Reflections on Old posts

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I just took some time to read through some old posts I have made. Oh how my train of thought has changed... but some old thoughts I still believe to this day. I have picked out some of my most favourite qoutes:



    Reflections from old Qoutes:

    ''Well, according to Physicists Leon N. Cooper and Deborah Van Vechten of the Brown University in 1969 they proclaimed that consciousness was lame without a collective group. Apparently, we need additional information from sources to be able to make sense of reality. One man is not enough.

    We know that collective consciousness exists. The influence of the many determine the actions of the few. For instance, you can have a large group of people listening to Robbie Williams, and they all fall into the same quantum states.

    The is an influence on a grand scale, and it is collective in much this sense of things. But where am i going with this?

    Your environment depends on the way everybody else is acting, and usually, if you are conscious of this, you will be inexorably influenced by this. Sometimes choice itself does not explain everything.

    Why do you think so many Germans rallied to Hitlers cause? Why do peace protestors have such an influence on world organizations? Why does the mood of a classroom depend on the nature of one nauty boy?

    This is like a great sea of consciousness. We are never aware of our profound connections to other people, ad usually how they influence our own thoughts and feelings, but in the end, we are all subject to cause and effect, even on a macrosopic level. But even this level has profound relationships; these tiny statistical averages we call ''atoms''.
    These atoms and molecules arrange themselves so that a field of consciousness can arise...''


    .....................................

    “ Originally Posted by Reiku
    4. I'm not sure what you mean. The brains function is to express thought, not restrain it. ”


    reply by spurious monkey

    Indeed, it seems to us that the brain functions to express thought. And it does! However, it functions to express only certain thoughts. It functions to restrict thought, by allowing certain paths of thought that are useful to a certain level.

    The brain is not finite. It has to distribute its resources. It does this by limiting patterns until the patterns become strong; learning. Many of these patterns are scripted. Some will always happen. Some will often happen. Some will never happen. The structure of the brain(as in physical structure and developmental constraints) is one that is restrained.

    One might even argue that it is impossible to have an original thought, and indeed nobody ever had a true original thought.

    Where is the free will in that? Nobody is capable of thinking outside the box, the box being your brain, the limiter of thought; the giver of restrained thought.


    ........................................

    ''One of the biggest mysteries concerning physics today is the role of the observer. The world of the mind has captured the imaginations of some of the biggest giants in the world of physics... and with good reason. We learn that the observer must play one of the most important parts in what we call reality. Hence, a physicist is compelled to say, 'the mind is reality,' and in this thread, we will investigate why physics is driven into believing this statement.

    The observer plays one of the biggest roles in physics - but unfortunately, it isn't explored enough i feel. Theoretical physicist, Fred Alan Wolf has written many tributes to the theory of consciousness. Physicist and mathematician Erwin Schrödinger, most famous for 'Schrödinger’s cat paradox' also dedicated a lot time to the observer. Niels Bohr, the founder of the 'Copenhagen interpretation' showed us the effects of the observer on the observed. Einstein himself brought back the role of the observer, in many examples such as the 'twin paradox', the 'train-platform game of catch,' the 'grandfather paradox', the 'EPR paradox', Ect.

    The EPR paradox is by physicists Einstein, Boris (Podolsky) and Nathan (Rosen). It raises the question of the state of one half of a system that was previously attached to the other system. If one half of the system is observed and measured, what happens to the other half? Well, whatever is determined for the half being observed, instantly determines the other system, even though it is no longer connected to it. The paradox is how this happens. The research on the EPR is still on-going, and the results of physicist Alain Aspect showed a connection of entangled behavior in 1996.

    I can understand why Einstein was highly critical of physics; considering half of the unsolvable paradoxes came from him. Even 'Schrödinger’s cat' was inspired by Einstein. It was as though Einstein was out on a mission to show everyone of the world that quantum physics was strange, and there was nothing we could do about it - and this included the paradoxical world of the observer.''


    ...................................

    The Copenhagen interpretation says that a system halts when an observation takes place. Schrödinger’s cat will be in a superpositioning until such an observation is performed - until then the experiment will exist as 'decayed nucleus/dead cat' simultaneous with 'undecayed' nucleus/living cat.' This is the effect of the quantum wave function until any observation is carried out, (no such thing as a collapse happens in the parallel universe theory. Instead, the observer and the observed become involved in a split). However, Schrödinger did not make this experiment to example the split.

    According to the Copenhagen school of thought, the amount of uncertainty for complex quantum systems is predicted by 'quantum decoherence.' Particles which exchange photons become so entangled with each other that the uncertainty in a macroscopic system, like a cat, is almost zero - this means we can say that the cat is no longer dead and alive, but rather is one or the other - one (the cat is alive) or zero (the cat is dead).

    'Wigner’s Friend,' by physicists Eugene Wigner, is an extension of Schrödinger’s Cat. It is meant to provoke thought. Professor Wigner stands outside of the room, ready to look in to see Wigner’s friend looking at the cat. Is Wigner’s friend in a happy state, or a sad state?

    Eugene Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed consciousness is a requisite for mathematical measurement process - if a material device is substituted for Wigner’s friend, the wave function hasn't collapsed and superpositioning continues. However, he also reasons that a conscious observer must be in one state or the other. I shall leave the reader with some famous qoutes:

    'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles?
    Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.'


    'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.'
    Niels Bohr


    'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is actual afterwards.'
    Bryce S. DeWitt


    'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one actually emerges.'
    David Bohm


    'There is always a triple correspondence;
    1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world
    2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature
    3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings
    To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. '
    Sir Arthur Eddington


    ............................................

    Could we make a tachyonic drive? If neutrino's are tachyons, we might...

    reply from Bentheman

    Reiku---

    Check out a paper that a friend of mine wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0512152.

    He describes how one might, in principle (!), build a warp drive based on locally varying the cosmological constant. ''


    ..........................................

    ''For me, three words can sum God up rather well. He/She is omnipotent. God is also omniscient. He/She is also omnipresent. This sums God up for me... but, before we continue, let us agree on one more aspect. God knows everything. There should not be an atom in the universe He/She is not aware of... hence something similar found in the Bible, ''God knows the number of every strand of hair on your head.''

    However, having a scientific mind, i must admit, we must change our views of what God could be - we often take the bible far too seriously. For instance, to say God knows everything, is where the first inconsistency arises, when interpreting God into the theory of quantum physics.

    According to the uncertainty principle, to know everything there is about matter, like the location or path of any particle simultaneously is unknowable. To know such knowledge would be disastrous for our universe; it would cause extreme violence. The uncertainty principle states that some of the particles in our universe are potentially volatile. This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came.

    So, the question is, can an all-knowing God be correct? To know the location and path of 10^15 particles at any given time would destroy our universe - God would need to be ignorant of certain atomic behavior.

    The second paradox arises when one takes into consideration when measuring an energy of a system. To measure the energy of any system, you need to be separate of it. In Relativity, it indicates that there is no outside to our universe. All that counts, exists inside of it. In just this case, how can anyone measure the energy of the universe, when one needs to be outside to measure it? To do so, God would need to be able to measure Himself/Herself simultaneously; now this might not be a problem if He/She has omnipresence. Of course, there is always the argument that God made it all, thus He/She should know what and how much ingredients were used, just like your mums Sunday apple pie.

    The third paradox arises in the wave function. The only time anything real can come out of the wave function is when intelligence comes into the picture. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, then surely He/She would collapse the wave function for us? Indeed if God did, there would be nothing for us to collapse. ''

    Violating the Uncertainty Principle

    So, if God cannot know everything, is the noun ''God'' really what we class as God? It stands to reason it can't, unless there is some way God can defy the principle without sending our universe back to whence it came.

    Physicists, David Albert, Yakir Aharanov and Susan D'Amato came up with a genuis idea. There is a way to know a particles location and path without violating the UP.

    If a measurement on the state of a particle is made in the past determining its path, and another measurement made of its momentum in the future, both the path and position of a particle is knowable in the present, because the momentum of a particle isn't determined yet in the present.

    If the first inconsistency is a major flaw in any quantum phsyical picture of God, then it an be removed using the (AAD's) interpretation of UP violation.


    .........................................

    Multiplying two answers to obtain a single answer is common in everyday life. You might remember the mathematical formulae from school. Here are a few to example;

    1. Force = mass x acceleration
    2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength
    3. Volume = area of base x height
    4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height

    Once they multiply, the 'transaction', as Cramer terms it, is complete. He feels that using these quantum waves helps in teaching how they work. It is after all, understandable. It is quite an elementary way of looking at it all.

    First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector | S > that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state:

    | O (t, 1) >

    Which then moves to the future:

    t >1

    When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time

    <E(t, 2)|

    The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude:

    <E(t, 1)|O(t, 2)>

    The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows.


    ...................................................

    This process of creating a system, is something I see somewhat parallel to what David Bohm once said,

    ‘’We have to consider the system attentively trying out all possibilities, out of which only one actuality emerges.’’

    Indeed the attentively seeking echo and offer waves come together with out of which one real system can emerge. The best way I imagine it, is by a simple analogy. You can think of a massive thundercloud, and eventually that cloud will condense to make droplets of rain, and this is what the wave function does. It collapses, and forms actual systems of solid matter. But in this theory, the future does not determine the past, but the past can determine the future in a statistical way. This means that the emitter is given a ‘’privileged’’ role. The last few theories can provide models without the aid of an observer-dependency, as it can supplying them.


    ...................................................

    Of course, it could be argued in a negative direction. Instead, everything is objective, and there is only an illusion of subjectivism. This would mean that this particular universe evolved independently of the observer, and even the observers eventual appearance by its very evolution. All of this was simply just, and no observer was ever really needed. That makes our appearance in this universe, very miniscule indeed, since we don’t even have any special place in the evolution of our very lives, and any of the thoughts we may come to have, any things we come to do, or even the many things we may come to write, is nothing but, it simply is.

    That can make us quite inferior, but to redeem some kind of hope in our lives, we do have the importance of communication, and our thoughts are not alone. Evan Harris Walker, a famous physicist once said,

    ‘’The observer – indeed the whole system are coupled to the extent that agreement on the final state of the system that is involved… The will arises from the pool of all consciousness – a pool formed by small contributions of each without spatial or temporal bounds.’’


    ................................................

    Going back to parallel universes, the deterministic reality is an important thing to consider from relativity, but the transactional interpretation says some interesting things concerning the wave function. The deterministic reality does not exist in the local system however, but does, when it interacts with a ‘’stroke’’ that comes from the future.

    As Hoyle said, we can’t deal with a deterministic reality if things alone go from past to future, but instead, there is also a future to past stroke, which condenses the wave function.

    ‘’In analogy to a two-stroke engine, quantum mechanics is just one of the cylinders, stroking from past to future. The other cylinder serves to condense the wave function, and it strikes from future to past…. The cylinder which strokes from future to past is directed by intelligence, and through the condensation of the wave function our thoughts are controlled.’’


    ......................................

    The primal force is the original force that existed before the separation into gravitation, electromagnetic and strong and weak fields. This force is called Quantum Gravity, and it is very unique. It consists of all the other forces, which would make it a compound force (I say compound, in the same sense of let’s say, magnesium oxide, made of magnesium and oxygen.)

    But unlike a classical compound, where it is hard to reverse the chemical processes, the primal force split apart quite easily into simpler components. Smaller parts that made the whole, and they exist as the four forces we know today in physics.

    Why did these forces break off?
    .
    At this energy, spacetime becomes highly distorted, and eventually ‘’doors’’ can open due to the curvature, and these topological openings are called wormholes. It turns out, that during the 70’s and 80’s, it was well-known that singularities posited problems in the cosmological order of things, because all physics and all math break down at this level, where variables take on infinite values……(**), and wormholes took the stage in replace of a gravitational singularity at the beginning of time.

    This immeasurable part of spacetime, having itself an infinite curvature, (or at least an infinitesimally small), was deemed nonsense, because why would God allow a totally lawless region of spacetime? Steven Hawking challenged the question, and said singularities didn’t even need to exist. It turned out that Hawking could remove singularities mathematically from spacetime. It depended also on what state our universe was in.


    ..........................................

    Physicist Joseph Gerver said that Everett’s interpretation of parallel universes did not take into consideration frames that moved backwards in time. The interpretation should not only allow the splitting of universes as time moved forward, but also allow some kind of evolution when things moved backwards.

    ......................................

    There is no such thing as a collapse in the wave function in parallel universe theory. Instead, we have an interaction, and we have a seperation, called the splitting and merging of universes, each time either an observation is made, or when two things come into contact, even two simple electrons.

    If you flipped a coin 100 times, you would get a little over \(10^{30}\) universes would ''pop'' into existence. Everytime you observe a friend in the street, at least one other universe says you did not, and it spontaneously comes into existence.

    The human mind is split - in a serious way. Your mind, along with all the matte in the universe, seperates from the mother-branch, and comes into existence, with talking walking, ''us''.

    If any observer-dependant model is hard to believe, it would be one in a parallel universe model, because our action, can literally, make other universes come alive.


    ...................................

    If you exceed this value, then the real leg becomes longer than the imaginary leg, and you are now oscillating through the time dimension. This is what we mean by speeds that are bradynic, photonic or tachyonic. There is a boundary created at ''c'', and this is highlighted through the spacetime triangle.

    Now, it has come to light (mind the pun) on the mass of the electron neutrino (Ve), because it is a leading "dark matter" candidate... and we don't know the phsycial properties of dark matter. We have some examples of what some dark matter might be like, such as the axion particle which travels through material objects!

    We can create neutrino's from the decay of tritium. The basic underlining rule is through the relativistic realtion between energy and momentum E^2 = P^2 + M^2... and we work out that it is mass squared that works out the neutrino mass from tritium decay... but this mass squared can be seen in light of either a positive reult or a negative result, and if it is a tachyon, containing a very light weight amount of imaginary matter of about i × 12 eV, there is the big problem that nothing fuitful will arise out of this... because the theorists do not believe its qualities would be observable or known.


    ..................................

    The idea that biological entities could require some kind of quantum description has been accepted for quite a long time now. In fact it was coined as ''quantum biology'' [1] [2] by the Legendary Erwin Schrodinger, the man who created the wave equation of matter in his infamous book ''What is Life'' [3] in 1946. Actually, Schrodinger made a number of predictions in his book, such as predicting a crystal-like structure which would encode the information of a single strand of DNA, it was later discovered and named the Double Helix. It was said, that his prediction was a brilliant one, made from the postulates of quantum mechanics.

    Quantum biology includes concepts of superpositioning, quantum tunneling and entanglement. It may also involve other concepts which cannot be explained except for inferring on quantum behaviour. Many plantforms make good use of quantum behaviour, such as photosynthesis. Even birds make good use of quantum behaviour. Their magnetoreceptors are directly caused by the quantum phenomenon of the zeno effect, a subject which might be important for consciousness, as we will see later.

    It would seem therefore, folly to assume that consciousness has absolutely no place in quantum mechanics. We haven't studied all the dynamics relating to consciousness to draw such a conclusion. There has been some suggestions that there are magnetites located in the human noes or eye which may have some effects on our own types of magnetoreceptors; in other words, the types of quantum effects on consciousness could be vast. We will not know, until we have a full-working theory of consciousness which might or might not work well within the classical low energy limit of nuerons.


    ....................................

    Fred Alan Wolf postulates, even to this day that consciousness arose from the big bang, but I do not share his contentions. By using what is called Geometrogenesis (the study of the emergence of geometry in a universe) I can model consciousness to almost perfect accuracy when and were consciousness makes it's appearance and I am afraid that it has no primordial (big bang) appearance at all.

    To answer this question, we should ask first of all, is consciousness a high-energy phenomenon, or a low energy phenomenon?

    Believe it or not, but at first glance this question might seem impossible to try and prove. However I can show using Geometrodynamics, the study of the emergance of geometry in a vacuum can provide some insights to these questions surrounding consciousness.

    I now realize however, that if consciousness was a geometrodynamical phenomenon that any of the elements that go with high energy physics cannot be applied to consciousness. A quick schematic of the thoughts brought forth include:

    That consciousness is a low energy phenomenon. It is concerned with topics such as locality, translational and relational subsystems. We can talk about Geometry and we may be allowed to envoke the dimension of time because of consciousness itself. And of course, possibly most important of all, but low energy physics is attributed to matter - and as we are all usually quite a aware of, matter and consciousness are interconnected strongly. The world of locality arising from consciousness seems like a matter of fact, since we are local in measurements from this phenomenon we call perception.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Hands up who read past the title.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Not me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I got as far as this:

    "For instence, you can have a large group of people listening to Robbie Williams, and they all fall into the same quantum states."
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    lol

    Even I found that funny.
     
  9. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    When I reflect back on my old posts I have to admit, I stand by each and every statement that I ever made. They're as true today as they were when I posted them.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Mine aren't.

    I see lots of mistakes, a lot of theories which don't quite add up. I'm quite ashamed of some of them. But hey ho, I am much more confident about my theories today, even though I do make the occassional mistake.
    But who doesn't, right? :shrug:

    And no, Mr T. doesn't count

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,026
    Read the title then read the first line and scrolled through the rest without wasting another second on it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,033
    You're right about that.
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I want justify the sentance:

    ''For instance, you can have a large group of people listening to Robbie Williams, and they all fall into the same quantum states.''

    This was not literal at all. It was more of a joke. Back then, I was trying to apply funny analogies to otherwise serious debates.

    I still laughed at it again when I read it.
     

Share This Page