Quantum theory and consciousness. Help.
Dear people cleverer than me,
Here is a link to a paper on retrocausality, consciousness and quantum theory. Chapter Three is especially interesting.
Please will someone with some grounding in scientific process read this and tell me if it's either complete, total shit or if yes, indeed, there has been an experiment that proves that human beings show involuntary responses to stimuli before they've been given the stimulus, proving that we can solve the 'problem' of consciousness and volition ('free will') in sentient creatures with quantum theory?
Becos I havnt got a fcking clue, LOL!!!!!
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2006-eng-3.htm
Here is a link to a paper on retrocausality, consciousness and quantum theory. Chapter Three is especially interesting.
Please will someone with some grounding in scientific process read this and tell me if it's either complete, total shit or if yes, indeed, there has been an experiment that proves that human beings show involuntary responses to stimuli before they've been given the stimulus, proving that we can solve the 'problem' of consciousness and volition ('free will') in sentient creatures with quantum theory?
Becos I havnt got a fcking clue, LOL!!!!!
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2006-eng-3.htm
Comments
I think I/we have already discussed this though - The answer is in realising that the size of the universe is 0 and that time doesn't flow, but is something our memories travel through - so it seems that the border of 'now' recollection of memories is fuzzy - great, that is something i hadn't thought of, but its obvious now, -E and +E wont perfectly cancel out because of quantum fluctuations - blurring the boundary between past/present and future recollection of the predetermined lives our memories are recollecting as we traverse the memory - because the black areas of fractals have an 'area' that is 'reality' and the rest is 'unreality'. Sweet!
Later...
Dear people cleverer than me,
Please will someone with some grounding in scientific process read this and tell me if it's either complete, total shit or if yes, indeed, there has been an experiment that proves that human beings show involuntary responses to stimuli before they've been given the stimulus, proving that we can solve the 'problem' of consciousness and volition ('free will') in sentient creatures with quantum theory?
Becos I havnt got a fcking clue, LOL!!!!!
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2006-eng-3.htm
I wont claim to have grounding in scientific process - nor would I want to appear to be claiming to be cleverer than thou!, but certainly the first few chapters appear to be consistant with established knowledge. Chapter 3 is a beauty - and doesn't seem to violate anything i know of, and yes it appears to show what it claims - i read it all once, but not critically, or thoroughly, and took it as being genuine and not a joke - but hell yes, it seems that responses to stimuli appear before the stimuli is given.
Some of it I find hard to believe, i'd like to believe and its within the framework of what is possible, but something made me skeptical. Im finding it hard to believe you could influence the outcome of a coin toss by thinking about it, but its not impossible. Infact, its quite likely, but its hard to accept.
The latter chapters I cant really comment on - infact im not sure why they are there to be honest. Probably a section for the statistical analysis people, but im not sure it really relates to the central hypothesis.
Whatever it is, its certainly a great, thought-provoking read - and trying to unite the Quantum, Chaos, Reality in the context of the Mind, Psychology, and even God (as a chaotic strange attractor - wouldn't want to pass that one by dmz really!
Its definately worth a second and third read - but i'd have to do a lot more background research into some of the previous experiments and papers they've referred to, but certainly, they have mentioned experiments and papers im familiar with, so it all seems kocher on the first read. If not its a bloody good hoax.
A had a feeling someone was going to post an article about this.
How soon before it was published did you know?...
Dear people cleverer than me,
Here is a link to a paper on retrocausality, consciousness and quantum theory. Chapter Three is especially interesting.
Please will someone with some grounding in scientific process read this and tell me if it's either complete, total shit or if yes, indeed, there has been an experiment that proves that human beings show involuntary responses to stimuli before they've been given the stimulus, proving that we can solve the 'problem' of consciousness and volition ('free will') in sentient creatures with quantum theory?
Becos I havnt got a fcking clue, LOL!!!!!
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2006-eng-3.htm
Complete, total shit. There are a zillion parapsychology studies with people guessing hearts and moons and wavy lines before they see them, but they are not replicable. If they were, it would be the most groundbreaking finding in the history of psychology, maybe the history of science, as would these studies mentioned in this paper.
Complete, total shit. There are a zillion parapsychology studies with people guessing hearts and moons and wavy lines before they see them, but they are not replicable. If they were, it would be the most groundbreaking finding in the history of psychology, maybe the history of science, as would these studies mentioned in this paper.
right... you read it then?
The beauty of a mind unadulterated by complex thoughts and understanding. I envy such people.
But its one great read regardless.
I wouldn't be suprised if its either fiction or real though.
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/...nd&D=1&P=15536
right... you read it then?
I looked at the studies that Hassan recommended in chapter 3. You're going to need a lot more than a report of a couple studies with a dozen or so subjects to turn everything on its head like this. People have published gazillions of ESP studies. If they were truly replicable and well-done studies, they'd be replicated and would change our understanding of the world. They haven't been replicated, and so they haven't changed anything. It's not just ESP or psychology either: people have reported cold fusion effects and all kinds of such things, only to have them shot down when others can't duplicate them.
I looked at the studies that Hassan recommended in chapter 3. You're going to need a lot more than a report of a couple studies with a dozen or so subjects to turn everything on its head like this. People have published gazillions of ESP studies. If they were truly replicable and well-done studies, they'd be replicated and would change our understanding of the world. They haven't been replicated, and so they haven't changed anything. It's not just ESP or psychology either: people have reported cold fusion effects and all kinds of such things, only to have them shot down when others can't duplicate them.
regardless of whether this work is fiction or serious, its actually a really interesting subject.
Forgetting x-files or mystic meg trivial nonsense, the most scientifically accurate theory we know of permits all kind of wierd and wonderful things - and its only scientific and religious bigotry and dogma that prevents the mainstream from properly investigating it.
Lets be honest, telepathy, reaction to events before they happen and such like is a bit kooky, and likely to get the masses sniggering at you, but the problem is - that pretty much all of us have experienced things we can't explain rationally - and there are all kinds of explanations we can use to try to rationalize them - from fluke, coincidence, God, demons, aliens, to ignoring and denial, but - if you accept that your computer works when you flick the switch - then you also have to accept that the concept of reality you trust in just doesn't exist - its an illusion with possibilities that go far beyond our current comprehension.
Perhaps the most rational way to try to explain this wierdness is not to invent delusions or paranormalities - but to try to solve them within the framework that already exists. It does mean that you are going to have to set aside the giggle factor and suspend the illusions of how you think the world should or shouldn't work - but at the end of the day, the mind or soul is a product of a highly complex computer which works within the framework of the laws of Quantum Mechanics - so perhaps the only explaination to be had is in what we know to be valid already. If you accept that your computer works, you have a framework for understanding telepathy. QM is weird, telepathy is wierd. There already exists a greater link between the two, than you'll get in trying to rationalise things in the context of God, coincidence or fluke.
Fortunately we know very accurately what these rules are that make our computers work - we just dont really have a grasp of what they 'mean'.
Sure there is alot of crap, fraud and bollocks in this, and its hard to throw off images of cranky old ladies reading the tea-leaves. It might even be a dead-end path.
As for the experiments (if genuine) being hard to reproduce - thats entirely what you'd expect when dealing with Quantum Mechanics multiplied by Chaos, so its not a reason to give up.
Complete, total shit. There are a zillion parapsychology studies with people guessing hearts and moons and wavy lines before they see them, but they are not replicable. If they were, it would be the most groundbreaking finding in the history of psychology, maybe the history of science, as would these studies mentioned in this paper.
Seconded.
The whole house of cards rests on a flawed supposition that energy is directed in time dependent on whether or not it is negative. Unfortunately only the energies magnitudes are negative, not their flow through time.
A good background for debunking this drivel is this Scientific American articlehttp://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf.../wormhole.html
The gist there is the positive energies needed to pair to a meaningful negative energy pulse are beyond astronomical. Who can withstand energies on the order of several hundred million suns to create this wormhole that would be able to somehow activate enough neurons to cause a conscious reaction?
Don't you just hate it when the paper only presents the favorable side of the math and conveniently leaves out the rest of the theory? I can prove 1+ 1 = 1 doing that! [It's an age old mathematical trick that relies on algebraically creating a division by zero which is hidden in the symbols. Everything looks fine until you plug in the numbers and run into that little stumbling block.]
Complete, total shit.
I knew I could depend on you.
Seconded.
A good background for debunking this drivel is this Scientific American articlehttp://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf.../wormhole.html
The gist there is the positive energies needed to pair to a meaningful negative energy pulse are beyond astronomical. Who can withstand energies on the order of several hundred million suns to create this wormhole that would be able to somehow activate enough neurons to cause a conscious reaction?
unfortunately, this is the product of a catastrophy that goes back 70 years to people who couldn't accept the implications of symmetry.
unfortunately, this is the product of a catastrophy that goes back 70 years to people who couldn't accept the implications of symmetry.
Not quite sure how to take that. Are you saying the Sintropia authors have their symmetry right or wrong?
It is a matter of symmetry, you are correct there. The Sintropia gents just decided to arbitrarily choose an alternate axis to display symmetry about and that just doesn't work.
The descriptions of the three studies were sufficiently poor that I can't see how to even faithfully reproduce the set-up. Unfortunately for them that means one of two things. Either their writing sucks (which it doesn't - it reads pretty well). Or the studies have some fatal flaw in them which is sufficiently disguised by the lax description.
<statistics alert!>Another flag is this: getting p-values in those ranges with only a couple hundred subjects seems fishy to me, something like only one false negative or positive in the entire test. NO test data is that clean. The only way to overcome basic noise and generate those p-values is to have sample sizes in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And that's not what they said they had.
Not quite sure how to take that. Are you saying the Sintropia authors have their symmetry right or wrong?
It is a matter of symmetry, you are correct there. The Sintropia gents just decided to arbitrarily choose an alternate axis to display symmetry about and that just doesn't work.
The descriptions of the three studies were sufficiently poor that I can't see how to even faithfully reproduce the set-up. Unfortunately for them that means one of two things. Either their writing sucks (which it doesn't - it reads pretty well). Or the studies have some fatal flaw in them which is sufficiently disguised by the lax description.
<statistics alert!>Another flag is this: getting p-values in those ranges with only a couple hundred subjects seems fishy to me, something like only one false negative or positive in the entire test. NO test data is that clean. The only way to overcome basic noise and generate those p-values is to have sample sizes in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And that's not what they said they had.
Well, if I understand it correctly, Dirac's equations are perfectly symmetrical and Heisenberg refused to accept it. Unfortunately for heisenberg, dirac was shown to be right, but he tried very hard to invent all kinds of fudges to explain away his conviction that the negative solutions were just mathmatical curiosities or impossibilities - because it went against his conviction of common sense. Sadly this still lives on today, rather than accepting what the philosophy of QM implies. Unfortunately, the proof of the positrons existance pretty much confirms that what happens in the positive also happens equally in the negative. (remembering that infact they are back to front!) There is not this huge difference between a positron and an electron that your link implies.
So for me the simplest explanation is to accept that spacetime and energy is equal in the negative and positive - because its what the experimental data shows, and what the math predicts. I'm not buying this concept of "Quantum Interest" - because there is no need for it - Its a fudge created, because the implications of equal positive and negative cannot be accepted because it causes problems in our minds about the notion of reality.
Im sorry - but that is 'our' problem for our minds to comprehend - and it might lead to some pretty scary changes about what we conceive as reality,
The best thing QM could do right now is go back 70 years and really sort out the problem of why we need to introduce these fudges, and fiddling the maths to avoid these problems and accept what it really says.
What will probably happen though to continue upon the same path as current and keep inventing fudges to make things work and flatly deny that there is any problem anyway.
Personally, I prefer the Cramer model of transactional QM - its beautifully simplistically symetrically elegant - and I suspect the reason its not accepted is because it has some very awkward consequences - lack of free will and that everything is just an unfolding illusion of 0 dimensions.(my suggestions) Maybe its just time to accept what is says, and it is probably where the paranormal guys get their inspiration.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/
Well, if I understand it correctly, Dirac's equations are perfectly symmetrical and Heisenberg refused to accept it. Unfortunately for heisenberg, dirac was shown to be right, but he tried very hard to invent all kinds of fudges to explain away his conviction that the negative solutions were just mathmatical curiosities or impossibilities - because it went against his conviction of common sense. Sadly this still lives on today, rather than accepting what the philosophy of QM implies. Unfortunately, the proof of the positrons existance pretty much confirms that what happens in the positive also happens equally in the negative. (remembering that infact they are back to front!) There is not this huge difference between a positron and an electron that your link implies.
So for me the simplest explanation is to accept that spacetime and energy is equal in the negative and positive - because its what the experimental data shows, and what the math predicts. I'm not buying this concept of "Quantum Interest" - because there is no need for it - Its a fudge created, because the implications of equal positive and negative cannot be accepted because it causes problems in our minds about the notion of reality.
Im sorry - but that is 'our' problem for our minds to comprehend - and it might lead to some pretty scary changes about what we conceive as reality,
The best thing QM could do right now is go back 70 years and really sort out the problem of why we need to introduce these fudges, and fiddling the maths to avoid these problems and accept what it really says.
What will probably happen though to continue upon the same path as current and keep inventing fudges to make things work and flatly deny that there is any problem anyway.
Personally, I prefer the Cramer model of transactional QM - its beautifully simplistically symetrically elegant - and I suspect the reason its not accepted is because it has some very awkward consequences - lack of free will and that everything is just an unfolding illusion of 0 dimensions.(my suggestions) Maybe its just time to accept what is says, and it is probably where the paranormal guys get their inspiration.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/
I think you misunderstand me, I agree the equations involving negative energy are symmetric. It's just that symmetry long the magnitude axis does not imply symmetry along the time axis. So negative energy exists and has much physical use, but it doesn't go backwards in time just because it has negative magnitude. That takes too many mathematical leaps of faith for me to buy.
What do you mean lack of free will? We all have free will, everybody knows that.
I think it's more controversial than you suggest. I'm not even sure how you'd prove free will. "OK, do something totally unpredictable... Now!" What we do is based on 1) our genes and 2) our environment. Where does that leave free will?