jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Aug 1, 2013 19:09:42 GMT -5
Pink Floyd one of my fav's! The ringing bells in the beginning used to annoy me, probly 'cos I used to be stoned listening to that album. I'm such a cliché!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:06:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 20:06:54 GMT -5
I'm not dealing with ideas over here, I'm dealing with the direct experience of no longer seeing a sequence of events that occur in a linearity of Time passing with an implication of a past a future event....my experience is that there is no "time", and that phenomena are constantly shifting in this moment. That is my direct experience, the "idea" that is implicated from this direct experience is that all possibilities are occurring in this moment, and that we shift from possibility to possibility in THIS MOMENT....but that is just an idea, in direct experience, I am only experience one possibility, not multiple possibilities at once. No, the direct experience doesn't implicate the idea. The idea is implicated by the interpreting mental framework. Let the interpreting mental framework go. Whatevs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:10:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 20:10:10 GMT -5
No, the direct experience doesn't implicate the idea. The idea is implicated by the interpreting mental framework. Let the interpreting mental framework go. Whatevs I can never be the self
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:15:01 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 20:15:01 GMT -5
New experiments confirm this concept. In 2002, scientists carried out an amazing experiment, which showed that pairs of particles knew in advance what its twin would do in the future. Somehow, the particles knew what the researcher would do before it happened, as if there were no space or time between them. More recently (Science 2007), scientists shot particles into an apparatus, and showed they could retroactively change something that had already happened. The particles had to decide what to do when they passed a fork in the apparatus. Later on the experimenter could flip a switch. It turns out what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did at the fork in the past. The knowledge in observer's mind is the only thing that determines how they behave. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Sorry, seems like you are doing what most people do, which is picking and choosing and interpreting data that supports your pre-existing view. Most people don't investigate to see whats there, they investigate to prove what they already know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:15:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 20:15:14 GMT -5
My question is, why is she so fascinated by something that is only 11.8 inches big? Given she's in her 70s, if not 80s, likely with osteoporosis, 11.8 inches is already at risk of breaking a hip. Give the old bird a break. what is it in us that falls into the belief that we are men, an not women... that we are women an not men...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:25:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 20:25:51 GMT -5
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Sorry, seems like you are doing what most people do, which is picking and choosing and interpreting data that supports your pre-existing view. Most people don't investigate to see whats there, they investigate to prove what they already know.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 20:50:07 GMT -5
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 1, 2013 20:50:07 GMT -5
New experiments confirm this concept. In 2002, scientists carried out an amazing experiment, which showed that pairs of particles knew in advance what its twin would do in the future. Somehow, the particles knew what the researcher would do before it happened, as if there were no space or time between them. More recently (Science 2007), scientists shot particles into an apparatus, and showed they could retroactively change something that had already happened. The particles had to decide what to do when they passed a fork in the apparatus. Later on the experimenter could flip a switch. It turns out what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did at the fork in the past. The knowledge in observer's mind is the only thing that determines how they behave. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Are you sure?? www.ufo-contact.com/ancient-aliens-gallery-2/ufo-ancient-egyptThis may seem silly to you, but keep pondering it. We could never really know, could we? Like if we jumped on to another parallel timeline. We'd never know we did. Consider that our brains all the time are re-writing and changing memories. Every time you retrieve a memory, it is altered. It's not so inconceivable that the past is also altered in such a way, no? History is rewritten all the time too, by historians, is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 21:01:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 21:01:21 GMT -5
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Are you sure?? www.ufo-contact.com/ancient-aliens-gallery-2/ufo-ancient-egyptThis may seem silly to you, but keep pondering it. We could never really know, could we? Like if we jumped on to another parallel timeline. We'd never know we did. Consider that our brains all the time are re-writing and changing memories. Every time you retrieve a memory, it is altered. It's not so inconceivable that the past is also altered in such a way, no? History is rewritten all the time too, by historians, is it not? TOPO an STEVE... message me soon, we have to talk Now about 1844
|
|
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 21:54:09 GMT -5
Post by topology on Aug 1, 2013 21:54:09 GMT -5
No, the direct experience doesn't implicate the idea. The idea is implicated by the interpreting mental framework. Let the interpreting mental framework go. Whatevs Says the interpreting mental framework towards the idea of being shed.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 22:07:43 GMT -5
Post by topology on Aug 1, 2013 22:07:43 GMT -5
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Are you sure?? www.ufo-contact.com/ancient-aliens-gallery-2/ufo-ancient-egyptThis may seem silly to you, but keep pondering it. We could never really know, could we? Like if we jumped on to another parallel timeline. We'd never know we did. Consider that our brains all the time are re-writing and changing memories. Every time you retrieve a memory, it is altered. It's not so inconceivable that the past is also altered in such a way, no? History is rewritten all the time too, by historians, is it not? I've got no problems with stories being altered and retold differently, history being re-interpreted to change the idea of what happened. But I do have a problem with a future event altering a past direct observation. The theory of QM doesn't support the conclusion. All it supports is that future decisions are consistent with past observations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 22:16:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 22:16:23 GMT -5
So there's something other than the self here, reading and typing posts...?
|
|
|
Time
Aug 1, 2013 23:07:20 GMT -5
Post by topology on Aug 1, 2013 23:07:20 GMT -5
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. Sorry, seems like you are doing what most people do, which is picking and choosing and interpreting data that supports your pre-existing view. Most people don't investigate to see whats there, they investigate to prove what they already know. Hello McFly, you're turning to QM to try to explain what you believe is happening. This whole time tangent was born out of you shooting your mouth off that anything that can be conceived can be realized. I put forward a conceptual test where by I make an observation of the fact-status of my bank account and after the observation the fact-status of the observation is changed. Then you dug into this riff-raff about future "decisions" changing what happened in the past. QM doesn't allow altering the past from what it was recorded to be. It is an equally valid interpretation to say that the future decision was forced into consistency with the past observations. There are many ways to describe what is causing what, but there is a tendency to run with the more shocking/sensational interpretations, like "future" decisions determining the past. This is where pop-science writers tends to cast spurious conclusions to generate attention and excitement. The physical models of QM and QED do not have time baked into them. Experiential time is thought to be related to the flow of entropy. That the past and the future are consistent with each other in the tapestry of Quantum Electro-Dynamics doesn't mean that a future event re-writes the past. If anything it is an argument for the lack of free-will. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time----------- That said, there are no experiments which disprove the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory In this theory, everything is non-local wave pattern + the appearance of a particle. The interpretation allows for determinism if the complete configuration of the universe could be known. This interpretation posits all the shocking behavior of QM is a result of absent information. In essence it reduces the observer to an epi-phenomenon and is not required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Measurements.2C_the_quantum_formalism.2C_and_observer_independenceLet me restate this explicitly: (1) The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (pilot-wave theory) is completely consistent/equivalent with standard QM (2) The theory is observer independent. The observer is not needed to collapse a wave function. There is no "choice" being made about what state to collapse into.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 1:20:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 1:20:42 GMT -5
New experiments confirm this concept. In 2002, scientists carried out an amazing experiment, which showed that pairs of particles knew in advance what its twin would do in the future. Somehow, the particles knew what the researcher would do before it happened, as if there were no space or time between them. More recently (Science 2007), scientists shot particles into an apparatus, and showed they could retroactively change something that had already happened. The particles had to decide what to do when they passed a fork in the apparatus. Later on the experimenter could flip a switch. It turns out what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did at the fork in the past. The knowledge in observer's mind is the only thing that determines how they behave. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. how we make chiices is also worth investigating in this case. some experiments shows that our course of actions precedes our conscious volition to take that actions. iE. the brain comands the hands to take the coffee out of the cupboard even before we decide we will have coffee over tea
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 3:35:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 3:35:02 GMT -5
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdfHere's an actual paper on the effect being talked about. In this experiment there are four particles. 1 & 2 are entangled together, 3&4 are entangled together. 2& 3 are sent to Victor who decides whether or not to entangle them. 1 is sent to Alice, 4 is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob measure their particle states immediately. Victor delays his decision and uses a quantum random number generator to make the decision about whether or not to entangle. The results show that Alice and Bob's measurements are consistent with the decision being made by Victor, even if Victor's decision is happening "after" the measurement. There are a few criticisms and limitations I would like to point out. (1) No information about Alice and Bob's measurement are supposed to reach Victor. This eliminates the ability for Victor to try to "alter the past" Victor can't see evidence that the entanglement happened and then choose not to entangle. Once an observation is made, its measurement is fixed in stone, and these experiments do not prove otherwise. I suspect that if the information gap were to close between Victor and Alice and Bob, it would destroy the effect. (2) There are issues I have with the claim that a quantum random number generator is truly random. Princeton's global consciousness project uses quantum random number generators and they show evidence of being influenced by global events. noosphere.princeton.edu/ So the numbers are not truly random. If there is any information making it to Victor about what Alice and Bob measured, it is not a free or random choice. Steve, once the past is observed, it cannot be re-written or changed. If there are feedback loops from the future, all it says is that the decisions made in the future must be consistent with past measurements, even if those decisions are products of "random" processes. how we make chiices is also worth investigating in this case. some experiments shows that our course of actions precedes our conscious volition to take that actions. iE. the brain comands the hands to take the coffee out of the cupboard even before we decide we will have coffee over tea My view, for some time, based on some observational experiences back in my twenties, is that reality is created at the moment of observation by the act of observation, but that mostly what is observed/created is done out of a pattern of habitualness. Which kinda marries together some of the QM theories and what you are saying about choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 3:41:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 3:41:28 GMT -5
Sorry, seems like you are doing what most people do, which is picking and choosing and interpreting data that supports your pre-existing view. Most people don't investigate to see whats there, they investigate to prove what they already know. Hello McFly, you're turning to QM to try to explain what you believe is happening. This whole time tangent was born out of you shooting your mouth off that anything that can be conceived can be realized. I put forward a conceptual test where by I make an observation of the fact-status of my bank account and after the observation the fact-status of the observation is changed. Then you dug into this riff-raff about future "decisions" changing what happened in the past. QM doesn't allow altering the past from what it was recorded to be. It is an equally valid interpretation to say that the future decision was forced into consistency with the past observations. There are many ways to describe what is causing what, but there is a tendency to run with the more shocking/sensational interpretations, like "future" decisions determining the past. This is where pop-science writers tends to cast spurious conclusions to generate attention and excitement. The physical models of QM and QED do not have time baked into them. Experiential time is thought to be related to the flow of entropy. That the past and the future are consistent with each other in the tapestry of Quantum Electro-Dynamics doesn't mean that a future event re-writes the past. If anything it is an argument for the lack of free-will. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time----------- That said, there are no experiments which disprove the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory In this theory, everything is non-local wave pattern + the appearance of a particle. The interpretation allows for determinism if the complete configuration of the universe could be known. This interpretation posits all the shocking behavior of QM is a result of absent information. In essence it reduces the observer to an epi-phenomenon and is not required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Measurements.2C_the_quantum_formalism.2C_and_observer_independenceLet me restate this explicitly: (1) The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (pilot-wave theory) is completely consistent/equivalent with standard QM (2) The theory is observer independent. The observer is not needed to collapse a wave function. There is no "choice" being made about what state to collapse into. Sorry, what I'm reading is De Broglie-Bohm saying that they just can't accept the possibility of observer created reality, so they made an alternative theory that says that observer created reality cannot be possible but even though they can't prove this they are punting, saying that we just don't have enough information to prove my theory but I promise its out there waiting to be discovered....and then you come a latch onto that because it fits your own paradigm Most folks don't investigate to see whats there in front of them, they investigate to prove what they already know ;-) I'm an analyst by profession, and I can tell you that most clients don't want the full and relevant facts, they want the facts that support them doing what they already want to do. Its so common that I rarely even report the full facts anymore unless the client is about to do something REALLY self destructive and I'm willing to loose them as a client to keep them from it....I begin every engagement assessing what the client wants, and then bringing them the related facts that make the case for them doing what they are already committed to doing when I get there....everybody is happier that way....most people summarily dismiss facts that don't support them doing what they already want to do.
|
|