The Astral Pulse

Transcript:

AMANDA PEET: People who've said that there were extra dimensions of space, have been labeled as, you know, crackpots or people who are bananas. I mean, what, do you think there are extra dimensions? Well, string theory really predicts it.

BRIAN GREENE: What we think of as our universe could just be one small part of something much bigger.

SAVAS DIMOPOULOS: Perhaps we live on a membrane, a three-dimensional membrane that floats inside higher dimensional space.

BRIAN GREENE: There could be entire worlds right next to us, but completely invisible.

NIMA ARKANI-HAMED (Harvard University): These other worlds would, in a very literal sense, be, be parallel universes. This isn't a particularly exotic or, or strange notion.

GARY HOROWITZ: Well, we think these extra dimensions exist because they come out of the equations of string theory. Strings need to move in more than three dimensions. And that was a shock to everybody, but then we learned to live with it.

BRIAN GREENE: But M-theory would go even further, demanding yet another spatial dimension, bringing the grand total to 11 dimensions.

BURT OVRUT: We know that there would have to be 11 dimensions for this theory to make sense. So there must be 11 dimensions. We only see three plus one of them. How is that possible?

BRIAN GREENE: For most of us, it's virtually impossible to picture the extra, higher dimensions: I can't. And it's not surprising. Our brains evolved sensing just the three spatial dimensions of everyday experience. So how can we get a feel for them?

BRIAN GREENE: The existence of giant membranes and extra dimensions would open up a startling new possibility, that our whole universe is living on a membrane, inside a much larger, higher dimensional space.

It's almost as if we were living inside...a loaf of bread? Our universe might be like a slice of bread, just one slice, in a much larger loaf that physicists sometimes call the "bulk."

And if these ideas are right, the bulk may have other slices, other universes, that are right next to ours, in effect, "parallel" universes.

Not only would our universe be nothing special, but we could have a lot of neighbors. Some of them could resemble our universe, they might have matter and planets and, who knows, maybe even beings of a sort.

Others certainly would be a lot stranger. They might be ruled by completely different laws of physics. Now, all of these other universes would exist within the extra dimensions of M-theory, dimensions that are all around us. Some even say they might be right next to us, less than a millimeter away.

But if that's true, why can't I see them or touch them?

BURT OVRUT: If you have a brane living in a higher dimensional space, and your particles, your atoms, cannot get off the brane, it's like trying to reach out, but you can't touch anything. It might as well be on the other end of the universe.

JOSEPH LYKKEN: It's a very powerful idea because if it's right it means that our whole picture of the universe is clouded by the fact that we're trapped on just a tiny slice of the higher dimensional universe.

BRIAN GREENE: Gravity pulls us down to the Earth, and keeps our Earth in orbit around the sun. But in fact, we overcome the force of gravity all the time. It's not that hard. Even with the gravity of the entire Earth pulling this apple downward, the muscles in my arm can easily overcome it.

If we do live on a membrane and there are parallel universes on other membranes near us, we may never see them, but perhaps we could one day feel them through gravity.

SAVAS DIMOPOULOS: If there happens to be intelligent life on one of the membranes, then this intelligent life might be very close to us. So theoretically, and purely theoretically, we might be able to communicate with this intelligent life by exchanging strong gravity wave sources.

BRIAN GREENE: So who knows? Maybe someday we'll develop the technology and use gravity waves to actually communicate with other worlds.

Sorry that I'm being an annoyance to your threads, Leyla, but I think this is very important.

This isn't news. There was no event. There was no discovery. Nothing happened to report. M theory is an idea, NOT a discovery.

And it's an idea that has a basis in math, NOT in observation.

I'd be excited if it was theory that had a basis in experimentation, but it's not. It's theory that has a basis in other theory.

QuoteIt's almost as if we were living inside...a loaf of bread? Our universe might be like a slice of bread, just one slice, in a much larger loaf that physicists sometimes call the "bulk."

Yeah, that sounds like an elegant universe alright. Loaf. Bulk. Branes. Strings. Gravity phones. There really is no accounting for taste...

My belligerence with string theory is with its passivity, and not as much with its inelegance. I don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

QuoteBRIAN GREENE: So who knows? Maybe someday we'll develop the technology and use gravity waves to actually communicate with other worlds.

And maybe we won't, Brian, because maybe gravity waves don't exist and maybe other brane-dwelling worlds don't exist because maybe branes don't exist.

It's ironic that I'm being so hard on physicists. I'd normally be hard on Maharashi, who claims that he can levitate his body through meditation. Physicists are running out of experiments as they wait for newer and more powerful particle accelerators to be developed. They need to extract funding to keep their carreers going - so they're writing wild books of "ifs" and "maybes" and "who knows" and "purely theoretically's" and so on in order to garner public interest and keep their carreers afloat.

The world is waiting for new scientists. It's in luck! AP is a new science.

We can actually carry out observations and experiments of wider reality through dreams, astral projections, and OBE's. That's what this forum is about. I hope everyone works to make that dream a reality.

So, I just want to remind everyone that spending so much time in theory can make you flighty and passive to experience. And it's sad to see that happen to open-minded and brilliant people :?

Actually the "big news making event" was when they realized the five thories were really one.

The physicists can't observe it first hand. And most of us who can observe it first hand aren't physicists.

Personally, I find it a great comfort to know that science is finally catching up to what mystics have known from the beginning.

Not sure why it upsets you so much.

Maybe you are afraid that AP will "lose it's magick" if they figure it out?

QuoteI don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

Would you prefer they didnt try to figure out the laws of physics? An untestable theory is better than no theory at all.

Quotemaybe gravity waves don't exist

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light). Earth orbiting the sun makes a gravity wave with frequency 1 year.

Would be more useful if we could get a faster frequency, but still its a gravity wave and it exists.

Hi all

Quote from: TelosMy belligerence with string theory is with its passivity, and not as much with its inelegance. I don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

Yes.

It's not preposterous to formulate a theory which unifies 5 other theories.  In fact it's a pretty good thing.  The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid. Each of the 5 theories is basically a "specialisation" of the one larger theory.  It's a good thing.

Quote from: TelosThis isn't news. There was no event. There was no discovery. Nothing happened to report. M theory is an idea, NOT a discovery.

Well I think that the genius who managed to formulate the theory might disagree with you.  However, I have been aware of this theory for some time so for me it is not a big event.

Quote from: TelosAnd it's an idea that has a basis in math, NOT in observation.

Untrue.  It is a theory which is based on 5 other theories each of which is based on observed facts and measurements of the physical universe.  Therefore it is by definition based on observation.

I don't think M-Theory necessarily explains the astral dimensions, since these may have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical universe.  But it might explain how UFO's get here?

Anyway, Happy Christmas everyone!  :D

catmeow

QuoteMaybe you are afraid that AP will "lose it's magick" if they figure it out?

No, I'd love them to figure it out. I love science! Can't you tell :)

But they're not figuring it out. Poll any number of M theorists and ask if strings have anything to do with consciousness, and most of them will say "no, consciousness emerges at the biological level," including Brian Greene. Remember the part where he said you can't teach a dog physics? That's when he questioned whether you can teach a human everything about the universe. Like dogs, our minds might not be sufficiently "wired."

He goes more in depth in this article:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

QuoteNOVA: Do you think there are limits to how much we can know about the universe?

Greene: I don't know. I'd like to think that there aren't, but I suspect that's a little optimistic. An analogy that's used in the NOVA program that I'm quite fond of is: We are certainly aware of intelligent beings on this planet whose capacity to understand the deep laws of the universe is limited. No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail. There we have an example of an intelligent living being that will never know this kind of truth about the way the world is put together. Why in the world should we be any different? We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?

The interview goes on to visualizing extra spatial dimensions. Greene admits he can't do it. Can you?

QuoteWould you prefer they didnt try to figure out the laws of physics? An untestable theory is better than no theory at all.

No, and that's true. I don't object to theory-making, just theory-dwelling, and an untestable theory is a sad place to dwell. Don't you think?

QuoteGravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light).

That's an assumption. Relativity theory predicts that, but it hasn't been demonstrated. There is indirect evidence which suggests that gravity waves exist, but that doesn't mean they do. If gravity waves did exist, then the universe should be pulling itself back to a collapse, but it isn't - so instead of disspelling the theory of gravity waves, scientists instead theorized the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy," dark mysterious things you can't see that interfere with our understanding the universe. Few people thought "maybe relativity is wrong," because it already revolutionized our understanding of light. Well, relativity might need adjustment.

Relativity is a good theory, it's testable. That means that someday we will either show that gravity waves do or don't exist, but that day is not today.

QuoteThe fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all :? Witten unified the 5 theories by adding yet another dimension that no one can see. Does it sound impressive to just keep adding things you don't see?

QuoteUntrue. It is a theory which is based on 5 other theories each of which is based on observed facts and measurements of the physical universe. Therefore it is by definition based on observation.

Actually, the 5 theories are also based on theory - quantum theory and relativity theory. Remember quantum and relativity theory have holes in their assumptions. They're astoundingly good theories, but they're far from solid.

M theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

I apologize, I should have said it was not based directly in observation. Thank you for allowing me to clarify it ;)

QuoteWell I think that the genius who managed to formulate the theory might disagree with you.

Actually, I think he would concede that what he discovered was a nice proposition. To mathematicians, it's a very elegant, beautiful, nice proposition. It appeals to their sense of blackboard aesthetics. It's not news that mathematicians agree on what is and what is not a nice-looking equation.

It was not a scientific discovery in the sense of making observations about the universe. I try not to put words into Witten's mouth, but he would agree with me. If he didn't, people would say, "where's your evidence?" and he would have none.

QuoteBut it might explain how UFO's get here?

UFO's are unidentified. We should identify them before making assumptions on how they got here. :?

Sorry, I'm an M theory party pooper. Merry Christmas! :D

Quote from: TelosBut they're not figuring it out. Poll any number of M theorists and ask if strings have anything to do with consciousness, and most of them will say "no, consciousness emerges at the biological level," including Brian Greene

I agree with you, I don't think M-theory is about explaining consciousness or the astral planes.

Quote from: TelosThe interview goes on to visualizing extra spatial dimensions. Greene admits he can't do it. Can you?

So what?  The fact that we can't visualize a mathematical theory has no relevance.  Ability to visualise a theory is not a test of its accuracy.

Quote from: TelosI don't object to theory-making, just theory-dwelling, and an untestable theory is a sad place to dwell. Don't you think?

Nope. M theory IS testable, by virtue of the fact that it explains the observed facts.

Quote from: Telos

Quote from: catmeow
The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all

Disagree.  It IS a good indicator.  :?   I purposely said indicator not proof.

Quote from: TelosWitten unified the 5 theories by adding yet another dimension that no one can see. Does it sound impressive to just keep adding things you don't see?

I don't understand your argument here at all.  What relevance is the fact that we can't actually see a mathematical construct?  None at all. If a mathematical model requires a construct to make it work, then the construct is valid whether or not we can see it.  Mathematical models don't have to be constructed purely of tangible things.  If that were the case we wouldn't have the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics.

You also seem to have a problem with the fact that Witten added a dimension.  There is no problem here as far as I can see?  Witten simply discovered that when he added another dimension the 5 theories unified.  This is just good maths.  As I said before, Witten's theory is a general theory.  The other 5 are specialisations of this.  This is just normal scientific practice.  :?

Quote from: TelosM theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

So you agree therefore that M theory is based on observation.

Quote from: catmeowBut it might explain how UFO's get here?

Quote from: TelosUFO's are unidentified. We should identify them before making assumptions on how they got here.

Disagree.  We haven't identified what consciousness is.  Should we therefore not attempt to understand it?

catmeow

Catmeow, I'm beginning to think that some of our arguments are entering the realm of sophistry. I always see that as a sign that the people in question actually agree on something, but just through different reasoning. That appears to be the case here, so I'll try to make this short.

QuoteM theory IS testable, by virtue of the fact that it explains the observed facts.

At the end of part one of the Nova program, Nobel Prize winner Sheldon Lee Glashow said this:

QuoteNo experiment can ever check up what's going at the distances that are being studied. The theory is permanently safe. Is that a theory of physics, or a philosophy?

Quote

Quote from: Telos

Quote from: catmeow
The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all

Disagree.  It IS a good indicator.  :?   I purposely said indicator not proof.

And I said I didn't think it was a good indicator because the way in which the theories were unified meant adding more intangibilities.

More intangibility = more removed from tangible experience.

QuoteMathematical models don't have to be constructed purely of tangible things. If that were the case we wouldn't have the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics.

The more a model is based on tangible things, the better it is. Saying "force = mass x acceleration" is way better than "faeries = goblins x acceleration." I can see force and I can see mass, so it's better if I can relate those to acceleration. I cannot see faeries and I cannot see goblins, so it's not useful for me to relate them to acceleration. Likewise, I cannot see strings and I cannot see extra dimensions, so it's not useful for me to relate them to what I see in the universe.

I can see dreams and astral dimensions, but I can't see strings and extra spatial dimensions.  

Quote

Quote from: TelosM theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

So you agree therefore that M theory is based on observation.

Not directly, no.

QuoteWe haven't identified what consciousness is. Should we therefore not attempt to understand it?

Yes we have.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consciousness

We just don't completely understand it. Obviously, we should attempt to understand it. Hopefully, exploring consciousness will allow us to better understand the universe, since consciousness is our vehicle for understanding.

In that regard, I think exploring consciousness is more useful to the human race than studying M theory.

My problem with M theory is that it's so far removed from experience. On the other hand, consciousness is experience.

QuoteI agree with you, I don't think M-theory is about explaining consciousness or the astral planes.

That's really all I was trying to say. In order to prevent the "why not?" or accusations of closed-mindedness, I sought to explain my reasoning in advance. It's mostly moot now, though, since you agree.

So, what's your opinion on the disparity of M theory and consciousness?

Don't get so bogged down in technicalities that you miss the forest for the trees.

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" they have discovered are not the same ones we are traveling to?

Can you prove they are not?

Leyla, is English your native language? Please don't take offense at my asking. Your location does say Bangladesh.

QuoteWhat makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" they have discovered...

They haven't discovered any other worlds all around us.

Okay then. If you insist, I will rephrase.

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" that are predicted in string theory are not the same ones we are traveling to?

Can you prove they are not?

(Yes, I am a bit secretive about my identity, considering how easily these posts turn up on google searches.)

QuoteWhat makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" that are predicted in string theory are not the same ones we are traveling to?

First, parallel universes are not a direct prediction of string theory. It just includes the possibility, so string theory could be right and there could be no parallel universes. Second, parallel universes exist in many other physical theories anyway, so AP need not seek justification in M theory, and M theory need not seek justification in AP.

But since you brought up how AP separation feels a little like anti-gravity, it's worth some discussion. If AP worked within M theory, it would have to use gravitons (which we don't know exist) to send information to another universe. So, that would mean that some mechanism within our brain allows us to send, recieve, detect, and decode graviton transmissions. You can already tell what Brian Greene thinks of that. He used a phone in his model, not his brain.

Are you using gravitons to communicate with other worlds? If so, then wouldn't the other worlds be using gravitons to communicate with you? Maybe they understand the subject better than we do. Why don't you ask them?

If you show a sensitivity to graviton transmission, then you should be able to help physicists actually find a graviton. And if you help find the graviton, you would be the most famous person who ever existed. I'm not kidding.

Extra dimensions, however, are directly predicted by string theory. As you know, extra dimensions are not the same as parallel universes, but they do widen our conception of reality. Could AP have something to do with the extra dimensions of M theory? Probably not. The extra dimensions of M theory are "curled up," allowing only strings to enter them, given them space to vibrate in different ways so they can take on the properties of electrons, photons, and other subatomic particles. There are no worlds within these dimensions. M theory has more to do with ye old alchemy than parallel universes.

Quote from: Telos

QuoteNOVA: Do you think there are limits to how much we can know about the universe?

Greene: I don't know. I'd like to think that there aren't, but I suspect that's a little optimistic. An analogy that's used in the NOVA program that I'm quite fond of is: We are certainly aware of intelligent beings on this planet whose capacity to understand the deep laws of the universe is limited. No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail. There we have an example of an intelligent living being that will never know this kind of truth about the way the world is put together. Why in the world should we be any different? We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?

I have actually taught my cat the theories of general relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics and relativistic quantum chemistry. She understood it all perfectly and has gone on to produce a theory which blows M theory apart. But my cat refuses to talk...  8)

catmeow

Hi all

Quote from: TelosCatmeow, I'm beginning to think that some of our arguments are entering the realm of sophistry. I always see that as a sign that the people in question actually agree on something, but just through different reasoning. That appears to be the case here

Telos, well yes I think so.  To be fair to you I can actually see where you're coming from in much of your criticisms about a theory which is hard to verify directly.  It just seemed you had a bit of an issue with intangibles whereas these don't bother me.  Nuff said.

On the subject of multiple universes, there are several current theories which all postulate multiple parallel physical universes or a "multiverse" as it is now called.  These include not just parallel universes in the M sense, where each universe is a slice in higher dimensional space, but also multiple universes which simply exist in their own space, and universes which contain other universes.  Also the notion (taken seriously) that our universe is a simulation created for the delight and delectation of super-minds, which would in fact therefore be our creators (God) and who might themselves therefore be similar simulations of greater creators.  All of these notions are in fact plausible, and difficult to falsify.  So take your pick!    :?

Despite this, I have faith that within the next few years we will hopefully see some actual experimental verification of at least one of these theories, and we may be able to largely wrap up the fundamental laws of the physical universe.  8)

However, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe.  The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws.  For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance.  It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.  During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

So my overwhelming instinct is that theories such as M theory will not explain the astral planes or ESP.  Consciousness is yet a third issue.  At the moment there is no adequate physical theory of consciousness that explains human abstract thought that I am aware of.  Penrose and Hameroff claim a theory, but no one seems to understand it!  I don't think that anyone has as yet identified that part of the brain which (allegedly) stores memories.

My view is of a fantastic beautiful physical universe (or multiverse) and a similar fantastic beautiful astral universe (or multiverse) and perhaps further higher multiverses.  Each existing according to their own laws.  Let the physical scientists discover the laws of the physical universe, and the astral scientists formulate the laws of the astral universe!  :)

catmeow

If I get the jist of what you're saying, astral projectors can't possibly enter the dimensions of string theory, because they're just too gosh darn small.

What size is the human "consciousness?"

From personal experience I have fit into some small inch-wide spaces when out of body, and woudn't be a bit surprised to find I could go down into subatomic size.

Quote from: LeylaFrom personal experience I have fit into some small inch-wide spaces when out of body, and woudn't be a bit surprised to find I could go down into subatomic size.

That would be extremely fascinating. The more experiences you have to share the better.

It's not so uncommon- I knew a guy who went out of body and climbed inside the butter dish.

If the soul is a wave of engery I imagine you could take any shape or size.

QuoteThe overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

I don't know if any ESP or clarvoyant people are really "breaking" any laws, or anything so fantastic. All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

The other thing that interests me are these "Wormholes" because one of the most powerful/frightening experiences I ever had out-of-body was I got lost in time.

I had overstayed on the astral and was being tugged back into body, when a series of round portals opened up in front of me and I did not know where I belonged. I could have walked into any one of them.

Thankfully one of the "mes" from the future pointed the way home.

QuoteAre you using gravitons to communicate with other worlds? If so, then wouldn't the other worlds be using gravitons to communicate with you? Maybe they understand the subject better than we do. Why don't you ask them?

They're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

They are even taking such drugs as DMT to astral project, so they can directly ask these entities how to solve their equations!
          (http://www.industreal.spb.ru/smiles/ghost.gif)
Which calles into question ..how exactly did that genius guy pull the five theories into one, and did he have help?????

Hi all

Quote from: TelosSo, what's your opinion on the disparity of M theory and consciousness?

Sorry Telos, don't understand the question - can you elaborate?

Quote from: LeylaMany of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

My cat has already built such a quantum tunneling device in the back garden.  She uses it to catch up with her buddies on Betelgeuse...  8)

catmeow

Quote from: beavis

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light). Earth orbiting the sun makes a gravity wave with frequency 1 year.

Would be more useful if we could get a faster frequency, but still its a gravity wave and it exists.

gravity moves at the speed of light? is that really so? I heard different.


Is it possible that the Astral dimension is a Parallel Universe? (If We forget M-Theorie for a second)
I would say: why not?

QuoteThey're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

They are even taking such drugs as DMT to astral project, so they can directly ask these entities how to solve their equations!

Many? Who? Where are they? Are they sharing their experiences? Do they have websites?

I tried searching the forum, as you asked, and could only find one person who said he/she was a physicist.

Hoi Tombo!

Quote from: TomboIs it possible that the Astral dimension is a Parallel Universe? (If We forget M-Theorie for a second)
I would say: why not?

My opinion is that the astral planes are not physical.  So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.  I already gave my reasons which are simplistic but valid:

Quote from: catmeowHowever, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe. The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

As far as I am aware, wormholes apart, it is impossible according to  current physical sciences to travel to distant galaxies instantaneously....!   :cry:  

catmeow

Quote from: TelosMany? Who? Where are they? Are they sharing their experiences? Do they have websites?

From here maybe?  

http://www.brainmachines.com/body_matrix.html  :?:

Just search for "quantum tunneling" to get to the relevant paragraph.

Turn your PC volume down to avoid the Keanu Reeves Matrix soundtrack!  Actually the monologue is beginning to grow on me....

catmeow

I just waxed through that site trying to look for someone who said they were a physicist.

Instead, it looks like good, wholesome "take risks, embrace knowledge and reason" satanist propaganda made by punk rockers and worshippers of Warner Bros. (they created all holy "The Matrix").

Nothing wrong with that. But do you have a direct link that shows that they're physicists?

Nope!  :(

Anybody?

catmeow

QuoteMy opinion is that the astral planes are not physical. So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.

When I am out of body I appear as a non physical ghost. However, I do have a physical body. When I meet higher intelligences they appear to be non physical ghosts. How do I know they don't also have a physical body?

It could be that our world appears non physical to them when they are here, just as our their world appears non physical to us when we are there.

When they are here- they are the ghost in our physical world.
When we are there- we are the ghost in their physical world.

As for the physicists, we lost a lot of posts last year, but I think I may have something saved on my hard drive, because it was so interesting. I will dig around.

Otherwise all I had to do was type in "physicist" and "DMT" into a Google search to find tons of these guys practicing projection through chemical shortcuts.

Hoi Catmeow Do you like the book?

Quote from: catmeowMy opinion is that the astral planes are not physical.  So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.  I already gave my reasons which are simplistic but valid:

[catmeow

]


"Physical" is a unclear term. It is actually likely that a parallel Universe does have different laws of nature then our current Universe. This means that that world would be very alien to our known Universe, so the Astral  would fit in.

Quote from: catmeowHowever, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe. The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.
As far as I am aware, wormholes apart, it is impossible according to  current physical sciences to travel to distant galaxies instantaneously....!   :cry:  

I think you guys have a wrong view about the concept of a physical theorie.
A physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right! Most physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example  if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............
A theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature  and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.
So if the current theories say we can not travel faster then light, so what? ask again in 500 Years!

QuoteAt Telos

I think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things. Nobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon"  "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.It is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe therefore it is plausible that more advanced theories about the universe will talk about things we do not understand. However this theories should make concrete predicates we can eventually  test and I'm sure the M-theory does so as well. If it doesn't it would be useless.

Hoi Tombo

Quote from: TomboHoi Catmeow Do you like the book?

I started dipping into it, and it's an interesting book.  It has actually given me the idea of healing my dodgy knee by using LD.  I've got grade IV cartilage defects in my right knee due to extreme excercise and also last March a skiing injury, which left me with major pain.  But I've been to the "dream knee clinic" four times this week and already it is feeling quite a lot better.  Also, as you may have noticed, I stole my "signature" from one of the quotes in the book!  :)

Quote from: Tombo"Physical" is a unclear term. It is actually likely that a parallel Universe does have different laws of nature then our current Universe. This means that that world would be very alien to our known Universe, so the Astral would fit in.

Yes I was thinking that a lot of the discussion on this thread is getting nowhere because no one has defined what we mean by a "physical" universe.

In my opinion, a "physical" universe is any universe which appears to operate according to the same laws which our own physical universe operates.  At the moment we have two very battle-hardened theories, relativity and quantum mechanics, as you know.  Any universe which obeys these two theories would then be classified as a "physical" universe according to our present state of knowledge.

(It is possible by the way, by modifying some of the constants used in these theories, eg Planck's constant, to have "physical" universes which are utterly different from the one we can observe)

At the moment the astral planes break some of the laws given by these two very battle-hardened theories.  So at present I cannot think of the astral planes as "physical".

It may well be that in the future our understanding of the physical universe changes in such a way that we can then then bring the astral planes under the umbrella of the physical sciences, as you have argued.  And this is quite an interesting prospect.  But for the purpose of this thread, this is NOT what M theory predicts at all.  M theory postulates the possibility of multiple "physical" universes which each obey the current "physical" laws as we understand them.  So it does not, at present, make room for the astral planes.  :cry:

Frank has gone blue in the face repeatedly telling us that the astral and physical planes are simply states of consciousness.  This may indeed ultimately be the case.  In which case both the astral and physical universes would be unified by the theory of consciousness.  Perhaps we ask too much of our physical sciences, and in order to understand alternate realities we should be looking elsewhere?

catmeow

Hi Leyla

Quote from: LeylaWhen I am out of body I appear as a non physical ghost. However, I do have a physical body. When I meet higher intelligences they appear to be non physical ghosts. How do I know they don't also have a physical body?

It could be that our world appears non physical to them when they are here, just as our their world appears non physical to us when we are there.

When they are here- they are the ghost in our physical world.
When we are there- we are the ghost in their physical world.

Well this is of course just a play on the word "physical".  If ghosts call their world "physical", it doesn't mean that it is "physical" by our own definition of the word!

catmeow

QuoteA physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right!

That's ridiculous nonsense. Do you see your world as that unstable and confusing, that your computer works as the result of magic - or because of a successful physical theory of electromagnetism that has been proven over and over again?

QuoteMost physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............

You're demonstrating that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong - it's just not the whole picture. The only thing that was wrong about Newton was the assumption that it explained everything.

Quote from: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html
Each object in the universe attracts each other body.

If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2

That equation is used to put rovers on Mars. So that's not a proven theory?

QuoteA theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.

You make it sound like we destroy our theories and then start from scratch. That has never been the case. Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge. Theories are provisional, so the ones that work are the ones that stick around. A lot of theories stick around.

You're probably only talking about theories of everything.

QuoteI think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things.

You guys keep saying this. What other physical theories use abstract things? The only one I can think of is relativity, which uses spacetime as a fabric that folds and makes bumps and curves - but then even that's not that abstact, because we can see light from a star bending around an eclipse, which is actually like seeing space becoming warped..

QuoteNobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon" "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.

All concepts are abstract. Since knowledge is abstract, there's no such thing as concrete knowledge, and therefore we'll never truly know the universe. Is that what you're trying to say? In that case, you're making assumptions and philosophizing on them.

Mass, photons, and forces can be seen, measured, probed, observed, predicted, and manipulated. That makes them more than just concepts in our brain, which is all strings and extra dimensions are at the moment.

QuoteIt is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe

Brains have been shown to be inferior devices for understanding, given how easily our faculties to learn can be easily damaged and deformed through brain damage or genetic mutation. In the future, we'll probably have to change or augment our brains to be more sturdy.

However, when healthy, our ability to create abstract concepts of already existing phenomena and then manipulate them in our heads before experimenting with the real thing is unmatched. We've gotten this far and continue to make accelerating returns on progress.

So, no, I don't think it's anymore plausible to assume that our brains can't understand the universe than it is to assume that they can. In fact, it's way more plausible to assume the latter. Way, way more plausible.

QuoteHowever this theories should make concrete predicates we can eventually test and I'm sure the M-theory does so as well. If it doesn't it would be useless.

It doesn't, really. And it is mostly useless.

M theory operates under the assumption that the phenomena it predicts (gravitons, sparticles, etc.) are "hard to find." Therefore, we could go on looking for them forever, never find them, and M theory would still be safe - unless we prove that gravity works by some other means and discard the notion of supersymmetry.

String theory would have weight if we saw a graviton, and then watched it disappear as it left our brane.

So, not only would we have to see something that we've never seen before that explains the most familiar force in the universe, we'd also have to catch it in the act of evading us. M theory assumes that what is right in front of us is naturally evasive to observation. I think that's garbage - that just means we've lost our focus and are looking in the wrong direction.

Telos

Why don't you say what you think instead of holding back all the time?  :lol:

Are you related to Sheldon Glashow?

catmeow

Quote

QuoteA physical theory is nor right or wrong. It is not possible to prove that a theory is right!

That's ridiculous nonsense. Do you see your world as that unstable and confusing, that your computer works as the result of magic - or because of a successful physical theory of electromagnetism that has been proven over and over again?

Only cause something is new to you doesn't make it nonsense! What I say are not my own ideas but actually well accepted ones in philosophy of science. But I won't go into detail here. Do you you know Popper? "When you observe 1000 white swans you still can not logically conclude that there are no black swans"

Quote

QuoteMost physical theories we use are known to be wrong, for example Newtons Law of gravity is wrong, one should apply the theory of relativity, but this theory is also only partly right, for example if we look at very small things it is not valid one must then apply the laws of Quantum Phyics.............

You're demonstrating that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong - it's just not the whole picture. The only thing that was wrong about Newton was the assumption that it explained everything.

No, it is wrong! If you measure exactly enough you see that it is wrong. But that doesn't make it useless!

Quote

QuoteA theory is meant to describe certain regularities in nature and foretell certain things but sooner or later we discover a incident were it does not work then we need a new more elegant theory which will sooner or later fail again, this has always been the case.

You make it sound like we destroy our theories and then start from scratch. That has never been the case. Science is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge. Theories are provisional, so the ones that work are the ones that stick around. A lot of theories stick around.

That has very well be the case! You assume things that are wrong, sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. theory of relativity was something new not based on older stuff.

QuoteYou're probably only talking about theories of everything.

No I'm not

Quote

Quote

QuoteI think your argument that the M-theory uses abstract concepts like strings etc. is not valid. Most physical theories use abstract things.

You guys keep saying this. What other physical theories use abstract things? The only one I can think of is relativity, which uses spacetime as a fabric that folds and makes bumps and curves - but then even that's not that abstact, because we can see light from a star bending around an eclipse, which is actually like seeing space becoming warped..

QuoteNobody (at least no Physic t)knows what "mass" "a photon" "force" etc really is. This are just concepts of our brain.

The concept of a point is abstract.

QuoteAll concepts are abstract. Since knowledge is abstract, there's no such thing as concrete knowledge, and therefore we'll never truly know the universe. Is that what you're trying to say? In that case, you're making assumptions and philosophizing on them.

No, if you experience something, lets say "Love" you have now, concrete knowlegde what Love is.

QuoteMass, photons, and forces can be seen, measured, probed, observed, predicted, and manipulated. That makes them more than just concepts in our brain, which is all strings and extra dimensions are at the moment.

Einstein himself said that he tried to understand what a photon is for his whole Life but that he still has no clue. Only cause you can manipulate something doesn't mean you understand it. I can manipulate my girlfriend, but I sometimes don't understand her ;-)

Quote

QuoteIt is actually plausible to assume that our brain can not understand the universe

Brains have been shown to be inferior devices for understanding, given how easily our faculties to learn can be easily damaged and deformed through brain damage or genetic mutation. In the future, we'll probably have to change or augment our brains to be more sturdy.

However, when healthy, our ability to create abstract concepts of already existing phenomena and then manipulate them in our heads before experimenting with the real thing is unmatched. We've gotten this far and continue to make accelerating returns on progress.

So, no, I don't think it's anymore plausible to assume that our brains can't understand the universe than it is to assume that they can. In fact, it's way more plausible to assume the latter. Way, way more plausible.

For me it is not plausible.....

QuoteM theory operates under the assumption that the phenomena it predicts (gravitons, sparticles, etc.) are "hard to find." Therefore, we could go on looking for them forever, never find them, and M theory would still be safe - unless we prove that gravity works by some other means and discard the notion of supersymmetry.

String theory would have weight if we saw a graviton, and then watched it disappear as it left our brane.

So, not only would we have to see something that we've never seen before that explains the most familiar force in the universe, we'd also have to catch it in the act of evading us. M theory assumes that what is right in front of us is naturally evasive to observation. I think that's garbage - that just means we've lost our focus and are looking in the wrong direction.

[/quote]

Yeah probably M-theory is garbage I don't know. But I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage. I thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased, read some books about philosophy of science an you'll see what I mean, I can give you some hints if you are interested to learn.

Like I said, you're philosophizing. Nothing wrong with that, but philosophy of science is not science.

QuoteBut I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage.

Are you sure you're not just misunderstanding?

QuoteI thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased

If someone appears biased it's because they have logic you don't know about.

QuoteFor me it is not plausible.....

I'm not sure what I think of carrying on a discussion with people who have such low expectations for understanding.

Good luck in your studies.

QuoteLike I said, you're philosophizing. Nothing wrong with that, but philosophy of science is not science.

Logical thinking is not science? thats a good one! fortunately I do not need you to tell me what science is.

Quote

QuoteBut I can Tell you your picture of science and progress is also garbage.

Are you sure you're not just misunderstanding?

No I'm not sure. But I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Quote

QuoteI thought you are a logical person but it appears to be that you are biased

If someone appears biased it's because they have logic you don't know about.

what logic would that be?

QuoteI'm not sure what I think of carrying on a discussion with people who have such low expectations for understanding.

You don't have to..........

QuoteGood luck in your studies.

Thanks! Happy new year!

QuoteLogical thinking is not science? thats a good one!

Sometimes not! You're catching on. ;) Philosophy often involves logical thinking but is not science. Mathematics is the same way. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning, but science uses inductive reasoning.

Isn't that in your philosophy of science books? Funny, that was in one of the first ones I read. Surprized? I was reading philosophy probably before you learned how to read. :?

QuoteBut I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Who said it was steady?

Quotewhat logic would that be?

What (specifically) makes you think I'm biased?

QuoteThanks! Happy new year!

Thanks. Same to you. :)


[Edit: Oh, and another thing, what other theories use abstract things to support them, other than string theory and relativity?]

Hahaha.. this is the same show I watched Leyla.  I thought it to be very thought provoking, and sometimes quite hard to grasp especially with a 4yr clamering all over you making it near impossible to pay attention.

I see that Telos, you don't think they were talking about astral planes, but that is exactly what I got from it when I was watching it.  It could be my simple way of thinking that is making me think that.. I don't know.

Please forgive the way I'm writing out this post, I just now noticed this thread and I'm going through it, one post at a time.  And also forgive my lack of technical jargen, I'll do the best I can.  :)

Telos said:

QuoteBut since you brought up how AP separation feels a little like anti-gravity, it's worth some discussion. If AP worked within M theory, it would have to use gravitons (which we don't know exist) to send information to another universe. So, that would mean that some mechanism within our brain allows us to send, recieve, detect, and decode graviton transmissions. You can already tell what Brian Greene thinks of that. He used a phone in his model, not his brain.

I recall them saying that the gravitons are so dense they can't see them.  There are two sets of scientist racing to create these contraptions that cause impacts, thus hoping to capture a look at a graviton. (oh, geez I hope that is right..lol)  And it was funny because I thought the same thing about feeling the pull of gravity while getting up and out of my physical.  I think the brain is quite capable of doing what you say it can't.

I have to chuckle at myself (now that I've skimmed forward a couple pages) for even attempting to join this conversation, because of my lack of finesse in the scientific and mathmatician world.  

Half way through the program, I turned to my husband and said.. "ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."  But I think I understand now why that wouldn't work.  Scientist can't think in simple terms and will always feel superior to us no-brainers.  Not willing to give an inch, and heck... how does one argue with that, when you can't speak the language?

The only reason why I understood half that program is because they showed alot of visuals..ya know?  I'm weird that way.  I can learn and understand alot easier when given visuals.  But after skimming through more pages of this thread just left me feeling deflated and in the dark.

Oh well, this post didn't turn out exactly how I imagined but hey, that's life..lol  and instead of deleted it, I figure what the heck.... If I have to struggle through jargen, my rambling isn't so bad.  :wink:

You got it right, Nay. Don't worry. Your capacity for understanding is much larger than you think. Everyone's is.

QuoteI recall them saying that the gravitons are so dense they can't see them. There are two sets of scientist racing to create these contraptions that cause impacts, thus hoping to capture a look at a graviton. (oh, geez I hope that is right..lol) And it was funny because I thought the same thing about feeling the pull of gravity while getting up and out of my physical. I think the brain is quite capable of doing what you say it can't.

I hope I don't sound like I think the brain can't do something. I don't claim to know everything about the brain or the universe, and I'm ready to admit when my ideas are wrong.

Quote"ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."

I highly agree. However, scientists think and speak in the language of mathematics. The language is constructed around measurement and certainty, so it's a language that can make whomever uses it dubious of those who do not use it. And we do not use it.

QuoteSometimes not! You're catching on.  Philosophy often involves logical thinking but is not science. Mathematics is the same way. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning, but science uses inductive reasoning.

Good to hear, 'm still waiting for you to catch on on my ideas though  :wink:

QuoteIsn't that in your philosophy of science books? Funny, that was in one of the first ones I read. Surprized? I was reading philosophy probably before you learned how to read

.  

Yeah I'm actually surprised, Cause you seem to have a hard time understanding me, probably you should re-read the books .-P
Well o.k. Maybe I was unclear with my arguments so I try again:

Quote

QuoteIf object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G Ma Mb / r2

That equation is used to put rovers on Mars. So that's not a proven theory?

The theorie says that there is a Law of nature wich states F = G Ma Mb / r2, Law of Nature means that this equation is valid everywhere, anytime.
Now lets assume there is a other Law of nature ,which has not been discovered yet, that states that if the mass are far enough apart, lets say 20000 billion light years then there comes a additional force-component heavely into play. This force is always present but too small to be messured when distances are small. So no matter how many Rovers you put on mars, you'll not discover the fact that the law F = G Ma Mb / r2 is actually incorrect, Not a law of nature cause not valid in any situation. One can expand this line o reasoning on all Laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to prove that a Theorie on a physical law is right. If you call that philosphy or whatever does not matter. It is not possible to prove a Physical theorie! Or do you think they call the electromagnetic theory, "Theory" out of sheer fun?

Quote

QuoteBut I sure that science is not a steady climb up a hill, this has been shown by many cases.

Who said it was steady?

O.k. steady was the wrong word, but you said that Physical theories build upon each other. This is not always the case. On what theorie was the theorie of relativity build upon?

What (specifically) makes you think I'm biased?

QuoteScience is empirical, it continuously builds on existing knowledge

Quote from: NayI have to chuckle at myself (now that I've skimmed forward a couple pages) for even attempting to join this conversation, because of my lack of finesse in the scientific and mathmatician world.  

Half way through the program, I turned to my husband and said.. "ya know, if the scientist would just get together with people, like those on the Pulse I believe we could really learn quite a bit from each other."  But I think I understand now why that wouldn't work.  Scientist can't think in simple terms and will always feel superior to us no-brainers.  Not willing to give an inch, and heck... how does one argue with that, when you can't speak the language?

Don't worry about that. If someone (a scientist for that sake) has really understood something he should be able to explain it in simple terms (in my opinion  :wink: )
I once told my girlfriend I believe every body has 100 points brain power, But some have 50 points mathematics while others have 10 but the same may have only 10 points social live while the other has 50 points there. No need for the mathematician to feel superior

I see you found the M theory I was asking about in the other thread..lol. ( I hadn't found this one yet)

QuoteNo need for the mathematician to feel superior

I'm not seeking to feel superior, I just want to UNDERSTAND!  :lol:  :lol:

Nay

Someone wrote "Precognition breaks the laws of time."

If I remember correctly, time is yet another physical dimension as explained by relativity.

For example, two objects can not occupy the same place at the same "time".  In different times, of course they can.

Quote from: FreeChileSomeone wrote "Precognition breaks the laws of time."

If I remember correctly, time is yet another physical dimension as explained by relativity.

For example, two objects can not occupy the same place at the same "time". In different times, of course they can.

You're either being pedantic or else you're missing the point?  :?  

Let me rephrase so there can be no misunderstanding:  "Precognition breaks the mathematical rules concerning time as defined by Einstein's theory of relativity".  Or to put it slightly more simply, precognition is not possible according to the theory of relativity.

catmeow

QuoteI see that Telos, you don't think they were talking about astral planes, but that is exactly what I got from it when I was watching it. It could be my simple way of thinking that is making me think that.. I don't know.

Not only is it exactly what you got from it, Nay, but it's exactly what the physicists themselves got from it- which is why so many of them are trying astral projection.

(through meditation or chemical short-cuts)

Maybe Telos doesn't think there is a connection. But they do.

And I'm going to take their word for it because it's their theory.

I'll change my mind as soon as Telos gets a Ph.d in Physics.

QuoteThe overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.

All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

Quote from: LeylaThey're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

Please name your sources.  Until you do, I'll assume it's the following article, which contains the same text you have used almost word for word:

http://www.brainmachines.com/body_matrix.html

Quote from: Leyla

Quote from: catmeowThe overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.

All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

No that isn't correct.

By the way, why do you assume that people on this board don't already have PhD's?  :?

catmeow

The page looks familiar, I may have read it. Type "DMT" and "physics" into a google search and you will find dozens of such physcists. They are ubiquitous. And they're all writing books.

I take their word as credible, especially since they have experienced both sides of these parallel universes as both scientists and astral travelers.

Why wouldn't I? Or rather, why wouldn't you?

Quote

QuoteAll particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. A

No that isn't correct.

Yes. It is correct.

QuoteBy the way, why do you assume that people on this board don't already have PhD's?

Really? What is your PhD in, and from what University?

Quote from: Leyla

Quote from: catmeow

Quote from: LeylaAll particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. A

No that isn't correct.

Yes. It is correct.

Oh no it isn't!!  :lol:

Leyla, according to Einstein's Lorentz Transformation, the time line is smooth, unidirectional and continuous.  We cannot move both forward and backward along the time line.  We can only move in one direction, either forwards or backwards.  He may have got it wrong, but that's what he said.

Both my first degree and PhD are in Electronics.  I did get an 'S' level distinction in Physics however, for what it's worth.

Cheers
catmeow

How many years ago did you take this class?

The hard and fast laws of science have a funny way of totally collapsing once you get down on a subatomic level.

I wish I could draw you the diagram I am looking at on pages 184-185 of the Tao of Physics. It says quite clearly that particles do move backward and forward in time, just as just as they can move left and right in space.

"Cheers?" Leyla

Quote from: LeylaHow many years ago did you take this class?

Certainly after the book was published in 1975.  Whilst on the subject, it's possible that I am older than you, but in that case I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you....  :lol:

"cheers" is just a friendly greeting in the UK.

In any event I'll get hold of a copy of the book.  Very often, authors attempt to curve fit science to metaphysics, in order to lend false weight to their pet theories, and also of course to sell books.  I'll see if this is the case with this book.

catmeow

I have the third edition, updated. 1991.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Buddhism "metaphysics."

The same information on particles is available in my copies of "Metapatterns," "The Holographic Universe," "and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."

All are pretty good books as far as Physics goes.

As for my "youth and inexperience," I am 29 and holding  :lol:

Although it should be obvious my writing is not nearly so arrogant in tone as one of these know-it-all teenagers. I would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

(http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage43/16.gif)How about yourself?

Quote from: LeylaI would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

Don't understand you at all now?  You thought I was being sarcastic instead of friendly?  :?

catmeow

Quote from: LeylaI have the third edition, updated. 1991.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Buddhism "metaphysics."

The same information on particles is available in my copies of "Metapatterns," "The Holographic Universe," "and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."

All are pretty good books as far as Physics goes.

As for my "youth and inexperience," I am 29 and holding  :lol:

Although it should be obvious my writing is not nearly so arrogant in tone as one of these know-it-all teenagers. I would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

(http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage43/16.gif)How about yourself?

Why don't you use a real book on Physics, instead of a pseudo-Physic-book ? You wouldn't use a Book by Stephen Hawking to read about Buddhism, would you?

And no Particles usually can not travel back in time. A Particle needs to exceed the speed of light travel back in time, for any particle with mass, this would need indefinite energy.
I know Micheal J. Fox did it but you can not!

:lol: CHEERS  :lol:   Tom

Ah! But I already have time traveled.  An "akashic pulse" experience is rare, but not unheard of.

Leyla

Quote from: LeylaAh! But I already have time traveled. An "akashic pulse" experience is rare, but not unheard of.

You've lost the plot completely now.  Our discussion pertains to whether or not the laws of physical science permit forward and backward travel in time, not whether or not you think you have done this astrally.  :?  

Also I still haven't had an answer regarding what you meant by this incomprehensible statement:

Quote from: LeylaI would not sarcastically throw about the word "cheers," for instance. That would make me sound haughty and pretentious.

You're making less and less sense with every post.

catmeow

Hi Leyla

Quote from: LeylaThe same information on particles is available in my copies of "Metapatterns," "The Holographic Universe," "and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."

All are pretty good books as far as Physics goes.

No they're not.

Metapatterns is written by Tyler Volk, The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov.

These three authors don't have a single physics degree between them.  Gary Zukov has a degree in International Relations from Harvard, obtained in 1937, and Michael Talbot has no qualifications whatsoever.  Tyler Volk is an academic with a seat at New York University, but he has no qualifications in physics whatsoever. As such, none of these authors is qualified to comment on Quantum Mechanics.

At work, I have asked two colleagues whether the following statement is true:

Quote from: LeylaAll particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

I told them I thought the statement was untrue. Both have confirmed that this statement is in fact untrue.  One has a degree in Particle Physics.  The other has a PhD in Particle Physics.  The guy with the PhD was the most succint:

Quote from: PhD in Particle PhysicsYes my PhD is in Particle Physics (experimental). Yep, the guy has got it all wrong. You have it right both with the QM and relativity. Neither QM nor special relativity allow particles to move backwards in time. Relativity is about mass/time/velocity. QM is about wave/particle duality and probablity/position. Neither include traveling backwards in time!!!!

The other guy was more verbose but said the same.

I have ordered The Tao of Physics because this is by an author qualified to comment. The other authors may well be inspirational New Age thinkers, and their books might be an interesting read, but they are utterly unqualified to comment about Particle Physics.

Your assertion that all particles can move forwards and backwards in time is completely wrong.  As I said all along.

catmeow

I can't really add to the great information put across by Catmeow and Telos. But I think Leyla is referencing entanglement when she talks of particles communicating across large distances (sorry if this has already been said.)
Just because we are made up of particles doesn't mean we inherit (on a consciousness level) potential properties of them.

Normal relative and quantum physics at least allow time travel of information to a place far away in the past, but only if its far enough that light couldnt get back here in time to influence anything before the information was sent. 5 years to the past needs more than 5 lightyears distance. No paradoxes.

We know time moves at different rates for different particles, depending on their speed and location.
 If we entangled 2, sent one of them to orbit a black hole (theoreticly, ignore how long that takes) and fall back to earth, years less time would have passed for that particle.
Does physics say this is IMpossible?: Recieve a message from the particle that came back from space. Years later, send that message on the particle that stayed on earth.

QuoteJust because we are made up of particles doesn't mean we inherit (on a consciousness level) potential properties of them.

Our brains could be entangled with lots of other particles. Some of us figure out exactly which connections and are able to get astral information from it.

Hi Beavis

I've read your posts in other threads and you usually have something interesting to say.

Quote from: BeavisNormal relative and quantum physics at least allow time travel of information to a place far away in the past, but only if its far enough that light couldnt get back here in time to influence anything before the information was sent. 5 years to the past needs more than 5 lightyears distance. No paradoxes.

The theory of relativity allows travel into the future, for sure.  It has been proven and verified experimentally.  But we can't travel back in time!  That's the rub.  I don't understand what you're saying!  :?

catmeow

I know about future travel. Orbit a black hole once a few feet from the event horizon and you might travel (not sure of the exact scale) billions of years, but the increasingly high frequency of the light would radiation burn you to death.

Hi beavis

Actually it's simpler than that.  All you have to do is jump into a rocket travel away from the Earth at the speed of light a distance of 50 light years, do a u-turn, come back at the speed of light.  By the time you get back to Earth, it will be 2105, but as far as the rocket traveller is concerned only a couple of minutes will have elapsed.  So by this method you have jumped 100 years into the future!  But there's no return path... you can't get back to 2005!  That, as I say, is "the rub"!

Another problem is that it requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

This effect has been experimentally demonstrated by placing atomic clocks on high speed aircraft, and comparing them with a similar atomic clock on the ground.

Massive anomalies also occur near black holes, as you mentioned, but there is no black hole near the Earth so this can't be used to account for any psychic activity going on down here...!

catmeow

You can go to the future with less than light speed.

Quote from: beavisYou can go to the future with less than light speed.

Yes of course you can, I was just giving a simple example

catmeow

QuoteI can't really add to the great information put across by Catmeow and Telos. But I think Leyla is referencing entanglement when she talks of particles communicating across large distances (sorry if this has already been said.)
Just because we are made up of particles doesn't mean we inherit (on a consciousness level) potential properties of them.

No this has not been said, I think. And yes entangled Particles seem to be able to communicate over indefinite distances without time delay. This is highly confusing and suggests the whole Universe might operate as ONE. Does entanglement allow time travel into the past? Might be! But as I said, it is yet to be explored.
If one entangled Particle is moving at a higher speed then the other, time is moving slower for it. Therefore the other Particle should be in the Past relative to the one that moves faster. Can we now send info via the particle in the future to the one in the past? I do not know? Interesting thought, I think.
I think this discussion has to make clear what it is about. Do we talk about what might be possible or do we talk about what the current laws of Physic allow?

QuoteIf one entangled Particle is moving at a higher speed then the other, time is moving slower for it. Therefore the other Particle should be in the Past relative to the one that moves faster. Can we now send info via the particle in the future to the one in the past?

No. When an entangled particle communicates with the other particle, it does so instantaneously, ie at the exact same time. Even if one has moved around really fast while the other stayed still.

They can send a message from A-now to B-now.They can't send a message from A-now to B-five-minutes-ago.

CatMeow-

I will try to put this as simply as I can:

If time travel isn't scientifically possible then I wouldn't have been able to do it.  :roll:

Leyla

Thanks for making it simple for me.  You're missing the point (again).  Your time travel experiences and ESP in general have nothing (IMHO) to do with the physical sciences.  That's the point I've been making all along, and which you and I were discussing.  Not whether ESP, astral travel, precognition or astral Akashic Record experiences are possible.  In my own personal experience, ESP is a certainty, but it is not goverened by the laws of physical science.  Whether or not you have astrally travelled in time is irrelevant to our discussion.  

catrmeow

Concerning travelling astrally into the past. Unless one can make some form of change which alters ones present physical reality (although I cant see how such a thing could be empirically recorded, only believed in) isn't it an equally possibility that one is experiencing recordings/memories of the past?
It has been suggested that quantum gravity exhibits holography. Due to the nature of holograms, isn't it at least a possibility that not only the universes current state is recorded, but every previous state too? (Many worlds theory.) I know I am making assumptions here, but it's an idea I just came up with and nothing more. But then again. If the many worlds theory holds true (which it tends to be now) which past would one be projecting into?
Projection into the future is projection into a possible future, and so could be considered fantasy bounded by ones knowledge of current world/universe events and organisation.

Hi MisterJingo

Thanks for your kind comments earlier.  :)

At first when I read your post I thought you were refering to Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of the wave-function problem.  But I'm not sure if that's what you meant now.  In any case, Everett's "Many Worlds" theory allows for an infinite number of universes each with its own unique history.  Everything which ever could have happened and everything which ever will happen is represented by a different universe.

In this model, if travel backwards in time were possible, we would simply move into a different universe with its own history.  There would be no possibility of encountering a "past" version of ourselves in this universe because we would never have existed in it before.  This solves the paradox of meeting yourself in the past.

However, this type of time travel would be of no practical use whatsoever! :cry:

catmeow

Hi Leyla

I've got a copy of The Tao of Physics now.  What Fritjof Capra is describing is a branch of relativity called "quantum electrodynamics" (QED) or "relativistic field theory".  The diagram you refer to is a standard space-time diagram.  It shows an electron and an anti-electron travelling forwards in time, which then collide, annihalite, and produce a photon which then continues to travel forwards in time:
(http://www.joenhiscat.plus.com/catmeow/qeda2.jpg)
In 1949 Richard Feynman (who won the Nobel prize for Physics in 1965) showed that the mathematical field equations describing the behaviour of particles such as electrons and anti-electrons are symmetrical, with regard to time.  Or to put it another way, an anti-electron moving forwards in time is mathematically equivalent to an electron moving backwards in time.

Given this information Fritjof then redraws the diagram to depict it as an electron moving forwards in time, which then splits into a photon moving forwards in time and an electron moving backwards in time.  Well please note that this is all just a matter of mathematical notation.  It's just a mathematical abstraction.  It doesn't mean that anything is actually going backwards in time.  It's just that it looks kind of neat in the diagram to draw it that way...
(http://www.joenhiscat.plus.com/catmeow/qedb2.jpg)
Anyway, Fritjof then later mentions that "all particles can move forwards and backwards in time".  But when he says this he is describing a mathematical abstraction, rather than stating what actually happens.

Let me put it another way.  Let's assume that I video Michael Schumacher winning the Australian Grand Prix.  I could play this back to my friends and say "Look, this is Schumacher driving really quickly".  Or I could play it backwards and say "Look, this is anti-Schumacher driving really quickly and going backwards in time!  Isn't that amazing?  It means that All racing drivers can go forwards and backwards in time!"

That's exactly what Fritjof is doing.

To be honest, Fritjof moves so subtley from fact to mathematical abstraction in his argument, that I would forgive anybody for being misled by him.  So I can totally understand why you said what you said about particles moving backwards in time.  But please note, actually they don't.

catmeow

Yeah, my bad, I meant Feynman's multiple history idea :) But on recollection, it doesn't actually have any bearing on what I was trying to say! I guess the only way of ever recreating the past would be based upon wave function calculations, and so then only an approximation of the past at best (if we ever get to a strange where such staggering feats are feasible!)
This poses an interesting question. Can one ever truly visit the past in astral form? If so, how and in what state is this 'past' stored? (If we consider it to be a memory of the past.) I could gauge some assumptions which are more metaphysical than scientific but they don't really answer the question in a means we could ever test.

N.b. before anyone suggests it, I know that light reaches out to us from the past over tremendous distances (some of it will never reach us) but I am concerned with the past of our immediate locale (Earth.)

astralspinner wrote

QuoteNo. When an entangled particle communicates with the other particle, it does so instantaneously, ie at the exact same time. Even if one has moved around really fast while the other stayed still.

They can send a message from A-now to B-now.They can't send a message from A-now to B-five-minutes-ago.

I don't understand what you mean. I thought the point of relativity is that there is no absolute time scale.

Lets picture the following experiment: We have 2 "white" entangled Particles in a Laboratory. So lets say if we switch one of them to "black" the other switches to "black" instantly as well.

Now let  Einstein take one Particle (A) and fly around the earth with 99.9999% of the speed of light for one year, the other Particle (B) stays in the Laboratory with Heisenberg. After one year Albert returns to the Laboratory with Particle (A).
Particle B is now 1 year ahead in time relative to Particle A.
Now Heisenberg decides to switch Particle B to black.
What will happen?

1)He already knew I'll do it cause he saw that the Particle A Einstein was carrying when we entered the Library was black. Thus free will is a illusion :shock:

2) The Particle A is still white as Einstein entered the room and switches to black the very same moment Particle B is switched to black . Thus the "switching-signal" travels 1 year into the past, relative to the Laboratory time.

What will happen if Einstein decides to switch A to black first, once he enters the room?

1) Particle B is already black as Einstein enters the room thus free will is a illusion :shock:

2) Particle B switches to black as Einstein switches A to black, thus the signal travels 1 Year into the future relative to Einstein




Leyla wrote

QuoteI will try to put this as simply as I can:

If time travel isn't scientifically possible then I wouldn't have been able to do it.

O.k. I think I now understand what you mean. When you say "Laws of nature", "scientifically possible", "physically possible"  or such, you mean the "real world" you mean: "what in reality is possible"

But if I or  catmeow say "Laws of nature", "scientifically possible", "physically possible"  or such we mean: What, according to our current knowledge, which is accepted by mainstream Physicists, seems to be possible.

We are trying to say: "Travel into the past might be possible but it is not a accepted fact by Physicists"

Now you claim to be able to travel into the past. Are you sure about that? Can you change something there? Are you sure that you not just visited a realistic duplication of the past that was created in the Astral based upon thoughts by people that lived there?
Or easy put:
Is looking a documentary about the second World war on TV time travel?

Catmeow- I am not missing the point. You are. Just because these things haven't been figured out by physical science yet doesn't mean they won't be. I don't care who tells you it can't be done. I don't care the reasons they may give. They're wrong.

Tombo seems to know what I mean.

Also Tombo, you came up with a good question. So here's what happend in detail:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had an overwhelming desire to speak with my grandmother.

No surprise then, that I found myself astrally transported to her house. I hung around in my invisible state, eaves-dropping on her conversation.

I then felt I had overstayed and my body was trying to pull me back in- problem:
I got lost in time.

A series of portals opened up in front of me:
1) me at age six walking across my great aunts living room
2) me at age twelve laying on my other aunts couch
3) me in this apartment, in bed
4) me in the future, some kind of traveling artist

I could have walked into any one of them!

I did not know where I belonged, until the future me informed the current me that I was "still back in that little apartment." (portal #3)

I got back, sick and dizzy from my overstay. Also I was miserably hot and feverish, burning up with waves of heat.

I rolled over to write down what I over-heard at my grandmothers house. I realized with shock that it won't take place for five or six more years!

I had traveled forward in time!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's the creepy part. The times that I was looking in on, as a little girl aged 6 and 12- I *remembered* having an extreemly spooked out feeling in those moments of my childhood that I was being WATCHED.

It just goes round in circles. Man, I could go nuts trying to figure it out.

Regarding entanglement. It's considered now that faster than light communication is not needed. For example:
A radioactive particle decays and sends out two particles in opposite directions and with opposite spins. If an observer measures the spin of one particle he can say with certainty what the spin of what the other particle is even if it is on the other side of the universe. This is where Einstein became confused. Observing the spin of one particle does not instantly change the spin of the other, as the observers could no more choose the spin of the observed particle (S. Hawkins.)
I'm not sure how this implies free will is an illusion though. If the deterministic view of the universe was proved (with methods such as p-brane theory of black holes) then it could suggest that free will is an illusion - although I'm not sure how the determinism of particles could transcribe to seemingly complex humans/consciousness. It is something that concerns me though.

QuoteCatmeow- I am not missing the point. You are

I think none of you  is missing "the point", the two of you just talked at cross purposes. But I think we should focus on what you experienced Leyla, cause that is the interesting part!

QuoteI had an overwhelming desire to speak with my grandmother.

No surprise then, that I found myself astrally transported to her house. I hung around in my invisible state, eaves-dropping on her conversation.

I then felt I had overstayed and my body was trying to pull me back in- problem:
I got lost in time.

A series of portals opened up in front of me:
1) me at age six walking across my great aunts living room
2) me at age twelve laying on my other aunts couch
3) me in this apartment, in bed
4) me in the future, some kind of traveling artist

I could have walked into any one of them!

I did not know where I belonged, until the future me informed the current me that I was "still back in that little apartment." (portal #3)

I got back, sick and dizzy from my overstay. Also I was miserably hot and feverish, burning up with waves of heat.

I rolled over to write down what I over-heard at my grandmothers house. I realized with shock that it won't take place for five or six more years!

I had traveled forward in time!

This is a awesome experience! Now can you explain one thing in more detail, please: Which one is it?
-You wrote down what you heard at or grandmothers house and then it happened 5 years later, then you pulled out your Notebook and voilà it was exactly as you wrote down? Or
-The experience is not  long ago and what you wrote down will happen in the future ? And you just know it will happen like a Déja vu.

I suppose that your overwhelming desire to speak with your grandmother caused you to time travel and that you can't do it on purpose. Can you do it on Purpose?

QuoteAnd here's the creepy part. The times that I was looking in on, as a little girl aged 6 and 12- I *remembered* having an extremely spooked out feeling in those moments of my childhood that I was being WATCHED.

It just goes round in circles. Man, I could go nuts trying to figure it out.

Pretty creepy I would say! This is though to figure out! Although if we assume that conscious itself is not bound to time (Like Robert Bruce and other believe), or in other words time is a illusion, then it starts to make some sense. Still not  a lot of sense though! I guess I have to think about what you said............. Did you have more experiences like that? If yes I'd like to hear...................

Tombo:

I wrote down the experience, and it has not happened yet. But it will.

You'll think this is funny- (I do) I CAN do it on purpose. But I won't because it frightens me. So I just wait for it to happen involuntarily.

That's the only time travel experience I've had. I understand Nostradomus was able to do it regularly. I found it amazingly physically/energetically tasking, and wonder if he was really doing it on purpose or if he was dragged.

I have heard it said that all psychic work is a form of "time travel" because you're getting information on future events that have yet to take place.

I'd never thought of it that way before.

I've met gifted psychics and had them give me accurate detailed information, so I'm convinced it's real.

O.k. this may sound annoying but sorry ,I have to ask:
How can you be sure it will happen? Do you exactly know like, in 1 year it will happen or do you just wait and see?

So basically, You just know on the bottom of your heart, that it will happen, right?

Your experience kinda reminds me of Deja vus, there is this theory that says, Deja vus are future events that we saw in Dreams.
My sister has a lot of them. She usually can decide whether she wants to change the experience or let it happen like it is supposed to.
Do you think, you could change the future, you experienced? Or do you believe it will happen exactly like you saw it, no matter what?

Quote from: MisterJingoRegarding entanglement. It's considered now that faster than light communication is not needed. For example:
A radioactive particle decays and sends out two particles in opposite directions and with opposite spins. If an observer measures the spin of one particle he can say with certainty what the spin of what the other particle is even if it is on the other side of the universe. This is where Einstein became confused. Observing the spin of one particle does not instantly change the spin of the other, as the observers could no more choose the spin of the observed particle (S. Hawkins.)
I'm not sure how this implies free will is an illusion though. If the deterministic view of the universe was proved (with methods such as p-brane theory of black holes) then it could suggest that free will is an illusion - although I'm not sure how the determinism of particles could transcribe to seemingly complex humans/consciousness. It is something that concerns me though.

In my view, If the deterministic view of the universe was proved that would suck the very essence of Life out of the world. A predeterminate Universe would be a dead meaningless Universe. I refuse to believe that.

Quote from: Tombo

Quote from: MisterJingoRegarding entanglement. It's considered now that faster than light communication is not needed. For example:
A radioactive particle decays and sends out two particles in opposite directions and with opposite spins. If an observer measures the spin of one particle he can say with certainty what the spin of what the other particle is even if it is on the other side of the universe. This is where Einstein became confused. Observing the spin of one particle does not instantly change the spin of the other, as the observers could no more choose the spin of the observed particle (S. Hawkins.)
I'm not sure how this implies free will is an illusion though. If the deterministic view of the universe was proved (with methods such as p-brane theory of black holes) then it could suggest that free will is an illusion - although I'm not sure how the determinism of particles could transcribe to seemingly complex humans/consciousness. It is something that concerns me though.

In my view, If the deterministic view of the universe was proved that would suck the very essence of Life out of the world. A predeterminate Universe would be a dead meaningless Universe. I refuse to believe that.

I agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. Even our horror reactions at such a thing would not be 'ours,' we would not be 'ours.' But. Just because something is scary and looks terrible, it doesn't mean we should ignore it if evidence starts to point towards it. On a quest for truth we can't ignore the truths we don't like :)
I just find it hard to define consciousness in relation to the cause and effect reality it exists within. How can an independent thought be created? What is the mechanism which causes it to be? The problem is that once a choice is made the choice cannot be changed. Each action, reaction, though, and emotion etc in our life is a forever one of a kind event. So even our progress through time seems to suggest a deterministic view of the universe. How can you 'know' your last action was your own. It goes deeper than that though, back to the watcher and further still. I guess it's a fundamental question to sentient awareness itself. Is it really just an illusion?

I think most things are scary when you think of them :) The potential oblivion of death (I've experienced amazing things which suggest death isn't the end, but you can't ultimately discount any possibility) is just as scary as the thought of eternal life! Eternity is a very very long time...

QuoteDeja vus are future events that we saw in Dreams.
My sister has a lot of them. She usually can decide whether she wants to change the experience or let it happen like it is supposed to.

I've dream journaled for many years and totally agree with that theory.  Yes, my dreams keep me up on events ahead of time. Sometimes I have two weeks, and other times it's the very next day.

I feel that if I was just supposed to let a bad event happen, then I what would be the purpose of a "warning" dream?

However if I like the event my dream shows me, I go along with it.

Quote

Quote from: TomboIn my view, If the deterministic view of the universe was proved that would suck the very essence of Life out of the world. A predeterminate Universe would be a dead meaningless Universe. I refuse to believe that.

I agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. ...

The latest questioned polled to scientists on Edge.org was this:

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?

Susan Blackmore, a psychologist (and former para-psychologist) answered with this:

"It  is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will. As Samuel Johnson said "All theory  is against the freedom of the will; all experience  is for it." With recent developments in neuroscience  and theories of consciousness, theory is even more against it than it was in his time, more than 200  years ago. So I long ago set about systematically  changing the experience. I now have no feeling of  acting with free will, although the feeling took many years to ebb away.

But  what happens? People say I'm lying! They say it's  impossible and so I must be deluding myself to  preserve my theory. And what can I do or say to challenge them? I have no idea—other than  to suggest that other people try the exercise,  demanding as it is.

When the feeling is gone, decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them, but then a new question arises—will the decisions  be morally acceptable? Here I have made a great leap of faith (or the  memes and genes and world have done so). It seems that when people throw  out the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think  of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous  as it sounds—but this too I cannot prove.

As for giving up the sense of an inner conscious self altogether—this  is very much harder. I just keep on seeming to exist. But though I cannot  prove it—I think it is true that I don't."

http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#blackmorehttp://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#blackmore

Susie Blackmore is well weird.  Once a semi-believer in ESP, she has had OBE experiences but has been skeptical for some time now, and is often quoted together with James Randi when trying to debunk ESP and OBE.  Unlike Randi who has no scientific qualifications (and is also a second rate illusionist), Blackmore is actually quite well respected, and has a PhD I think.  She has an interesting viewpoint, which ultimately can not be disproved, although that doesn't mean she is correct!

Interesting link by the way...  :)

catmeow

QuoteI agree completely. It would more than suck the essence of life out of the universe, it would automatism us. Even our horror reactions at such a thing would not be 'ours,' we would not be 'ours.' But. Just because something is scary and looks terrible, it doesn't mean we should ignore it if evidence starts to point towards it. On a quest for truth we can't ignore the truths we don't like  
I just find it hard to define consciousness in relation to the cause and effect reality it exists within. How can an independent thought be created? What is the mechanism which causes it to be? The problem is that once a choice is made the choice cannot be changed. Each action, reaction, though, and emotion etc in our life is a forever one of a kind event. So even our progress through time seems to suggest a deterministic view of the universe.

Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

QuoteI now have no feeling of acting with free will, although the feeling took many years to ebb away.

But what happens? People say I'm lying! They say it's impossible and so I must be deluding myself to preserve my theory. And what can I do or say to challenge them? I have no idea—other than to suggest that other people try the exercise, demanding as it is.

When the feeling is gone, decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them, but then a new question arises—will the decisions be morally acceptable? Here I have made a great leap of faith (or the memes and genes and world have done so). It seems that when people throw out the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous as it sounds—but this too I cannot prove.

As for giving up the sense of an inner conscious self altogether—this is very much harder. I just keep on seeming to exist. But though I cannot prove it—I think it is true that I don't."

But nevertheless decisions take place, where does a thought come from? I have no clue, but it must be somewere I guess.
Maybe free will is a illusion. But only cause you have no control of things (your apparent decisions) doesn't mean nobody (God) hasn't! it leads to paradox situations were the rational mind starts to fail. Things stop making sense and probably they aren't supposed to make sense! But what do we do with this insights?
Somewhere must be a real Core of reality! Particles are unreal, free will is unreal, self is unreal............What is real then?

Quantum science suggests that they Universe is not divisible into seperate things. The universe is a whole and we are part of it. Doesn't that fit together perfectly. Any view of a independent self must be wrong according to Quantum Phyics. And I think that is the most logical solution: There is just one hugh consciousness that we are a part of.

Quote
Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

In the quantum world the biggest factor against a deterministic universe was loss of data in such places as black holes. The reason relativity works on the macro universe (even though it doesn't on the micro) is that very large systems of uncertainty average themselves out. A crude analogy is in casinos, the only way to beat the house is to have a few very high stake bets, because over time they will win.
Have you read into blackhole entropy? The aspect of universe which seemed to rule out determinism (the loss of data into a blackhole) looks like it could have been resolved. It is thought now that blackholes get smaller and smaller until they disappear and space-time is reverted to its original form. If looked at as a p-brane, the black hole will store all data which fell into it, so this information is not lost. This is very important in predicting the wave function of every partical. This also puts determinism back onto the map.

Just because we don't understand enough of the action of QM at our current state, hasn't stopped us putting it to use, and is not a reason to assume we will never understand it :) Another note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist. A lot of people have taken these ideas to extreme in the QM world, such as moons disappearing,and reality instantly constructing itself on our observation and then reverting back to wavefronts etc.

I'm keeping out of the determinism discussion for the moment at least.  The following I thought is true:

Quote from: MisterJingoAnother note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist.

I had exactly the same thought myself, and I was thinking of the imaginary number axis (square root of -1).  Also Laplace transforms, Fourier transforms etc. Just because we use abstractions such as this in a mathematical model doesn't mean that the abstraction actually exists.  8)

catmeow

Quote from: MisterJingo

Quote
Well I think the more we learn about reality the more it gets obvious that a deterministic view is wrong. There is no way to exactly measure things in the subatomic scale (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html)
Not only that but things seem to be completly alien to ourselfs (nor Particle nor wave)
It is impossible to calculate the future cause it is not possible to measure the actual state of the universe. If I look at it very scientifically I must say if something is not measurable and not possible to calculate it is within the world of science not REAL. Therefore it is  a matter of believe. I believe the universe is not deterministic, Period.

On the other hand I must say if could even imagine a deterministic world and a free will coexisting: If we could step out of time it is imaginable that we decided (using free will) what Life we wanne live including all the decions we wanna make. Then we stepped into time and now we go thru it.

In the quantum world the biggest factor against a deterministic universe was loss of data in such places as black holes. The reason relativity works on the macro universe (even though it doesn't on the micro) is that very large systems of uncertainty average themselves out. A crude analogy is in casinos, the only way to beat the house is to have a few very high stake bets, because over time they will win.
Have you read into blackhole entropy? The aspect of universe which seemed to rule out determinism (the loss of data into a blackhole) looks like it could have been resolved. It is thought now that blackholes get smaller and smaller until they disappear and space-time is reverted to its original form. If looked at as a p-brane, the black hole will store all data which fell into it, so this information is not lost. This is very important in predicting the wave function of every partical. This also puts determinism back onto the map.

Just because we don't understand enough of the action of QM at our current state, hasn't stopped us putting it to use, and is not a reason to assume we will never understand it :) Another note, QM is a system of describing the micro-universe. The terms and theory used is not how things actually are. But us picturing things that way help us to work thing out better. A very good example of this is imaginary time, which is a construct used extensively in science. We create this new time form to help us build a model. It doesn't cause the time form to actually exist. A lot of people have taken these ideas to extreme in the QM world, such as moons disappearing,and reality instantly constructing itself on our observation and then reverting back to wavefronts etc.

Agree! But I think you missed my point. For example if we have a single Plutonium Atom we can not predict when it will decay. If this is not possible at all or if our current knowledge is just not good enough, I think, is unclear.
So, you do not need a black hole, if a decay is truly random then the universe is not determined!
Of course it may be possible that someday we completely understand QM, but I can just talk about the current situation, not about what might be.
Your note about QM not, being the reality but just a help to picture reality is important. I think Einstein summed it up well once: "Math can only talk about relations between concepts but not about relation between concepts and reality" I think the same is true for all of science.

Another note: As long as we do not understand consciousness (and I doubt we ever will) it is not possible to decide whether the universe is determined or not.

I should state my position: I don't agree with the deterministic view of the universe myself because we do not have enough understanding or information to come to such a conclusion, but we also do not have enough information to say a non-deterministic view is true either.
I guess my point in arguing was the fact that we should be open to all possibilities, however much we might not like their implications :)

while being open to all possibilities, remember what rational and irrational thinking gave us. thanks to rational thinking we have TVs, microwaves, and the Internet. irrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

just a heads up ;)

I agree. But by what standard are we use to judge a thing irrational? The theory which spawned the technology which built TV's, microwaves, and the internet was considered irrational by a large proportion of the eminent scientists of the day. Even Einstein was not totally convinced of this new area of science (Quantum), even spending a lot of time trying to discredit it. Now we know this area (which was once thought of as irrational) is rational, it helped shape technology and medical science as we see it today. So again, it helps to keep an open mind :)

Quoteirrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

Actually, the people that came up with those were being perfectly rational, within their own cultures and values.

I daresay you're aware that the brain is split into the left & right hemisphjeres. The left is logical and 'rational', the right is creative and 'irrational'

Most of the people we regard as geniuses today - Van Gough, Mozart, Einstein, Shakespear - all were very right-sided thinkers.

Logic is all about cause-and-effect and turning the world into patterns and rules. It's no good at creating anything new.

Quote from: astralspinner

Quoteirrational thinking is responsible for witch trials and spanish inquisition.

Actually, the people that came up with those were being perfectly rational, within their own cultures and values.

I daresay you're aware that the brain is split into the left & right hemisphjeres. The left is logical and 'rational', the right is creative and 'irrational'

Most of the people we regard as geniuses today - Van Gough, Mozart, Einstein, Shakespear - all were very right-sided thinkers.

Logic is all about cause-and-effect and turning the world into patterns and rules. It's no good at creating anything new.

Nicely said!

Nonsense.  Logic is what takes those radical creative impulses and actually figures out how to do something useful with them :p  So if it wasn't for logic, we'd come up with plenty of new things, but we wouldn't know how to do anything about them :D