It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to spot quantum quackery

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Yes, they are theoretical peer reviewed papers...

And therefore offer no empirical support for your views at all. Why did you bother to post them if you knew they were just model-making based on a host of unproven assumptions? I can see only two answers to that question: either you did not realize that makes them irrelevant, or else you're just trying to bamboozle us. Take your pick.


See the problem I have with statements such as this, is that I have no clue how to talk with someone like yourself that denies these new frameworks are emerging in a real, solid science. What else am I supposed to do besides posting peer reviewed theoretical papers?

Learn real quantum mechanics, realize that your views are nonsense and stop promoting them. Either that or just stop promoting them, because if you can't be bothered to learn the science you have no business talking about this subject at all.


Self-directed neuro-plasticity is self explanatory and is real - don't know what else to say to you... If you disagree with the frontiers of psychology and neuroscience... well... have at 'em hoss. I am just the messenger.

'Self-directed neuroplasticity' has a much simpler, commonsense name. It is called learning. It has nothing to do with turning wishes into horses and beggars into riders.


You say the PDF was complete rubbish... are you referring to the first one, Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology? Please be kind and point out what exactly is rubbish about it.

It is not a scientific paper at all, just a polemic based on existing, well-known findings in quantum mechanics.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So we are on opposite sides of the spectrum I think... you are more of a realist, and I, more of an idealist.

I want to travel to the stars and live in as close of a utopia as I can. I want to do it together, with everyone in peace and intellectual progress.

I am young now, so I can help to bring that to a reality - and the closer I can get to that will be all the more worth it because humanity is at rock bottom with the potential to be so much.

I want my corporeal existence to be better.

Its just a ride.




I am a realist, but then, if you really inspect reality, it's composed of bits of pure genius that gather together in a natural and economic symbiosis that outdoes anything that Quantum Theory could ever invent. Just the manner in which the contextual slurry, that the Informational Continuum provides for structured causation, enables progressive physical development is mind blowing engineering in the more brilliantly passive sense. You start seeing these theories as philosophical shots in the dark when you realize just how insanely dense the informational interconnections are, and how much is affected with every shift in causal trajectory. Even deep space is not a true vacuum. Nothing that exists stands up on its own. Everything is held upright by something else that's been leaning against it since it came into existence.

I remember whjen I realized that electricity doesn't actually flow. That it is electrons bumping into electrons, with their relative position never actually changing as the reaction mimics a current down the line of the conductive material. *SNIP*

Being a realist concerning reality is not the same as being a realist about open potential. Being an idealist concerning reality is not the same as being an idealist about open potential. Open potential is the causal future, and I'm an absolute idealist concerning trajectory. That said, my optimism is bolstered by the fact that I have a solid understanding of what the impending can possibly constitute, and even better, what it can't possibly provide. This puts all of my ideals within the realm of possible and even likely. This ends up including a hell of a lot of good stuff.

I like that you're young and curious. I wish more young people were curious.


edit on 24/9/2010 by Mirthful Me because: Removed unecessary content.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
O.k. this is for the people whom are abject Quantum deniers...

Quantum theory is the theory of isolation, a quantum system only enteres cohearance at the point of a consious observeration, until that point it is in a state of quantum flux, its potencial to be all outcomes at the same time is a real world recorded phenomonen.

Look into this..

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu



And for the people claiming Quantum Thoery is nothing more than crackpot I say this: - People have a hard time with qauntum mechanics and an even harder time when they think about the implications, but please bear in mind that It wasn't that long ago that you would have been called a crack pot for suggesting the world was a sphere and not flat...

All the best,

Korg.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Progressive trajectory exists in a causal environment. If you deny this, then you simply don't understand reality. What progressive trajectory insists is that if change is occurring in a specific "direction" then it takes the impact of a 2nd trajectory - or an obstacle - to change that direction. It also suggests that within each environment (determined by a sub-structural contextual commonality) there can be only one trajectory per event chain (not the infinite amount suggested in some of those TQM videos), with variations occurring to alter that unique and inimitable trajectory, not to launch new multiple/concurrent trajectories within the same contextual environment.

To launch a new environment requires a new sub-structural contextual commonality to be established, and then for the entire progression of existential development to begin anew. This means that the infinite outcome variations theory has no structural validity (existentially speaking) whatsoever, and exists only in the imagination of the proponent. In essence, it does exist, but only as information concerning an impossible causal theory.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Sorry to bring it up again, but have you guys already forgotten how the holy gang hijacked the Big Bang theory, and by conveniently skipping a light-year of information/explanation they thus 'proved' their own cosmogony/cosmology (and all the other fairytales derived from this).

Well, it's happening again; cottage industry at its worst. As been mentioned earlier on this thread, "everything is possible, so my homebrewed fantasies must be true". Even outside the rigid parameters of 'scientism' there is still a difference between speculation, hypothesis and reasonable theory.

That's the public part.

The infra-scientific part is presently a somewhat silent contest on the need for a 'unified theory' or a 'theory about everything' (i.e. to combine micro- and macro-cosmic phenomena). Some zero-point physicists have re-instated an updated version of reductionism: All the answers are on the micro-cosmic level. The debate is far from finished, but the micro-cosmic 'explanation' is more in vogue now, as it appeals more to the public who wants X-files revived at a scientific level.

Not gonna happen.

The theory of a cosmos, 'where things do not really exist' (in the classical sense) is certainly attractive and almost housebroken. Here 'reality' is sometimes described as originating from the vague concept 'consciousness'; ..fine. Also fine is, that interaction/relating/signalling seems to describe cosmos better than a static model of 'things'.

But going from this to multiverses, observer created realities etc. is too big a step (as it is now).

I have two heavy arguments against such premature conclusions, and you don't have to be a scientist to understand them.

1/ It's an unbelievable anthropocentric arrogance and narcissism to suppose, that human (or similar) observation is the master-key to what manifests. The object-subject positions are reversable. You, little cottage industry navel-gazer, is WATCHED BACK by the rest of the universe. Schroedinger's cat itself is part of the equation (as is everything else), not the passive object of your 'observation'. So instead maybe YOU'LL go puff, because the cat is watching YOU.

2/ So...'things' flip in and out of cosmos from an underlying 'field'. Is all this 'flipping' simultaneous; because if it's not, the emerging particles arrive to an existing form, a mould, into which the transformed field energy will be cast. Say, there's an electron shaped 'hole' in the cosmic fabric, so an electron it will be. Call it cosmic memory, if you like.

Some may like to carry the cottage industry philosophy to the point of: "We all have our own private universes". Sure, we have private inner theaters, where we play personal dramas and taint the outer 'reality'. But try this experiment. Carry the 'private universe' speculation to its solipsistic conclusion and then step out in front of a moving lorry.

Transcending 'reality' isn't done by speculations from a sand-box.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Progressive trajectory exists in a causal environment. If you deny this, then you simply don't understand reality.


I suspect I have a grasp on reality at a much higher resolution than you do, hence the mismatch.

By a casual environment do you mean a random one? Because if you do then you need to know that until there is a conscious observation all matter within a space is directly in flux. So concerning angular motion, all trajectories are observed by matter until there is a conscious measurement...

Ultimately the experiment I posted above proves the need of a conscious observer rather than simply a recording of data.

Please review my previous post and please ask if you get lost, I'm here to help.

All the best,

Korg.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I have two heavy arguments against such premature conclusions, and you don't have to be a scientist to understand them.


I'd like to add something here for you think about each of your intelligent enquiring thoughts.



1/ It's an unbelievable anthropocentric arrogance and narcissism to suppose, that human (or similar) observation is the master-key to what manifests. The object-subject positions are reversible. You, little cottage industry navel-gazer, is WATCHED BACK by the rest of the universe. Schrödinger’s cat itself is part of the equation (as is everything else), not the passive object of your 'observation'. So instead maybe YOU'LL go puff, because the cat is watching YOU.


Actually Schrödinger's cat has been misquoted so many times. The thought experiment was initially designed to debunk quantum theory but over time has been used to demonstrate it.. which is total irony.

Another fallacy that has risen in popular status is that Quantum mechanics is the theory of the very small... Also totally not true. Quantum mechanics is all about isolation. Any object any size can be placed in a state of quantum flux so long as it is removed from interaction from any other system.

I have often had the discussion of what would the Schrödinger's cat experiment feel like from the cats perspective, because surely the cat is indeed conscious. My answer to this is the cat would feel as though they are in the dark, because if the outcome was it died it would not feel anything at all


But the question is in fact an insightful one because the cat would in fact observe what was happening and so collapse the wave function of the system.

However... due to the nature of Quantum gravity, as the cat is now sealed from interacting with any other system outside the box no information about the state of the cat can reach outside, this places the entire contents of the box in a state of superposition. So from our perspective the cat exhibits a state of flux where all outcomes exist simultaneously.

This paradox is where the idea of a multiverse comes from, and to take it to an extreme lengh is where the idea of Quantum Immortality comes from


2/ So...'things' flip in and out of cosmos from an underlying 'field'. Is all this 'flipping' simultaneous; because if it's not, the emerging particles arrive to an existing form, a mould, into which the transformed field energy will be cast. Say, there's an electron shaped 'hole' in the cosmic fabric, so an electron it will be. Call it cosmic memory, if you like.


Nice idea and almost on the money. There is not a hole in space-time but a twisting of it into a kind of braid. The randomness of space-time at the Planck scale 10 to the minus 35 meters can be thought of as a sea of froth. It is this randomness that creates braids in space time that correlate to the particles we observe. The energy we observe is caused by the creation of braids and their return to the foam.

It's a bit like taking a rubber sheet and bunching some of it up in your finger, there are no holes to be seen in the surrounding rubber, yet you have seemingly developed a 3 dimensional object from a 2 dimensional area.

It's seems that there are more people out there that are beginning to understand that Quantum Mechanics is not as Weird as people thought, just it appears weird if you do not first understand the nature of the fundamental level of our reality.

Just as it would appear weird to people in 1345AD to think that if you walked away from someone waving goodbye and kept walking you would end up walking towards them to face their back.

keep up the good probing thinking!!



Korg.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because: The Blue Funk Chronicles



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
They are related, inasmuch as human brains produce both consciousness and quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone intelligent is dismissing that notion.

The notion to be dismissed--and not just dismissed but lampooned, laughed at and launched out of court with a good strong kick--is the risible and pernicious one of mind over matter. No amount of quantum wizardry can make objects respond to the power of conscious thought without physical manipulation. There is not one result in quantum mechanics that even remotely suggests humans have the power to alter things merely by thinking about or looking at them.

There is absolutely no scientific support for that kind of quantum quackery. There are no free lunches.

Agree wholeheartedly. That's the "bathwater".

I am more interested in figuring out how the subjective experience of consciousness fits into reality. In my view any valid "theory of everything" must be able to explain everything we know. And we know that we are conscious.

My optimism with modern physics is about possibly discovering a way to bridge the gap between philosophy of mind and hard physics, something that is simply impossible with classical physics (as I mentioned). Thus my optimism in this area is strictly mundane. It has nothing to do with telepathy or faster-than-light travel or making all of my dreams come true. It is just about the possibility of someday understanding the things I already know to be true.



edit on 23-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

Just to make things clear: I am not a 'quantum denier'. I merely deny that quantum theory supports dualist philosophical ideas and theories of mind over matter.

And one small point:


Another fallacy that has risen in popular status is that Quantum mechanics is the theory of the very small... Also totally not true. Quantum mechanics is all about isolation. Any object any size can be placed in a state of quantum flux so long as it is removed from interaction from any other system.

This is yet to be proven for objects of all sizes and descriptions, despite recent experimental successes in macroscopic superposition.

More pertinently, any scientific theory is all about isolation. Isolation from unpredictable external factors is precisely what we mean when we say 'the experiment was performed under controlled conditions'. In this respect, quantum mechanics is no different from psychology or grade-school chemistry. Scientific investigation is usually analysis--in fact, sloppy journalists use the words interchangably. Isolation is inherent in the process of analysis.

I think you may need to revisit this idea of yours.

edit on 23/9/10 by Astyanax because: I did not wish to be overly just.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Hi Korg,

thanks for your pleasant and thought-inspiring answer. Being a lay-scientist and not even up to the last 5 years of scientific obeservations/theories I have to rely on an analysis based on inclusive patterns (does that give any meaning?).

As far as I can see it from your presentation, arguments pivot around 'isolation'. But then, from the cat's perspective, it (the cat) is not isolated. The rest of cosmos is the isolated part.

I smell the same possible logical fallacy as in the twin paradox. The spaceship brother comes back younger than the earthbound brother. In a two-object relationship, the spaceship and earth move relatively to each other. Only in a broader context of a space-time/gravity continum, e.g. our galaxy, will 'fixed' outside reference points decide a static position as opposite to a moving one.

Parallel to this, the cat's box can (with the accepted supposition, that isolation is possible) be said to be without influence until the isolation is broken. Inversely is the 'outside' world isolated, until the isolation is broken. What parameters decide the outcome when isolation is finished.

In a way I have ofcourse already answered the question in my earlier post, but I'm not completely rethorical now. Randomness appears to be counteracted by statistical probabilities. The cat is a cosmic 'minority', and the chances of cosmos collapsing seem to be smaller than the cat doing it. (I'm aware, that 'collapsing' isn't quite precise, but bear with me).

On purely speculative grounds I suspect, that human perception and conceptualizing sofar have been ignorant of some of the building blocks or principles in cosmic formation. By this I'm not trying to sneak any crank-theories in by the backdoor, but I have this very strong feeling, that we always end up searching for reference points, even when stressing relativity and non-causality to their outmost.

An example: When I last time read about randomness and statistical probabilities (chaos/cosmos), I got the distinct impression, that the dichotomy was swept under the carpet by the suggestion, that chaos is far more organised, than a purist model of chaos would imply. Total enthropy was conveniently disregarded.

Having a resident specialist to bother this way, is the closest I can get to a state of bliss (apart from old whiskey, pretty women and good cigars).



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Re Astyanax:

you seem to have given a very interesting perspective on the question(s) I've put. From my lay-position I tend to look in a direction of a more inclusive methodology.

But in NO way denying the value of science, maybe just suggesting a re-evaluation of some of its parameters.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


"The experimental
results demonstrate the possibility of observing both
particle-like and wave-like behavior of a light quantum
via quantum mechanical entanglement. The which-path
or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or
marked by its entangled twin even after the registration
of the quantum."

This shows that the availability of information to a conscious has a direct influence over realty.

The idea that this proves we can "control" matter with our minds is extrapolation but it does at least prove that the possibilities of matter are only definitive when observed.

If you realize that information is meaningless unless it is observed (it does not have a physical connection to what it describes) and the existence of information changes reality than it is easy to understand that consciousness creates reality.

Again, this does not in any way imply we have complete "control" over reality.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Why did you bother to post them if you knew they were just model-making based on a host of unproven assumptions? I can see only two answers to that question: either you did not realize that makes them irrelevant, or else you're just trying to bamboozle us. Take your pick.


Ok... this is so frustrating(especially when you create a false dichotomy in which I am either stupid or attempting to 'bamboozle' people).

They are model-making based upon the empirical phenomenon of self-directed neuro-plasticity. What are the unproven assumptions in your opinion?

They are suggesting that the mechanism for this phenomenon is in a quantum model of the brain. You see, if QM is correct, then we have most likely evolved using it to its full potential - much like algae can use it for incredible efficiency in photosynthesis.

So you can argue against quantum mechanics being the mechanism, which is fine - but when you argue against the entire phenomenon itself than you are going against the grain of the empirical evidence...


'Self-directed neuroplasticity' has a much simpler, commonsense name. It is called learning. It has nothing to do with turning wishes into horses and beggars into riders.


Ok... to get this straight: I am not advocating the hocus pocus magical idea of QM. I do believe there is potential in that direction, but then it is not magic but scientific technological reality. In the spirit of Arthur C. Clarke, of course.


I am, however, providing you with a legitimate concept and area of research that counters some of your earlier generalized statements.

Learning would be a very over-simplified way of looking at the phenomenon of self-directed neuro-plasticity. But yes, basically.

It is more like training your brain in whatever manner is consistently willed and reinforced, I think, than just learning new things. It is manipulating the brain from the perception or observance of the mechanistic brain functions from conscious awareness. There is an observable 'gap' between the two. It is realizing that you can observe your brain's natural tendencies and functions from 'above' or 'afar'. It is the higher state of awareness that watches mechanistic behavior and 'decides' to change certain functions. I guess its that voice in your head that reminds you of all the things you should be doing and nags about morals etc.

I am only showing that there has been significant consideration towards a quantum model of the brain to explain certain phenomena. The phenomena itself exists either way


Neuroscience and neuro-psychology have reached high levels of knowledge in this field by
the extended utilization of electrophysiological and of functional brain imaging technology.
However, neuroscience finds it hard to identify the crucial link existing between empirical
studies that are currently described in psychological terms and the data that arise instead
described in neurophysiological terms. It is assumed that the measurable properties of the brain
through functional imaging technology should be in itself sufficient to achieve an adequate
explanation of the psychologically described phenomenology that occurs during
neuropsychological experiments.



Instead, some investigators suggest that intrinsically mental and experiential functions such as
“feeling” and “ knowing” cannot be described exclusively in terms of material structure, and
they require an adequate physics in order to be actually explained. To this purpose they outline
the important role that quantum mechanics could carry out. In particular, we outline here the
effort of Stapp in several years and still more recently [2], and the prospects for a quantum
neurobiology that were outlined already more than a past decade ago [3]. Therefore, it
becomes of fundamental and general interest for neuroscience and neuro-psychology to
indicate by results of experiments if quantum mechanics has a role in brain dynamics. In the
present paper we give a contribution concerning this basic problem while previous results
obtained by us on this matter, are given in ref.[4]. First we consider the problem to acquire (a
posteriori) a knowledge of quantum wave function starting directly from experimental data,
and soon after we show that mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and
cognition of figures having intrinsic ambiguity.

On the Existence of Quantum Wave Function and Quantum Interference Effects in Mental States: An Experimental Confirmation during Perception and Cognition in Humans On the Possibility That We Think in a Quantum Mechanical Manner: An Experimental Verification of Existing Quantum Interference Effects In Cognitive Anomaly of Conjunction Fallacy




posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Re Beebs:

As I see it, the basic situation is about how the 'observer' (and potential quantum participant) is positioned relative to what we call existence.

The new-age naivity of the Bleep-movie implies, that an observer/potential participant, with a few adjustments, reaches a kind of 'instant satori' and from a static and limited position of ignorance and incompetence, can expect existence to conform to expectations of such an 'uninformed' observer/potential participant.

This over-enthusiastic interpretation is actually describing a situation, where a few random quantum happenings are expected to have extensive consequences. My own opinion is, that such random quantum happenings will drown in the statistic probabilities of the organised structure of cosmos.

If we on the other hand consider existence as a fixed/static point of reference and let the observer be the moving/changing part, we arrive at the possibility of an enhanced navigation-competence through existence by our own development. Eventually we may even be able to 'influence' as we do in 'physical' existence.

But then the heck of it is, that we need a new reference-point outside randomness and mechanistic probility; neither of which can help us in development (just to anticipate: Theism isn't an option for me).

(Sorry about these simplistic comments, nothing really new here, but I like fundaments).

In the ongoing debate, structuring knowledge and understanding into a perspective is central. And here I don't see any disagreement between 'learning' and 'training'. A 'training' without a preliminary 'learning' is meaningless, as 'training' then most likely will be aimless.

I think, that the evidence of 'anomalies' where random happenings occasionally break down statistical probabilty, is convincingly enough on its own to justify a research of this avenue. But the problem is, that the efforts in that direction sofar have been excluded from classical science. It has been outside the parameters of 'scientism' and still isn't completely housebroken.

So it's mostly been up to the holies to go this way, and well....... Their results can drive people into doctrinal atheism.

QM is still in its infancy, and while choosing research directions can be very important, a presenting of 'models' as (premature) answers can only lead to 'Bleep'ism'.

This post can be read as a platitude...but I hope not.


edit on 24-9-2010 by bogomil because: The dodderidations of old age



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


"The experimental
results demonstrate the possibility of observing both
particle-like and wave-like behavior of a light quantum
via quantum mechanical entanglement. The which-path
or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or
marked by its entangled twin even after the registration
of the quantum."

This shows that the availability of information to a conscious has a direct influence over realty.


Precisely!!

I am glad that my post which is total validation of the concept has not got totally missed. I was beginning to think that no one saw the bombshell I just dropped on this thread!!




The idea that this proves we can "control" matter with our minds is extrapolation but it does at least prove that the possibilities of matter are only definitive when observed.


Is it such a leap to get from matter only coherent when observed to state of matter variables set at the point of observation?? What is the mechanic behind why the incoherent matter manifests one possibility out of the others, if not for consciousness itself??


If you realize that information is meaningless unless it is observed (it does not have a physical connection to what it describes) and the existence of information changes reality than it is easy to understand that consciousness creates reality.


Yep! Exactly.

This information is what people such as the OP scratch their heads at. Even with the proof staring them in the face...


Again, this does not in any way imply we have complete "control" over reality.


We live in a consensus reality, what will really bake your noodle is that the logical extreme conclusion of this is that there is only one consciousness, So the illusion of you is just a tiny aspect of the whole.

So can the sliver control the whole?? Probably not. But can the whole control the sliver... Absolutely!!

Do you follow?

Korg.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Hi Korg,

a context-universe certainly looks like a good model, no matter one's allegiances.

Personally I may add: A context-universe seemingly based on signalling between fragments manifested as polarized dualities (or tri-alities or whatever).

One question is, if this seeming dualism is intrinsic (I'm ofcourse not taking a 'moral' position here) in existence and how.

A facet of this question is presented in the various models of 'continuous creation', but from Fred Hoyle to master Hawking I see some uncertainties on this.

And as I have implied in former posts, the 'perception'-process and/or reaction to signals inside each single universal 'fragment' plays a role. Is a higher degree of 'objectivity'/reality possible from an individual development of perception, inside cosmic frames (as expressed in Mahayana: Samsara = Nirvana. Illusion = Reality; the pivot point '=' being individual perception)..

or

...is 'objectivity' (reality) to be found outside cosmic frames (the perception perspective must be trans-cosmic).

Ok, this can sound as pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo. Translated to scientific terminology, it means how chaos is related to cosmos. My own bid is, that cosmos is a super-imposition on chaos. Not to be taken so literal as cosmos clamping down on chaos. Possibly cosmos can function from 'inside' chaos.

The question is legitimate, and as I see it, open. I'm very reserved against the new dogmatism in zero-point physics.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I am a realist, but then, if you really inspect reality, it's composed of bits of pure genius that gather together in a natural and economic symbiosis that outdoes anything that Quantum Theory could ever invent. Just the manner in which the contextual slurry, that the Informational Continuum provides for structured causation, enables progressive physical development is mind blowing engineering in the more brilliantly passive sense. You start seeing these theories as philosophical shots in the dark when you realize just how insanely dense the informational interconnections are, and how much is affected with every shift in causal trajectory. Even deep space is not a true vacuum. Nothing that exists stands up on its own. Everything is held upright by something else that's been leaning against it since it came into existence.

I remember whjen I realized that electricity doesn't actually flow. That it is electrons bumping into electrons, with their relative position never actually changing as the reaction mimics a current down the line of the conductive material. It was like being a toddler who just discovered his dick.

Being a realist concerning reality is not the same as being a realist about open potential. Being an idealist concerning reality is not the same as being an idealist about open potential. Open potential is the causal future, and I'm an absolute idealist concerning trajectory. That said, my optimism is bolstered by the fact that I have a solid understanding of what the impending can possibly constitute, and even better, what it can't possibly provide. This puts all of my ideals within the realm of possible and even likely. This ends up including a hell of a lot of good stuff.

I like that you're young and curious. I wish more young people were curious.


I am having a bit of trouble navigating the plethora of linguistic diversity in your post here...


I agree that there is no such thing as a vacuum, as I have to agree with the proven physics of zero point/vacuum density/quantum uncertainty.

Therefore, I also tend to like the idea of dependent origination, or pratityasamutpada. This would include everything that arises from the planck scale... which is everything including our thoughts or our conscious experience.

The history of physics is chock full of mystics and philosophical confrontations with consciousness and the infinite aspect of nature/universe/god.

Even recently we cannot deny the tendency of physicists to move into the metaphysical.

I think it comes down to whether one can accept reductionism as true from intuition, and if the intuition is lacking then one is more likely to remain in the left brain which views things as reduced separate pieces. Also this is why such things like the 'ego' arise... and I think Freud should have considered this more than he did. If you view yourself as separate it is scary and hard to come to terms with it so a person builds up the ego to satiate the feeling of separateness.

However, my intuition is so strong towards the opposite side my whole life, that I thought everyone took it for granted.

I considered myself an atheist for 18 years of my life... it was only when I realized that some people think separation is real that I found out I would be considered 'spiritual' based solely on my intuition that everything is connected... so go figure.


Physics has been on a wild goose chase in the paradigm of reductionism, IMO. The fundamental presuppositions of this paradigm are counter-intuitive. So it is only obvious to me that our current institution will quite soon be reformed to account for this.

My 2 cents...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

If you realize that information is meaningless unless it is observed (it does not have a physical connection to what it describes) and the existence of information changes reality than it is easy to understand that consciousness creates reality.


Yep! Exactly.

This information is what people such as the OP scratch their heads at. Even with the proof staring them in the face...


I think the issue is that the concept of information being fundamentally abstract is difficult for some people to comprehend.

The analogy I use is as follows.

Imagine the shape of any number, for example a 7. This shape is not in anyway physically related to what it describes, the concept of seven different things. The 7 is only related to the concept because it is given meaning by a conscious observer.

If you couple this simple concept with the fact that the existence of information has an influence over reality it is easy to see that the existence of consciousness is vital for a concrete reality to exist.

The fact that the availability of information to a conscious observer changes reality is proven by the "double-slit" experiments. If it was simply a measurement problem than "delayed choice" would not be a factor.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Krauss says "no area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics." His list of "worst abusers" includes inspirational author Deepak Chopra, the best-selling book "The Secret" and the whole field of Transcendental Meditation.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...


I wouldn't argue with Krauss' statements, other than the fact that he so casually disregards any possible links between QM and some of these 'metaphysical' theories, and rules all such links as 'nonsense'. He's entitled to his own opinions, but as Bill Bryson demonstrates again and again in A Short History of Nearly Everything, Science has continually, throughout history, thought they've figured out this or that, and in reality we know so very little about the universe...either macro-ly or micro-ly. To close the scientific mind to any possibility is what is nonsense, considering what little we know as humans.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
By the way, that same "Science" blog has categorized Robert Lanza as a part of the "speculative fringe"



www.robertlanza.com...

Robert Lanza, M. D. is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has hundreds of publications and inventions, and over two dozen scientific books: among them, “Principles of Tissue Engineering,” which is recognized as the definitive reference in the field. Others include One World: The Health & Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century (Foreword by former President and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter), and the “Handbook of Stem Cells” and “Essentials of Stem Cell Biology,” which are considered the definitive references in stem cell research.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join