align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo
Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 8
Woo or Wow?

When two events synchronise in time, a synchronicity is the result. When two incidents happen in the same space, there is a co-incidence. When a coincidence and synchronicity collide, two apparently unbound events happen at the same time in the same place -what is known as a serendipity happens, what is otherwise described by the uninitiated as 'luck'.

I have found in my research that synchronicities and coincidences happen as a result of 3 factors. A person clearing up issues from the past, Being attentive to goals for their future and honouring and learning from what is going on in the present.

Quantum Physics plays a role here because a person's intent is a strong factor proposed to collapse a quantum possibility into a specific reality. The energy picture of an intent or an event, or as Quantum Physics calls it, its Wavefunction, has a time component and a space component. It is thought though that there is also a consciousness component. If consciousness is shifted across space and time, it is possible to increase the probability that a persons intent will in some form manifest into reality. There will be, as will all things Quantum, be a certain level of uncertainty (An oxymoron I know but thats the maths of Quantum Mechanics for you). You may know something will happen in a certain part of your life but only have a rough idea of when -or You know exactly when there will be a synchronicity but not know in what part of life it will appear.

..So I have been testing this with hundred of people over the last 4 years. taking them through consciousness shifts. I wasn't looking for synchronicities until i started noticing them increasing in frequency. Then I looked into how dealing with the past, present and future nurtured them. Eventually I understood the mechanics and began to try and predict them.

Synchronicities happen when you are free of your past and future because your will is not obliged to any past issues or future goals and is only being utilised to deal with present experience. At this point your will is truly free, you have genuine free will. It appears that every time we move into a state of genuine free will in an area of our life a synchronicity manifests in that area. When we have cleared all of our past an attended to all of our future and have become fully present in all areas of our life, then the synchronicities appear so continuously they present themselves as a path. Life becomes an endless chain of synchronicities and we simply deal with whatever comes up that we are present to and aware of.
A former member
Post #: 42
“When two events synchronise in time, a synchronicity is the result.”

Could you give an example?

“When two incidents happen in the same space, there is a co-incidence.”

How big can the ‘same space’ be?

“When a coincidence and synchronicity collide, two apparently unbound events happen at the same time in the same place -what is known as a serendipity happens, what is otherwise described by the uninitiated as 'luck'.”

What does one do to become initiated?
A former member
Post #: 149
Jazz
Good for you! Posting some really bold assertions on this message board which you must have known would attract criticism from some quarters (as well as interest from others). I’ve already expressed my views on ‘synchronicity’ on the other thread, where I pointed out that the ‘very concept of synchronicity is unscientific and ill-defined...... just uninformed rubbish.............. and a daft idea’. So I am one of those critics. I would also criticise your assertion that “It is thought though that there is also a consciousness component [in the wave function]”.

On the other hand I am not opposed to new strange ideas if there is at least some element of justification. For example on another thread I have expressed the view that quantum mechanics might (repeat: might) be part of the explanation of our consciousness experience. I made out a case knowing though that the idea could well be wrong. Your idea of consciousness being some aspect of the wave function was not part of my case. Your idea is not even wrong, in the sense that a wave function is a mathematical formula used to model and predict physical behaviours at the scale of atoms etc, whereas consciousness is a mental experience based essentially on the firing patterns of brain cells. That's a far, far bigger difference than between chalk and cheese!

But leave that for now. Let me instead be more open-minded and say: wow indeed, Jazz, tell me more. How do you justify your fantastic assertion? I recall that Paul wrote, in his founding message for this group, as follows:

“For example, in my opinion, a debate on the nature of QP and, say, Kabbalah, could have been made by simply stating the such and such a scientist or writer has suggested a link between QP and Kabbalah, that the topic is metaphysical in nature, and then providing a link so that others of both a spiritual and scientific bent can visit it and agree with it or dismiss it as appropriate.”

Paul was right: debatable ideas should at least be supported by references to the quoted words of others, so that we have something tangible to debate. It’s not good enough for you to say “It is thought though that there is also a consciousness component” without back-up. Otherwise, your idea lacks both justification and merit.

So let’s hear more about it. Are you man or mouse? Can you give any decent references on this amazing idea about consciousness? Anything that links with what a wave function actually is, namely a formula for calculating a pattern of complex numbers in relation to a physical state (such as the state of an electron) everywhere in space and over the course of time? Can you tell us about your research and results about coincidences, so that I can see whether you have taken account of the point that I mentioned in my previous message (that you cannot make anything out of observed coincidences until you have evaluated the probability space of all possible coincidences)

I don’t expect that you will be able to take your ideas any further in the scientific direction, but if you can then good, let’s hear more about it.
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 223

Woo or Wow?

What?

When two events synchronise in time, a synchronicity is the result.

2 events "happening at the same time" can only, counterintuitively (thanks to special relativity;SR) be truly said to be the case when the events in question occur within the same inertial frame. l.e. the events -- 4-dimensional spacetime coordinates -- are stationary relative to each other. This might seem a nit-picking technical issue but it's important l think to speak clearly and try as scrupulously as possible to stick to what current physics actually says, rather than to some garbled populist mishmash. (l'm not prejudging your claims though. However, your announcement of your opinions as though they are facts is a strategy which you would be ill-advised to adopt in professional scientific circles.)

Again, strictly speaking the term synchronisation refers to the adjustment of the rate of occurrence of at least 2 separate physical process -- usually some kinds of machinery and, more often than not, actual clocks. One cannot "synchronise" 2 events -- i.e. 2 notionally dimensionless, 4-dimensionally specified points. (Although one appreciates that due to the 2 facts of the spatial extension of material systems and the quantum mechanical Uncertainty Principle even the latter representation is itself strictly fictitious.)


When two incidents happen in the same space, there is a co-incidence.

By definition. Will Bouwman asked the pertinent question as to "how big?" the space -- i.e. a notional cube of volume x^3 -- needs to be before one could confidently stipulate that the 2 events in qustion can no longer be said to be "in the same place". Good onya, Will.

When a coincidence and synchronicity collide, two apparently unbound events happen at the same time in the same place -what is known as a serendipity happens, what is otherwise described by the uninitiated as 'luck'.

(Presumably these coincidences-of-coincidences can be maleficent as well! .. So "serendipity" is an unfortunate choice of terminology. What do you mean by "unbound event"? lt is not part of the vocabulary of physics. Also, Koestler either early on used or invented the term "synchronicity" because both it an "coincidence" refer to the co-occurrence of events, the difference between the 2 being that "coincidence" per se is assumed to be "just an accident", and so indeed would synchronicity itself be -- always assuming that the alleged phenomenon in question could be scientifically verified, which it isn't -- but this time the 2 events are imbued with "significance" ..

.. and it is this latter move which the larm bells currently ringing in my head and making the hairs stand on the back of my neck which is clearly the most glaringly question-begging link within the chain of claims which you are advancing, Jazz.


I have found in my research that synchronicities and coincidences happen as a result of 3 factors. A person clearing up issues from the past, Being attentive to goals for their future and honouring and learning from what is going on in the present.

What is your procedure for sifting out the allegedly genuine synchronicities from the mere coincidences-taken-as-such? Again, it seems that your argument requires some additional postulate of significance-ascription -- one whose conditions of occurrence and recognition you have not troubled to define as yet. You need to, because your entire position hinges on this question.

Quantum Physics

.. Sorry, it may seem a small point but this smacks of fairground hucksterism. Neither "quantum" nor "physics" are proper nouns, and thus they do not begin with capital letters unless at the beginning of a sentence. The arbitrary foisting of capitalisation within unwarranted contexts certainly looks like some advertising copywriter's attempt to draw attention on specious grounds. Be aware of that fact if you wish to continue to pass this story off as something actually true!

plays a role here because a person's intent is a strong factor proposed to collapse a quantum possibility into a specific reality.

You repeat this claim verbatim without even addressing the objection which l raised yesterday. If you think that I'm mistaken, wouldn't you agree that it's good discursive practice to address sincerely targeted criticism rather than simply behave as though it hadn't been made?

The energy picture of an intent or an event, or as Quantum Physics calls it, its Wavefunction,

.. isn't a proper noun either ..

has a time component and a space component. It is thought though that there is also a consciousness component.

Who "thinks" this? As said yesterday, I've never encountered anyone who believes this apart from, apparently, yourself, and nor have I ever read any speculation to this effect within either quantum mechanical textbooks or any serious scientific journal. (Again, you haven't responded to the point.)

If consciousness is shifted across space and time, it is possible to increase the probability that a persons intent will in some form manifest into reality.

I appreciate that you're going to deliver a talk on this but don't you think that you're obliged to drop a few convincing "spoilers" beforehand?

There will be, as will all things Quantum, be a certain level of uncertainty (An oxymoron I know but thats the maths of Quantum Mechanics for you). You may know something will happen in a certain part of your life but only have a rough idea of when -or You know exactly when there will be a synchronicity but not know in what part of life it will appear.

I'm not sure who these unrealistically certain people are, but the only certainties in life seem to be:

1) The repetition of mundanities; and ..

2) Death.


..So I have been testing this with hundred of people over the last 4 years. taking them through consciousness shifts.

So did Koestler. None of his 30-year-long claim set has ever been independently verified.

I wasn't looking for synchronicities until i started noticing them increasing in frequency. Then I looked into how dealing with the past, present and future nurtured them. Eventually I understood the mechanics and began to try and predict them.

Synchronicities happen when you are free of your past and future because your will is not obliged to any past issues or future goals and is only being utilised to deal with present experience. At this point your will is truly free, you have genuine free will. It appears that every time we move into a state of genuine free will in an area of our life a synchronicity manifests in that area.

[Continued (briefly) in an immediate follow-on posting .. ]
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 224

[ Continued .. ]

When we have cleared all of our past an attended to all of our future and have become fully present in all areas of our life, then the synchronicities appear so continuously they present themselves as a path. Life becomes an endless chain of synchronicities and we simply deal with whatever comes up that we are present to and aware of.

.. And the alleged connection of any of this -- (if true!) -- with QM?

Sterling contributions from the other 2 critics of this thread. If you intend to do a serious job of persuading non-acolytes, you'll need to be able to marshal at least some kind of evidence. Sorry!

lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 225


BTW I nearly forgot:

"At this point your will is truly free, you have genuine free will. It appears that every time we move into a state of genuine free will in an area of our life a synchronicity manifests in that area. "

You might have noticed, Jazz, that we began a discussion thread called The Nature of Freewill a few months ago. Nothing came of it since the only 2 seriously interested protagonists -- Andrew and myself -- seem to be irreconcilably opposed on this issue. However, inter alia on my thread Einstein's views on religion I quoted the philosopher Schopenhauer -- not that he's a favourite of mine, but the following admirably concise expression of his central thesis on the freewill issue sums up a welter (nay, volumes) of argumentation. Lucid, transparent, simple, obvious, and, indeed, scarcely disputable in principle. Oh, why don't more commentators take some notice of it? (Indeed, it seems to be ignored more often than not, including within this forum; maybe dissenters simply find it too obvious, flattering, and unanswerable):

"A man can surely do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills." (Arthur Schopenhauer.)

How is it possible not to take that sentence seriously? Indeed, what would it be like for me to be able to choose my action-constraining desires? ( .. And this surely is par excellence an empirical, not a "philosophical" question.) on what basis might I in principle be able to enact this "choosing"? A set of second-order desires lying above and beyond the straightforward ones which impinge upon us every day throughout our lives? Let's not forget that they in turn would ned to be motivated/ "chosen upon the basis of" third-order desires ..

.. and so on, ad infinitum. Does this notion of "freewill" sound even vaguely plausible to anyone?

Obviously, Jazz, you can choose whether or not right now you would prefer chocolate ice cream over the competing and equally available strawberry or vanilla flavours, say, but some other day your preference could turn out completely differently. You may, similarly, undergo an unexpected transformation in regard to your moral outlook; don't forget that the chauvinistic intensity with which people advance and defend their moral outlooks and agendas and the strength with which they condemn others for deviating therefrom would normally be regarded as an intense desire apart from the context of its occurrence, and the recursive way in which social (and often religious) considerations compel us to dissociate the moral response from the wider class of felt motivations prevents us from acceptging the obvious .. ironically because most people when pressed on the question would regard such a conflation as "wrong". (Note the insidiousness of the recursive effect!)

This capacity that we have to make personal choices -- whether as trivially conceived as today's ice cream flavour-favourite or the decision whether to betray either your mother or your country (since either choice precluded the possibility of the other and necessarily entailed betrayal of some kind) is despite its potential gravity a straightforward issue, and certainly doesn't merit the thousands of volumes and turgid philosophical papers which have been written to assuage the morally neurasthenic amongst the population. Surely the phenomenologically indicated - and indeed the biologically speaking utterly straightforward -- fact of the matter is that we act on the basis of our feelings, informed both by our instrumentally effective background knowledge.

.. But these feelings are are of neurological provenance -- we can ultimately no more choose them (and who would want to do so? After all what practical difference would such "meta-chocie" make?) than we can our own blood group!


Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 9
“When two events synchronise in time, a synchronicity is the result.”

..an example

Thinking about someone calling someone on the phone and then the phone rings and it is them. You are in different places but somehow were 'connected' at the same time.

The best example of this is the story of The Prince and the Pauper. Two children being born at the same time in different places and conditions, one grows up in poverty, the other in royalty -that is a synchronicity. Eventually the pauper finds himself in the Kings palace and they choose to swap roles. They are now in the same space and same time -even indistinguishable in identity, there is a synchronicity and a coincidence, that is Serendipity.

"What does one do to become initiated?"

To become initiated you must be capable of engineering synchronicities and coincidences or at least prompt or nurture them. Whoever has the greatest possibility of processing their past, present and future to support exercise of as free a will as possible will typically be coordinating events across space, time and consciousness and slowly facilitating thier gravitation towards one another into synchronicities, coincidences, serendipity and an inevitable, chosen, destiny.
Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 10
Is that a Wavefunction I see or is it reality? Is that map the territory?

When I was studying Astrophysics for my first degree and then went on to do quantum physics modelling of drug molecules for my masters degree, I remember thinking am I just working with formulas and numbers here or in some are these numbers and their relationships the very molecules themselves? Is the map actually the territory? That is not just a wavefunction formula I am looking at, its also a picture of relationship to things in space and time ...but hold on a moment ..a relationship? The relationship ..is that in the formula too? But then who or what defined that relationship? Regardless, there is the signature of an evolving relationship -the time driven Schrodinger equation, that stipulates how something will evolve in relationship to its environment and itself, in a holographic way. That Relationship is defined by Energy and its activity and state. Many years ago I defined energy in a way most disciplines could align with..

"Energy is the quantity and quality of relationship within a system and between that system and others applied across the dimensions of dimensions of space, time and mind through impression of intent.'

I regard Consciousness is that pattern of evolving energy/relationships. not just the bunch of relationships/neuronal energy flows in our head -which are just a small microcosm of the universal set of relationships. No elementary particle exists on its own -it exists in relationship to others. The standard model of Quantum theory mathematically describes particles simply as being 'resonances' of each other. Without relationship the particle would not exist in space or time, so the relationship must be a third factor, a third thread in the fabric of space and time, maybe space and time themselves are just variations of relationship themselves -if everything is relationship then the whole universe could be 'conscious'.

Let me do an Einstein here. Newton said Space and Time were objectively separate and independent of each other and human consciousness -although recent discoveries of his alchemical work may suggest he kept his real view to himself. The universe was made of two separate absolute threads of space and time. Einstein showed this wasn't true. Spacetime made Space and Time interchangeable and able to influence one another. Quantum mechanics has thrown a spanner in the works and suggested Consciousness may have something to do with reality creation and therefore maybe it is not separate from Spacetime but also made of the same stuff 'SpaceTimeMind'. What physics would evolve if that were true? This is my Gedanken experiment and I'm humbly doing a little pilot, "The Resonance Experiment."


Believe it or not the Scientist in me wants to avoid 'Going Spiritual' and to focus on either revealing evidence, providing a direct experience or at least an education that makes sense of it all. I may not achieve all three but one can certainly take a shot.
Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 11
So earlier today I was racking my brains thinking how am I going to pick the perfect response to this:

"that a wave function is a mathematical formula used to model and predict physical behaviours at the scale of atoms etc,"

...Always having been suspicious that the wavefunction was in fact a real entity.


Then as I am casually looking through someones (https://www.facebook....­) facebook photos to do with consciousness and energy fields I came across an article. I laughed, Synchronicity, Coincidence and Serendipity strike!



Quantum theorem shakes foundations
The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, say researchers.

Eugenie Samuel Reich
17 November 2011, Nature

At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties. Now, a preprint posted online on 14 November1 reopens the question of what the wavefunction represents — with an answer that could rock quantum theory to its core. Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real.

“I don't like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word 'seismic' is likely to apply to this paper,” says Antony Valentini, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum foundations at Clemson University in South Carolina.

Valentini believes that this result may be the most important general theorem relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics since Bell’s theorem, the 1964 result in which Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell proved that if quantum mechanics describes real entities, it has to include mysterious “action at a distance”.

Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.

David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 226

Sorry while l was composing a reply to your first 2 postings l see that you've now sent a third one. l'll address that one later!

“When two events synchronise in time, a synchronicity is the result.”

.. an example

Thinking about someone calling someone on the phone and then the phone rings and it is them. You are in different places but somehow were 'connected' at the same time.

Such a situation would normally be regarded as “just a coincidence”. (Of course, if it kept on happening we would tend to become suspicious rather than adopting any other attitude!)

The best example of this is the story of The Prince and the Pauper. Two children being born at the same time in different places and conditions, one grows up in poverty, the other in royalty -that is a synchronicity. Eventually the pauper finds himself in the Kings palace and they choose to swap roles. They are now in the same space and same time -even indistinguishable in identity, there is a synchronicity and a coincidence, that is Serendipity.

So “serendipity” (capital S; why?) results from the coincidental meeting of some latently triggerable “synchronicity situation”?

"What does one do to become initiated?"

To become initiated you must be capable of engineering synchronicities and coincidences or at least prompt or nurture them. Whoever has the greatest possibility of processing their past, present and future to support exercise of as free a will as possible will typically be coordinating events across space, time and consciousness and slowly facilitating thier gravitation towards one another into synchronicities, coincidences, serendipity and an inevitable, chosen, destiny.

In other words if you’re well informed, possibly well connected and are keeping an eye open for opportunities, your chances of success – however you personally define it – become invariably greater than otherwise .. but this realisation is, again, what would normally be described as “common sense.”

Is that a Wavefunction I see or is it reality?

When I was studying Astrophysics

( .. proper noun! .. )

for my first degree and then went on to do quantum physics modelling of drug molecules for my masters degree, I remember thinking am I just working with formulas and numbers here or in some are these numbers and their relationships the very molecules themselves? Is the map actually the territory?

No. That’s why it’s called a map.

That is not just a wavefunction I am looking at, its also a picture of relationship to things in space and time

.. as is most of mathematical physics! ..

...but hold on a moment ..a relationship? The relationship ..is that in the formula too?

The (algebraic) formula expresses such relationships, dimensionally – i.e. in terms of measurable parameters (or at least measurable-in-principle parameters; sometimes some key parameter required to be present for reasons of theoretical consistency must be obtained via the appropriate algebraic operations on the dimensionally specific combination of already-valued quantities).

But then who or what defined that relationship?

The cosmos! Why? Dunno! There is currently at least no insight into the reasons for the values of the fundamental physical constants, as l’m guessing you already appreciate. (lt’s interesting to note that the magnitudes of the fundamental constants are nowhere dictated by any of the theories which use them.)

Regardless, there is the signature of an evolving relationship -the time driven Schrodinger equation, that stipulates how something will evolve in relationship to its environment and itself, in a holographic way.

(?)

That Relationship is defined by Energy

( .. capitals! .. )

and its activity and state. Many years ago I defined energy

.. well your recourse to capitals is at least as pleasingly inconsistent as he reminder of your arguement at least thus far appears to be!

in a way most disciplines could align with..

"Energy is the quantity and quality of relationship within a system and between that system and others applied across the dimensions of dimensions of space, time and mind through impression of intent.'

Forgetting just for a moment the “mind” bit, this specification applies, surely, to any physical quantity whatsoever! (?)

The obvious and natural physical view of energy is surely, simply [ML^2.T^-2]. (Coefficients supplied on request, in accordance with circumstances.)


I regard Consciousness

(Capitals, my friend!)

is that pattern of evolving energy/relationships. not just the bunch of relationships/neuronal energy flows in our head -which are just a small microcosm of the universal set of relationships.

Are you saying that (e.g.) the Moon is conscious? ( .. Or just Moon rocks, perhaps?)

Usually, one ascribes some property to some system or other either:

1) As a result of direct observation.

2) As the consequence of an inference based on the observables in 1).

3) As the consequence of the need to meet consistency conditions demanded by the relevant embedding theory.


No elementary particle exists on its own -it exists in relationship to others. The standard model of Quantum theory

( .. of “fundamental particles”, you mean? .. )

mathematically describes particles simply as being 'resonances' of each other.

Erm .. Only the excited states. My CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has pages of resonances in the section immediately preceding the Table of the lsotopes. However, as a consequence of the theoretical intractability of the numerical ratios – already alluded to above – of the “fundamental particles”, it turns out that the mass spectrum of the 17 fundamentals minus the Higgs is not resonance-defined.

Without relationship the particle would not exist in space or time, so the relationship must be a third factor, a third thread in the fabric of space and time, maybe space and time themselves are just variations of relationship themselves -if everything is relationship then the whole universe could be 'conscious'.

Are you saying that merely because x and y are related (whichever kinds of measurable that x and y might turn out to be) then the system to which they belong in functionally defined terms must be conscious .. ? ..

( .. but then that stipulation does indeed imply that everything is conscious – and, furthermore, in a fractal sense, in that if system S is conscious, then so are its discrminable components S1, S2, Sn … Bit excessive isn’t it? .. )

[Continued]


Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy