addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 227

[Continued .. ]

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.

(Well, strictly speaking, it was Minkowski. Einstein initially just didn’t understand what was going on .. )

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

.. eh? ..

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 #: 12
Ok, My use of Capitals and Nouns cleaRly neEds some worK! I get THAT.smile

I will humbly be conscious of that as I write.

Lets be clear. Synchronicity, as in 'syn-chronos', is two events happening at the same time. Yes taking into account we are talking about the inertial reference frame we share that is not too distorted in its timings and spacings because of local gravitational anomalies, possible fluctuations in the speed of light and possibly, possibly, any interference from flows of conscious intent. Given the Non-local nature of quantum effects does all that matter anyway? This then is the issue -addressing the disagreement between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I feel though that the elephant in the room, Consciousness (yes its that important it deserves a capital) may very well provide some reconciliation and unification substance.

"The obvious and natural physical view of energy is surely, simply [ML^2.T^-2]. (Coefficients supplied on request, in accordance with circumstances.)". As mentioned in my definition I include the factors of time and distance although in my case I prefer to see mass in the Eastern tradition as condensed mind.

"Are you saying that (e.g.) the Moon is conscious? ( .. Or just Moon rocks, perhaps?)".
"1) As a result of direct observation.

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

Science, based on use of material instruments, has only directly observed , 1%-10% of the physical universe. Inference is partly mathematical and partly human.

The reason why science can only account for 1% or so of the Universe is because it is using material instruments to measure matter. Anything that is not 'matter' as we know it won't be detected. To detect the other 99% of the stuff we need to measure it with instruments made of the same stuff. If matter is indeed condensed mind then maybe the other 99% of the universe is mind of different densities and the only way we could detect it is to use an instrument made of consciousness itself or a least possessing it. You cannot detect emotion or love inside a human being by sticking a meter on them. No, you need another instrument that is capable of emotion and consists in some way of it -namely another human being.

The only way people have experienced other dimensions is through consciousness based procedures -many of which the great quantum theorists align to Buddhist and Indian Vedic cosmologies, the concepts of which extend back thousands of years before Planck started everything off in Quantum Mechanics by trying to save a little money for his country's industry by finding the perfect radiator in his black body radiation experiments.


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

A molecule is not defined by its atoms alone. its nature is determined also by its relationship to other molecules. Quantum 'Entanglement' rules that anything the molecule has ever encountered and shared a boson state with is permanently related to that molecule and therefore can influence it non-locally. This can be scaled up to apply to any object or system of any extent in spacetime or mind.

"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."

As with music and Harmonics, there will always be a fundamental frequency that all harmonics of it will be related to.

"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 discriminable components S1, S2, Sn … Bit excessive isn’t it? .. )"

It's beautiful. Any x and y that are related and thus move in concert with one another as a basic expression of consciousness? Yes. Any two things dancing together in the universe are an expression of consciousness. Consciousness for me is like Energy, it is the sum effect of relationships that define it. In reverse, relationships are the building blocks of consciousness and must themselves embody properties of consciousness.


Just to let you know.. I'll be busy over the next few weeks so cannot respond to further dialog to the degree I'd like to. Your questions have been very thought provoking and a real gift to help me clarify my own perspective to myself. I look forward to more in a few weeks time...

Jazz.


A former member
Post #: 43
Jazz, thank you for your posts. I appreciate that you are busy and I am not expecting an immediate response, but I would like to ask about the example you gave.

“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.”

There are billions of instances of people thinking about others, there are billions of phone calls made. The chances of no two such events having the characteristics you describe are not appreciably greater than nil. Is there any compelling evidence to suggest anything more than chance?

You say:

“To become initiated you must be capable of engineering synchronicities and coincidences or at least prompt or nurture them.”

If your above example is a good one, would it not be easy to test?

Good luck with whatever you are doing.

Will
Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 13
Yes it easy to test.

That is why I am running The Resonance Experiment.
It attempts to use Social Media to eek out these synchronicities amongst collections of people, known and unknown to one another and see what substance there is to serendipity being engineered.

I'm not one of those people who has an 'X-files' state of mind and says to himself 'I want to believe'.


A skeptic does not believe in anything until they see it.
A mystic does not see anything until they believe in it.
When the Skeptic and Mystic marry, truth with all its facets and perspectives is born.

I want to marry those two sides of me.

A former member
Post #: 150
Jazz
If you are doing a serious experiment then I echo Will's expression of good luck. But my scientific approach makes me a sceptic and the sceptic within tells me that your experiment will not succeed. Not after it has been peer-reviewed and repeatedly tested by independent researchers. An experiment based on people and social media is soft science, not physics, and it will be hard for you to avoid unconscious bias in favour of the results that you want to see in order to justify your thesis.

Your combination of scepticism and mysticism will not equate to science. A mystical belief may have no grounding in reality. For example your notion of consciousness as some kind of metaphysical property of all relationships, participating in the quantum wave function, is pure mysticism, or woo. When I challenged you to quote any respectable reference to justify consciousness within the wave function your response failed to do so, instead quoting some recent research suggesting that the wave function represents something real in the world - an observation which merely reinforces anti-Copenhagen interpretations of QM and does not address my point. Ducking my question increases my scepticism. If I ask you again to show me precisely where any element of consciousness may be identified within the formula for the wave function of a planar electromagnetic wave, that is a precisely specified question to which you will have no decent answer. That's the problem with the mystical part of your thinking. No justification, hence no validity.
Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 14
I'm not doing a serious experiment. I'm playing. Science if you hadn't realised never got anywhere by skepticism alone. Otherwise we would all still be under the rule of the church insisting the Earth was the centre of the universe. If nobody knew of Gravity and I started throwing rocks of a cliff and they all fell downwards, I wouldn't wait for a peer-review to assess the possibility that Gravity might not exist. Some things you just do because your life depends on it and seeking somebody elses approval denies you your own ability to make an adult decision.

"Your combination of scepticism and mysticism will not equate to science"
You're right. And who says that Science as we know it is the way to go?
Maybe a new paradigm is needed. Even if it doesn't include mysticism it must include something to provide a devils advocate to skepticism otherwise arguments just wouldn't be balanced would they?

Can you tell the time? Probably. You can probably tell what the time is and write it down into a formula.
It is a dimension right? So please point to it. Where is it? Is it Up? Is it Down?

You can't see it. Not with any microscope, telescope or scope of any kind. Its something we know, through experience, is involved in the evolution of things, so we include a factor in our equations to take account of it.

Now. Your consciousness is involved in your evolution. In the evolution of a project. In the evolution of the LHC to discover evidence of the Higgs Boson. Now point to it, where is it? In your neurons? Whatever. It is there, whatever it is, it does influence your perception of all evolution in the world.


If there was a wavefunction for the subject of Physics (now there is an idea), its evolution would be determined by the paradigms of consciousness and evidence available in specific spaces and times. Someone, somewhere though forgot to see the wood for the trees and include the evolution of perception as a world changing factor. Where do you stick perception in the Schrodinger equation that describes the evolution of a system?

Ask any flatlander where is Up? They will lock you up if you're a Third-dimensional unless you're a mathematician, that rare breed of person who is allowed to entertain insane ideas of a third dimension.

Introduce another kind of dimension to the spatio-temporal set we have already? Now where does it go? Where in a formula does it fit? Don't you get it? It is not in the formula, the formula is to be found in it. If the observer is responsible for the collapse of the wave function and the creation of measurable reality of observables then you've created a world with me in it. Your consciousness did that, not your neurons, because your neurons would have to have been collapsed into reality along with all their component molecules particles and fields.

There are three kinds of proof. Evidence. Experience and Education. Two or more forms can often be enough to satisfy most people that something is real. Sometimes a lack of evidence though and absence of common sense education will still not shift the reality of someones experience. We would at least investigate it if it were our personal experience, even if there wasn't a strike on a photodetector or a formula to join the dots together.

Science can only account for 1%-10% of the universes matter, mystically calling everything else dark matter or dark energy. Most of DNA is 'Junk DNA'. Those two ways of looking at the world are Woo. Ask a scientist to explain Love or how to do something ordinary like choose a purpose for life and most will fail to come up with a formula for that. That stuff is real but there is no scientific formula for it. That's where offering a formula is foolish. Consciousness could be put into a formula or meter but most humans would pat the person who did it on the back and tell them to go back to their day job. In those situations what is needed is not just a formula or evidence but something that feels right through experience.

Sometimes scientists make up reality based on the 3 or 4 squares on the chess board they can see, not realising the game consists of more pieces than those they've seen and they don't have enough awareness of enough squares currently to see the nature of their movement within the game as a whole. Could you figure out how a Knight moves just from a square grid of four neighboring squares on a Chess board? No. You need a wider awareness. Whenever common sense is being sacrificed people either add extras to take account of the anomalies or change the model metaphorically from Earthcentric to Suncentric. Metaphorically, we have to move from Earthcentric to Suncentric here - from matter centric to mind centric and get over any sensibilities that are locking us into irreconcilable anomalies and incongruences that have emerged as a result of the lack of unification of the Quantum and Relativistic Models.

I feel for you if you are not any further enlightened on the sense of my paradigm from my points but I must say your questions are indeed educating me, even if the final answers leave questions unanswered.

If you or I are not learning it is not because the perfect answer hasn't been found but because the perfect question has yet to be asked. So I appreciate you asking me some good starter questions even if I cannot provide a perfect answer in the language of either your paradigm or mine.



A former member
Post #: 151
That reply spells out a clear enough philosophy; I agree with much of what you say. Your opening disclaimer seems also to dispel my basic issue: "I'm not doing a serious experiment. I'm playing." But, on the other hand, that does imply a lack of scientific rigour. Which means that the results cannot be taken too seriously. So I wouldn't be surprised if your initial results seem to support your thesis but fail the test of being reproduced by any independent researchers.

lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 228

With respect, Jazz, hang your Eastern metaphysics. wink The research which you'vereported here is very exciting stuff. I read about it in New Scientist 2 or 3 weeks ago. I’ve been an advocate of quantum realism since reading Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind 20 or so years ago, and when one attends physics lectures and symposia, it’s impossible to avoid noticing the speakers slipping unavoidably into realist lingo such as “ .. the 1s electron’s wavefunction spends a lot of its time inside the nucleus”, and so on.

Yes, I regard the quantum state as physically real – and much more so than its alleged “particle” components. (The mere fact that we are obliged to detect events simply means that changes of quantum state may become arbitrarily localised. This fact in itself fails to implicate particlehood.)

Yet despite all this, no mysticism or metaphysics are implied. Physics has simply implicated a more fundamental and initially counter-intuitive order of things. (Needless to say, this finding is consistent with taking the Decoherence Interpretation of quantum mechanics, although I’m not claiming that decoherence alone can provide a complete answer; some may see that admission as a climbdown!)


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 #: 229

I feel though that the elephant in the room, Consciousness (yes its that important it deserves a capital) may very well provide some reconciliation and unification substance.

Yes I agree with you: consciousness certainly is an elephant in the room, but I disagree with any subsequent inferences which you draw.

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

As mentioned in my definition I include the factors of time and distance although in my case I prefer to see mass in the Eastern tradition as condensed mind.

Preference is one thing. What about justification? The sciences do not run according to preferences. (Whose, for instance?)

[Me earlier]>"Are you saying that (e.g.) the Moon is conscious? ( .. Or just Moon rocks, perhaps?)".

"1) As a result of direct observation.

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


Science, based on use of material instruments, has only directly observed , 1%-10% of the physical universe.

Are you referring to baryonic matter? .. As opposed to the conjectured dark matter (and the much less conjectural dark energy)?

Inference is partly mathematical and partly human.

Sorry I don’t follow what you’re trying to say here.

The reason why science can only account for 1% or so of the Universe is because it is using material instruments to measure matter.

In the words of the immortal Donald Rumsfeld: “There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns.” It’s meaningless even to attempt to ascribe any percentages. However, you are (craftily?) using the knowledge of our undoubted ignorance of things yet unknown in order to jemmy in some conclusion that there are least 2 distinct, fundamental kinds of “stuff”: mind and matter. (Or is it just “mind” after all? How would you defend such a position? It’s a lot more difficult than most people seem to suppose!)

Anything that is not 'matter' as we know it won't be detected. To detect the other 99% of the stuff we need to measure it with instruments made of the same stuff. If matter is indeed condensed mind then maybe the other 99% of the universe is mind of different densities and the only way we could detect it is to use an instrument made of consciousness itself or a least possessing it.

Matter might as well be made of condensed milk for all you say. Why are you saying it? Preference?

You cannot detect emotion or love inside a human being by sticking a meter on them.

(I disagree! Every emotion has its neurological diagnostic, unmistakably betrayed by its cortical activation sequence.)

No, you need another instrument that is capable of emotion and consists in some way of it -namely another human being.

This is at best argument by analogy. I’m sorry. What you say reads almost like a story.

The only way people have experienced other dimensions is through consciousness based procedures

What do you means by “dimensions”? Linearly independent specifications of the state of some system? (I suspect not, but you need, surely, to put us in the picture?)

-many of which the great quantum theorists align to Buddhist and Indian Vedic cosmologies,

Oh well, Pauli was into holding séances, Bohr as we all know hit upon the truth by accident but was as mad as the proverbial hatter. Von Neumann was, apparently, an unreflective dualist. Schrödinger and Heisenberg were admittedly more circumspect.

the concepts of which extend back thousands of years before Planck started everything off in Quantum Mechanics by trying to save a little money for his country's industry by finding the perfect radiator in his black body radiation experiments.

Never under-estimate the power of pragmatic initiatives. In 1905, Einstein became preoccupied by clock-synchronisation procedures, a desideratum of the national German railway network. Just look what blossomed from that enterprise!

[Me earlier]>"( .. of “fundamental particles”, you mean? .. )"

A molecule is not defined by its atoms alone. its nature is determined also by its relationship to other molecules. Quantum 'Entanglement' rules that anything the molecule has ever encountered and shared a boson state with is permanently related to that molecule and therefore can influence it non-locally.

No it does not! Wow! Quantum non-locality is unquestionably actual, and the record of this forum shows me to be its staunchest advocate, but as soon as decoherence – a measurable phenomenon, I sometimes need to remind discussants – sets in, the correlations break up. As “particles” interact, they forget their earlier allegiances. I guess it’s a bit like the impossibility of having straight sex with 2 other people simultaneously.

This can be scaled up to apply to any object or system of any extent in spacetime or mind.

[Me earlier]> "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."

As with music and Harmonics, there will always be a fundamental frequency that all harmonics of it will be related to.

You’re missing the point. Sorry. It has to be demonstrated. Not any old particle is reducible to any other old particle.

[ Continued .. ]



lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 230

[ Continued .. ]

[Me earlier]>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 discriminable components S1, S2, Sn … Bit excessive isn’t it? .. )"


It's beautiful. Any x and y that are related and thus move in concert with one another as a basic expression of consciousness? Yes. Any two things dancing together in the universe are an expression of consciousness. Consciousness for me is like Energy,

.. by which you do not mean – I have a sinking feeling – that it is dimensionally expressible via algebraic formulae .. ? ..

it is the sum effect of relationships that define it. In reverse, relationships are the building blocks of consciousness and must themselves embody properties of consciousness.

Just to let you know.. I'll be busy over the next few weeks so cannot respond to further dialog to the degree I'd like to. Your questions have been very thought provoking and a real gift to help me clarify my own perspective to myself. I look forward to more in a few weeks time...

Well thanks at least for putting up with me, Jazz. You are undeniably patient!

Jazz.

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

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