relevant to a 3D person, although he still might not appreciate why.

 

[whoknows]

Your post (with a very physical/mechanical description) conveyed a sense of Wholeness; whatever the communication method. I was trying to think how wholeness could be a communication method where, in a 3D space, the speed of light is a limitation.
I came up with the simple idea of changing the nature of the space (as a reality we do not easily recognise), therefore, how might things work in 4D space?

In 4D space, things we take for granted (like you cannot pass through a wall and knots are secure) are different, so maybe (I do not know the answer—need to check) the speed of light is different or something. Then perhaps wholeness would be relevant in 4d .

Taking your description as an analogy, then maybe empathy could be relevant to a 3D person, although he still might not appreciate why.

Thanks, a key element to my analogy is the indirect component of it. The limitations of surface to surface communications and observations, wherever they are, become moot. The/a U/u niverse is your oyster!

 

[whoknows]

Hours before a solar eclipse, spruce trees 'talk' to each other

"Basically, we are watching the famous 'wood wide web' in action!"

www.space.com

"This suggests the old trees hold ancient memories they can access. When events are coming up, the old trees "remember" and inform younger trees."

Where is the disconnect (cause and effect) for anything?

 

[whoknows]

That would be one honking big hub! Also, that's a inefficient communication design, compared to the decentralized versatility of the Internet, where there is no center, no hub. Where would this extra energy come from? What would power the web and the hub? That hub, no matter what type of data/energy it was rerouting, would get very, very hot.
How does the Multiverse theory fit into your discussion? What if our "Universe" is simply one of an infinite number of universes? While I've watched some impressive demonstrations of two people with the ability to appear to read each other's minds, when a behavioral psychologist has a much more mundane and scientific explanation for shared experiences among twins especially; they have learned each others interactions and reactions to the environment, and are able to deduct the other's most likely response.
Likewise in your spherical universe, what you may be observing is a shared external, environmental cause and effect; not a subtle, ethereal network, that works with some equivalent invisible force. In your scenario, a message from Alaska to Vladivostok, instead of zipping straight West, would first travel from Alaska to the center of the Earth (hypothetically), and then travel all the way back up to the Arctic. That's seems terribly inefficient, as each communication has to travel many times the distance a straight line would require, every single communication passing through one point - what could possibly go wrong?
It appears to me as a weakened structure for a homogeneous universe. I have no "theories," and these are my reactions to your post; thank you!

It's a simple concept, a mind concept, bottom up,, rather than your top down, based on cause and effect - a thought, not a theory.

 

[Gibsense]

What do you think?

Hi Cat, Have you noticed the thread Hyperflare Hypothesis? I thought you might be interested because I notice you stated somewhere that you only accept the reality of the observable universe . This thread (assisted AI) describes this situation using a new description of a light cone as it arises from extra dimensions (the 3d Flatlander discussions.
Anyway, it seems communication is possible over the whole width of the universe. Empathy not needed

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, no, I had not seen it.
It is rather long, so I will revert when I have read it. Note: my comment in that thread.

Meanwhi;e, are you referring to:

We all sense that there is something which we all sense. That does not mean that there is something out there which is open to the same perception by all. That would be an objective universe. It is beyond argument there is no common "Universe". There are only "observable universes".

An easy example would be the perceptions of different species being different because they have different sensory equipment. Also humans' perception over time has changed as we began to use different sources than visible light, for example, such as IR, UV, X-rays, and also new technologies such as telescopes and spectroscopes.

My point is that there is no overall "Universe", ALL of which is open to observation by all.
I made the point of examining "all there is" in the context of "observable by whom?", or, rather, "all there is , according to whom?"

I don't know of any adequate definition of "The Universe" - do you?

In General Semantics (vide Science and Sanity by Korzybski) there is a useful adjective he uses, name "unsane". This does not have the derogatory associations as "insane", and, more or less, corresponds to "silly questions".

Unsane question: Why couldn’t I have been born rich, smart, happy, etc.?

Constructive question: _________________? (A possible response: What can I do right now to become more wealthy, intelligent, content, etc.?)

from "A Continuing Education Guide to Teaching General Semantics" by M. H. Levinson.


Cat

 

[Gibsense]

I don't know of any adequate definition of "The Universe" - do you?

No, I agree that most definitions seem inadequate as our perception of 'everything' improves.

Re the 'host/loads' of recent posts I have made, AI has offered a summary to start. It can be a bit tiring to wade through loads of stuff