Is there an informational reality independent of the physical reality as the latter is presently understood in science?
I want to focus your attention on the considerations that suggested to me the "yes" answer to this question.
I have been working in the field of pattern recognition all my professional life, and want to caution you against any simplistic answers to this question. Actually, no one knows even a general answer to this question. However, it gradually became clear to me that if my mind would not have access to a *generative* representation of the class of cats--i.e. the class representation capable of 'producing'/constructing the representations of new cats--I would not be able to recognize a new cat as such. This also explains why in our dreams may appear cats we have never seen before.
Moreover, educated as a mathematician, I gradually came to the conclusion that no present formal structures are capable of supporting such forms of class representation, mainly because all our formal "spaces" are formed by points or entities derived on their basis, while what seems to be needed here are not point-based but structural forms of data representation, which are of a fundamentally non-spatial origin.
Thus, we are led to a non-spatial, informational reality, because the underlying informational mechanism *behind* such class representations has nothing to do with the evolutionary processes.
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
John,
As I mentioned above, what we are seeing now--including the article you mentioned--are the tell-tailed signs of the coming scientific 'hurricane' of unimagined proportions, which many scientists also feel in their guts but don't have enough guts to face it. ;-) Einstein was probably the first great physicist who sensed it and tried to face it.
However, having said that, a *scientist* who realized this must not try to capitalize on the coming 'adversity', but must do one's best to seek the new unifying ways of understanding. As Einstein realized, we need a fundamentally new formal language, outside the conventional mathematics, explicating the concepts of discrete and temporal.
Many non-scientists are talking about these issues but they don't realize that, as has always been the case in science, the key is the discovery/construction of a new *formal* language with which to approach the (new) reality.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Lev,
I think I would have to be more cautious. If we start anew, without a serious post mortem of the old, how do we know we haven't incorporated some of the old errors?
Specifically I see the effort to treat space as nothing more than a measure of points to be the most monumental hubris, given the extent of its foundational scale, from the unmeasurably large, to the exquisitely small. It exemplifies both the infinite and the absolute. It is, to put it colloquially, the elephant in the room.
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
John,
Are you aware of the fact that, in contrast to most amateur scientists, typically, for a professional scientist, his/her reputation is *the most cherished thing*? If you are aware of this, then don't you think it sounds a bit strange to assume that I wasn't sufficiently "cautious" when arguing the case? ;-))
I should add that the concept of "reputation" has historically 'local' and 'global' meanings, where the latter, obviously, is more meaningful.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:35 GMT
Lev,
Yes, but how much of that caution is necessarily political? Just as if one wanted to be a member in good standing of most Christian communities, it's best not to question whether the life of one person, two thousand years ago, represented the epitome of human experience, or if one wanted to be part of the military, it's best not to question whether armed goatherders in central Asia...
view entire post
Lev,
Yes, but how much of that caution is necessarily political? Just as if one wanted to be a member in good standing of most Christian communities, it's best not to question whether the life of one person, two thousand years ago, represented the epitome of human experience, or if one wanted to be part of the military, it's best not to question whether armed goatherders in central Asia pose an existential threat to the US, in physics, one better not question whether the universe began as a flash, 13.8 billion years ago, or whether every event since is suspended in some four dimensional geometry.
I admire your efforts to build what seems to me to be an improvement on the binary code, but while it seems to me about as futile as trying to get rid of the qwerty keyboard and as well intentioned, it is still a professionally acceptable task.
I think though, that the problems are not simply political, in that there are parts of the canon above reconsideration, but even deeper than that. For one, the point I keep raising about time, that the vector from past to future, which physics incorporates as a measure of duration, is caused by the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past, goes to the foundation of sequential logic and narrative, that is the basis for human civilization. I can understand why it is rejected, given the degree to which it shakes that foundation, but that doesn't negate its essential logic. The interesting thing I find is that the more educated people are, the more they react negatively. For example, a cardiologist friend, when I made the point to her, said; "Cut that out, you're hurting my brain." While the teenage daughter of another friend, responded with a "Well, Duh."
So what caution amounts to, is what damage a particular idea or action does to your ingrained filters, experiential, cultural, professional. For me, saying time is an illusion and all events exist in some four dimensional geometry does damage to my hard earned experience of change coming at the expense of prior forms. How many of those events, from eating your cake to world war, amount to a destruction of information? So any physical model that can't explain that is not so much suspect, as utterly useless.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
John,
"So what caution amounts to, is what damage a particular idea or action does to your ingrained filters, experiential, cultural, professional."
I'm afraid, such kind of "damage" is absolutely irrelevant!!
Science does not care about the personal inconveniences: it is the *mankind's* relentless and never ending quest to understand the Mother Universe (the duty we pay as her grateful children).
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:40 GMT
Lev,
You are quite right, but, to a very real extent, we are our filters. As Tom would argue, without theory we have nothing. What is a language, or a mathematical model, but a filter to catch possible patterns?
The problem is when the evidence/reality tears right through those filters and we simply patch it up again. Sort of like dark energy was a patch over the observation that redshift didn't match theory. That's when we do need the better filter, the better model, the more expansive language. But to do that, we need to go back and do a forensic analysis of what we missed the first time.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
"Science does not care about the personal inconveniences: it is the *mankind's* relentless and never ending quest to understand the Mother Universe (the duty we pay as her grateful children)."
Lev,
The most interesting parts of reality are just beyond reach of physics. The probability amplitude wave is overlooked as mere mathematics. But it leads to an ethereal side of nature.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 10:46 GMT
Jason,
Does it lead to an ethereal side, or rather the scalar/non-linear side? Isn't amplitude a scalar, as frequency is a vector?
The problem, it seems to me, is that what we consider to be rationality, is just the linear, cause and effect, narrative thread side, while the cumulative, scalar side is dismissed as mere intuition.
We move forward, but we also expand/contract.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:51 GMT
Hi John,
It is fortunate for me that the people I work are *not* dyed in the wool atheists. Therefore, I'm not required to throw my Spiritualist values under the bus to protect my career. For years, I drank the cool-aid that reality, according to science, does not permit the existence of spirituality, spirits, ghosts, non-corporeal entities or even the spirit of God. Such things are rejected by science because they lack "preciseness", even as quantum mechanics blurs by with probability spreads and fuzzy looking atoms. Science expects me to believe that consciousness is emergent at a sufficiently high enough level of "classical" complexity.
On numerous occasions, I have pointed to wave-functions as having spirit like characteristics; they are unmeasurable, yet they produce observable results (statistically). The Higgs particle is very ghostly in that it has never been detected directly, yet it gives weak bosons mass via the Higgs field.
Consciousness can be tracked to the proteins of the neurons. These proteins produce patterns of potential energy that wave-functions are sure to coexist with. Is there a soul? From a scientific point of view, wave-functions have an ethereal spirit-like quality to them.
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 00:49 GMT
Jason,
May I suggest that we will, indeed, get to the "promised land" of more "spiritual" science but not by 'spiritualizing' the present formal machinery, which can only unnecessarily and justly agitate most scientists.
As I keep mentioning, this can only happen when a fundamentally new formal language will emerge, which from the very beginning would unambiguously suggest what we can look forward to.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 01:34 GMT
Hi Lev,
I want to thank you for expressing compassion. I've heard the neuroscience point of view that everything about consciousness can be explained as super complex networks of neurons passing information back and forth in such a way that "poof" consciousness emerges. Consciousness is reduced to a trick of light or a fire that burns in the brain and then is extinguished. It is an insurmountable reality that most logical people would never argue with. If not for the spiritual pain that I feel, I would have no reason to look at wave-functions as more than just math. In my view, wave functions are these wavy things that spring up in response to potential energies (like the infinite square well or the hydrogen atom). There existence is so virtual, like virtual photons, force carriers of the electromagnetic force. It should be readily agreed that neuron signal carriers (through the synapse and across the cleft) are just carriers of potential energy. Thinking and feeling are just complicated changes in potential energy. The neuro-scientist would stop here and declare that a soul cannot exist.
But I push one step further. I say that wave-functions spring up, as they would in an infinite square well. I think that is enough to keep us from falling over the cliff into zombie-hood, into soul-lessness. There simply is no guarantee that wave-functions are not some spirit-like phenomena that pervades everything. Oddly enough, the simple act of disbelieving is probably enough to collapse the wave-function and sever us from a spiritual existence.
I think it would be better for the peace of mind of human beings if science acknowledged this situation as being a part of reality un-chartable by scientific methodology. There is nothing wrong with science kicking it back to the mystics as being a part of reality that is incompatible with science.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Jason,
I dont doubt stirituality and feel comfortable in questioning any aspect of it, or science. The post below gives some perspective of my views.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
John,
I am glad that you have avoided the trap I fell into. I thought that science was reality; obviously I was wrong. How could I embrace religion or spirituality of any kind if science is a true description of reality? I honestly had to fight for an answer that made sense to me. The answer I discovered was that science misinterprets what it looks at and has such a limited point of view. Lots of chemists and some physicists suspect that wave-functions really do exist as part of nature; but nobody can prove there existence.
It is very clear that science ignores some very important parts of reality.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Jason,
It isn't just science. Thought is inherently reductionistic. We can't perceive reality wholistically, or it would immediately overwhelm our senses and thought processes, so we have to make decisions about what is important and what can be ignored. Yet often what we ignore isn't what isn't important, but is simply not easily comprehended. Science likes things it can measure. Religion tends to focus on things that give people comfort. Parents tend to focus on things that keep their children safe. Etc.
Waves can be more difficult to measure than points. Spirituality is evident in the fact we are conscious, but it's hard to measure. Even space gets treated as just a measure between points, even though it is the basis of dimensionality. We are biased by reality.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
John,
I think there are a lot stranger things that exist; powers that protect civilization. The Disclosure Project is full of strange people who claim to have witnessed aliens, alien activity, real UFO's. In the United States, such alien crafts were known to shut down nuclear silos. In Russia, the UFO's would actually activate the ICBM missile system (which must have been horrifying to the missile silo commanders). Somehow, I can imagine grey aliens laughing, "We got your nukes!" The witnesses of these events can easily be written off as nuts. However, their stories suggest that the aliens want peace (we are no match for them anyway) and they want us to take care of our planet. Technically, the aliens don't need to communicate with the intellectual elite of our planet. They only have to communicate with people who will tell there stories. Physicists don't like stories, so physicists will continue ignoring the aliens.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
Jason,
I've certainly had enough experience with both strange things happening and total bullshit, to not really have a strong opinion either way. Frankly, physics, with all its multiworlds, wormholes, extra dimensions, multiverses, etc. really shouldn't have a problem with such things. If this version of reality is populated by sentient beings, why not any other. Being spiritual, but not...
view entire post
Jason,
I've certainly had enough experience with both strange things happening and total bullshit, to not really have a strong opinion either way. Frankly, physics, with all its multiworlds, wormholes, extra dimensions, multiverses, etc. really shouldn't have a problem with such things. If this version of reality is populated by sentient beings, why not any other. Being spiritual, but not monotheistic, I tend more toward the idea there are higher levels of life within our own reality and their intentions and abilities are just not obvious to us.
I think though, that basic physical processes are good at giving us some better knowledge of what's happening. Physics considers life to be too complex to model, yet one of the points I keep making is that the universe is not expanding, but there is a cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass that amounts to a cosmic convection cycle. Just that the light from the most distant sources can only travel through the expanded properties, rather then the contracted ones. Now consider that when you look at life on this planet, such as the Amazon jungle, what concept could better explain the dynamic than a convection cycle?
Can the spirit be understood in terms of convection as well? Think about such character descriptions as gravitas and lightness of being. How we conceive of spiritual landscapes such as heaven and hell. Yin and Yang. They are all these dynamic relationships, rising/falling etc.
Frankly modern physics is a bit of an intellectual jungle, with the various schools operating from their own models, seemingly in control, but no more so than a jaguar controls its environment.
As for the wave and the resistance to thinking of it as real, a wave expands/radiates outward, while rationality is a distillation and contraction process and so prefers particles.
We see what we see, not the context in which we exist.
Consider the current question of "it vs. bit." 1 and 0 are seemingly a fundamental dichotomy, but in reality it is 1 and 2. It is a question of on or off. Existing or not existing. Yet in order to know if something exists, we have to hit it with something else. So our testing device is one side of the equation. If it detects something, then we have that object hitting our device, so it is two sides creating an event. If it doesn't get hit, presumably it is a zero, yet we had to have that testing device there in the first place, so it is one thing. A true zero, no object, no testing device, would not measure anything, so by the standards of science, it isn't even a valid concept. There is no real zero in physics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
John,
If wave-functions have something to do with spirit, then it means that part of reality transcends physical mechanics. Spirit is about our relationships with other people, living and dead. Spirit is what connects us to each other, to God and to the earth. Quantum entanglement is hard to understand at the level of particles. But if wave-functions are part of spirit, then spirit connections are really a form of quantum entanglement.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
John,
I think that psychics and mediums, when they are sincere, really are reaching out with "feelers" of spirit, of wave-functions. The fact that they often don't receive hard information is irrelevant. When the phenomena works properly, psychics and mediums can bring hope, healing and relieve angst in their sitters. These are things that that skeptics cannot do. Skeptics collapse the wave-function, and cheapen what was once a beautiful gift from God.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 00:05 GMT
Jason,
Having spent a life working around horses and horse people, I've met quite a few people all up and down the spiritual and moral spectrum. What I would say though, is that what is most important, isn't what other people tell you about life, but what you discover yourself. As the old saying goes; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Once you start finding ways to peel back the tattered edges of reality, the loose threads become ever more apparent. Never sure where they lead though.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 05:15 GMT
John,
I wonder if atheist scientific views of "meaning of life", "does God exist", "what is the purpose of life", etc..., should be ignored. After all, whatever God we worship is going to have to be beyond the space-time continuum, beyond the physics of our limited universe. I think there are good reasons to ignore atheists. First of all, atheists are compassionless cynics. There is enough grief in the world that a belief/faith in a Creator gives people hope. Atheists are notorious for destroying hope and leaving people desparate, lonely and afraid. Second, either evolution, God or spiritual forces of some kind gave human beings a need to worship a Higher Power and/or seek out a relationship with spirit. Atheists expect humanity to be logical and starve spiritually. But why should we starve ourselves spiritually?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 23:04 GMT
Jason,
Why would spiritual understanding ignoring physical realities be any more valid then the opposite?
The fact is most of what we consider emotions manifest in very physical terms; hot,cold, attraction, repulsion, etc. Ecstacy and sorrow emerge from physical actions, such as connection and loss.
It is a bit of a two sides of the coin situation, where neither can see the other, but both are necessary.
I'm seriously away from home and only getting this as wifi on the phone.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
John,
There are 17 fundamental particles in the standard model. These define everything that we know to exist. Speaking as a spiritualist, I expect there are particles beyond the standard model that allow things like spirits to exist.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 23:15 GMT
Particles beyond the standard model are probably where other forms of reality might exist. But then you have to get into things like why permitivity and permeability are related to the speed of light, and why the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames (beyond just observation and math), but really explain the mechanism of the speed of light.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 01:27 GMT
Prior to the birth of our universe, there was something. It is something quite beyond our ability as humans to really understand, yet has been referred to, centuries ago, as the aether. The quantum wave-function, which is routinely overlooked as nothing more than QM mathematics, is a real thing. Where in quantum mechanics, h and c are fixed value in a 4D space-time geometry, the aether is the supreme wave-function field that includes all Planck constants, all speeds of light, and all geometries. This supreme wave-function field evolves in an existence beyond space and time. Yet every so often, it passes over a stable set of c, h and G values that allow a space-time continuum to balloon into existence, as a big bang.
This aether remains connected to every standard model particle that exists through the wave-function.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 03:15 GMT
Neuroscience has reduced consciousness to trillions of voltages in the brain, all moving around with the help of molecules. Since neuroscience doesn't know any better, they conclude that a disembodied spirit or soul is impossible. Yet physicists routinely solve ALL of their QM mechanics problems with solutions called wave-functions. Wave-functions are just math, right? Well, wave functions are mathematical solutions to mathematically expressed VOLTAGES (potential energy) and kinetic energy.
Mathematically expressed voltages are used to solve the Schrodinger equation with mathematical solutions called wave-functions. Mathematical voltages produce mathematical wave-function solutions. What do existent voltages produce? They should produce existent wave functions.
Meanwhile, neuroscience is running around claiming that there is no spirit like quality to consciousness and proclaiming that consciousness is all just electronic circuitry (as if you could reproduce consciousness with a computer chip). Yet physicists are too shy to tell the truth.
The truth is that there is this non physical quality to quantum mechanics, this probability field, that seems to exist. All scientifically literate readers should do a ethics self check.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 18:09 GMT
Particle-wave duality is proof of Matter-Spirit symmetry. All things, all particles, all space-time geometry is infused with spirit. The big bang was born from spirit. At the quantum level, spirit manifests as the wave function.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Jason,
Particles are like the skeleton, waves like the tissue and what motivates both are the action, the expansion/contraction, up/down, etc. I think physics keeps looking for other particles, fermions bosons, supersymmetry, string, etc. to explain how it all goes together, as though there were just lots of other "bones" to explain the tissue and action. Severe reductionism that loses sight of most of what is going on. So physics becomes a matter of the very large, very small and very abstract. What it needs to do is a better job of actually explaining the world as it is. Maybe under a different name. Possibly the" natural sciences" or "philosophy" can be resurrected.
Spirituality rides all this on a far deeper level than can be accessed in the sort of topical conversations physics allows.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 20:17 GMT
John,
There is a whole other side to universal law, deeply esoteric. Particle-wave duality is really a "matter-spirit" symmetry. Standard model particles scale up to become the human brain, planets, galaxies, ecosystems, etc... I think wave-functions do the same. I think wave-functions are the tip of the iceberg of what exists.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 01:27 GMT
Can something exist and be part of reality, but be undetectable? Unmeasureable?
If it were undetectable, would it be ignored by science?
If science ignores it, does it exist?
How can the 2 slit diffraction experiment be possible (2 slits = interference pattern, 1 slit = particle pattern) if the wave-function does not exist?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
Since science ignores the existence of wave functions, then science can be expected to ignore the existence of any phenomena that doesn't have a directly causal physical effect. It seems like the wave-function and it's mathematical eigenstates has more to do with entropy then it does energy. I envision that there might be wave-functions (or forms of spirit) that can defy entropy and the randomness of thermodynamics. However, as of 2013 AD, science ignores the existence of wave-functions and whatever technology that might lead to.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:46 GMT
"Since science ignores the existence of wave functions ..."
Jason, one is challenged to guess what you mean by 'wave function.' The term describes measured states of quanta, and is central to quantum mechanics.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:57 GMT
Jason,
I very much agree that in its quest for the severe reductionism that yields data points to be "computed," physics loses sight of much of the physical "soft tissue." The two slit experiment makes no sense whatsoever, if the light is not traveling as a wave and only collapses on contact to the point of a particular atom, much as Eric Rieter shows and others argue.
That said, much needs to be discussed and developed before getting to the topic of consciousness. I find, in virtually any debate, if you don't focus on the most specific and clear cut points, if the other person is unwilling to consider your argument, they will automatically latch onto any loose thread and divert the discussion. So while consciousness and its relation to the physical reality is certainly a foundational issue, there is too much fantastical nonsense that too many people have devoted their professional careers to, that you are only giving them an tool to dismiss the immediate problem of clearing away the junk.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi Tom,
By wave-function, I mean that mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger, like the hydrogen atom wave-function, the infinite potential well, and most other wave-functions, I believe that the calculation itself corresponds to an existent part of nature that is invisible and undetectable, yet, it is also part of the space-time continuum geometry. It is a wave that can interfere with other waves, from slits, and change the very pathway of the photons. What better way to describe the infrastructure of the laws of physics, which are not detectable directly, than as something with spirit-like properties. A spirit would be something that exists, but is undetectable and mistaken for something that does not exist. I completely admit that I am interpreting the laws of physics in a way that justifies my beliefs in Spiritualism. I just don't think it's a big stretch.
John,
I understand that you don't want a bunch of occult mumbo jumbo derailing a conversation about foundation issues like the laws of physics and consciousness. I'm not trying to justify astrology and witchcraft within a scientific framework. But I do believe that wave-functions tell us that nature is ok with undetectable things existing and causing effects. The jump from undetectable wave-functions to disembodied spirits (which is what Spiritualism requires) is equivalent to the jump from quantum particles to biological lifeforms. It's a big jump, but it does happen.
Given that consciousness is just not a property of physics, then I think it's reasonable to entertain the idea that disembodied spirits can exist and are somehow made out of wave-functions (undetectable things that exist).
I wouldn't be at all surprised if nature took considerable liberties with wave-functions as ethereal building blocks. Nature generally behaves classically. But if I'm right, then nature could allow something weird to occur (on rare occasion).
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Jason,
I'm certainly not saying it isn't part of the conversation, just that the immediate steps are quite steep and require focus on some very basic issues. Frankly multiworlds, etc. is far more mumbo-jumbo than speculations about how consciousness is physically manifested. It is just that there is a big clog in the drain and not much will get through until it is cleared.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Thanks, Jason.
You write: "What better way to describe the infrastructure of the laws of physics, which are not detectable directly, than as something with spirit-like properties."
If one accepts the popular implications of Bell's theorem as central to quantum theory, that is *exactly* what the theory says. In other words, phenomena not detected directly (locally) have nonlocal "spirit-like properties."
"A spirit would be something that exists, but is undetectable and mistaken for something that does not exist."
I think when you say "undetectable" you are not implying that "spirit-like" phenomena do not exert local physical effects; otherwise, there would be no reason to speak of their existence in the context of physics ("No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is measured." ~ Wheeler.)
"I completely admit that I am interpreting the laws of physics in a way that justifies my beliefs in Spiritualism. I just don't think it's a big stretch."
No. it isn't at all a big stretch. The real big stretch is the idea of nonlocality that frames conventional quantum theory. If Einstein's relativity (and its extension to quantum field theory) is the road to a complete theory of physics (and I for one am convinced that it is) then physics is "all local, all the time." If the spirits of which you speak are presently undetectable --it could be that we just aren't clever enough yet to devise the measurement schema that makes them real, no more than we have yet come up with ways to verify the vibrating strings of the quantum field.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
Jason, Tom,
If we are sticking to the topic, I would point out the best detector of consciousness is other consciousness. I find it natural , when dealing with other people and animals, to let my sense of being locate their sense of being. It gives a very strong feedback on what they are thinking. Normal with friends and family, occasionally uncomfortable with strangers. Of course this probably falls in the category of naive intuition and not valid to the physics community and its enlightened mathematically raised consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Tom, John,
The mathematics of quantum mechanics needs an existent analogue else it wouldn't be correct. The problem of non-locality is explained if we assume there is an invisible, undetectable form of ... that exists between two entangled particles. It wouldn't be a form of matter.
If physics were to seriously entertain the existence of non-matter quantum objects, I think it would open a new branch of physics and technology. In a hundred years from now, there will be technologies that seem like wild fantasy to us now.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT
"If physics were to seriously entertain the existence of non-matter quantum objects ..."
Which requires the assumption of supernatural interference with physical events.
Without a mechanism of energy exchange, this seems unlikely.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:21 GMT
"Without a mechanism of energy exchange, this seems unlikely."
Not energy, entropy. What is the difference in entropy between 2 slit versus 1 slit, interference pattern versus particle pattern? By mechanically opening and closing slits, you might be able to build a machine that increases and decreases entropy.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
"What is the difference in entropy between 2 slit versus 1 slit, interference pattern versus particle pattern?"
Zero. Entropy is generated by the reduction from high energy potential in the experimenter's input to the final (ground) state of the system.
"By mechanically opening and closing slits, you might be able to build a machine that increases and decreases entropy."
The entropy generated by opening and closing the doors exceeds any decrease in entropy (this is explained by the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment).
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
"Zero. Entropy is generated by the reduction from high energy potential in the experimenter's input to the final (ground) state of the system."
The entropy change of the whole system is zero. The entropy of the opening and closing slits goes up (small amount of mechanical heat is created). But the entropy of the photon or electron pattern goes down because the interference pattern is more orderly and periodic.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Tom, John,
By fantastically advanced technology, what I have in mind is something I heard about in the Steven Greer Disclosure project. According to the story, a UFO powered down a nuclear missile silo in Great Britain (I think) and actually armed (remotely) a nuclear missile silo in the USSR. It gave me the idea that electronics equipment could be hijacked directly (bypassing passwords) if you could make an electronic connection with parts of the circuit. For example, by using wave functions to reach the processor chip using wave-function manipulation technology. Maybe the wave-functions from your (Area 51 device) reaches out organically, like an invisible amoebic tendril, finds the processor chip, figures out how it works (like an electronics technician) and then tampers with the data flow.
I think it would take us 2 or 3 hundred years to eventually do that using wave-functions.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Jason,
Speculating far outside the envelope is intriguing, especially in a situation such as yours, testing the current technology, but keep in mind that advancing knowledge is more of a scalar than a vector. That it is much more a situation of mutually supporting advances, than any singular leap. While technology is making monumental leaps in the last century, it is still serving a lot of age old social paradigms, from top down power paradigms(monotheism to Masters of the Universe syndrome), treating money as a commodity, rather than multiparty contract, treatment of measure of duration as fundamental in spacetime, that are all manifestations of the vector of sequence as somehow primary. Yet as Newton pointed out, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but we are still collectively in this rush forward, without regard for the building monumental blowback. Do you think those advanced civilizations might have achieved their accomplishments without a deep appreciation of the broader reality and have learned how to think and advance in a scalar, non-linear fashion?
I happen to think that before humanity continues much further, there need to be deep changes in our understanding of reality and it won't be some projection out into multiverses because the one we live in doesn't cooperate with our theories. That is where I think the space for real monumental progress lays. Then if those advanced civilizations do come knocking, we might better understand what they have to say.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
John,
I appreciate your considerate response. Science has made it self sole arbiter of what is ultimately possible for nature. Yet the infrastructure of space-time and quantum mechanics is invisible to them. When you only have laws of physics, but you don't know how they are enforced, you can only go so far. I posit that wave-functions are real things. As real things, I anticipate that permittivity, permeability and the speed of light are inherent characteristics of wave-functions. If we know how the laws of physics are implemented, then we can manipulate the very laws of physics themselves.
By the way, if there really was technology that could remotely access the processor chip of any computer system, and bypass passwords, the world wide economic system and banking system would be vulnerable. It is fortunate for us that we will not have to live through that because such a technology is very far down the road.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Jason,
Keep in mind you do know many laws of physics, which society continues to operate blindly within, even in academia. Since it seems currently to be fading into the rearview mirror as a physical explanation, consider how susy and string theory managed to coalesce out of the ambiguities of QM and spacetime. Now to be losing energy and descending. Consider it in terms of an actual wave, first building energy and momentum, now losing it, as the remaining proponents blow speculative bubbles and foam at the crest.
Now there is strong social and political pressure not to look outside this school of thought, as it has more internal momentum and structure than any alternatives, but there are numerous seeds of different models waiting their opportunity. The criteria for success will be resolving problems in the most efficient manner. Consider that Copernicus upset humanity's assumption of being at the center of the universe, but in terms of math, he only make the motion of the earth one more cycle.
Comparably today, this suggests we shouldn't be looking for ever more exotic solutions on the perimeter, but misplaced assumptions in the core.
The world-wide financial system is vulnerable, not from the outside, but from its core premise, that money can be treated as an atomized commodity and not the structurally essential contract that it is. Resulting in history's largest bubble of surplus notational wealth.
Both involve fallacies at the core, not holes in the perimeter. Safe to say though these issues will not come to light until forward momentum is decisively lost and the wheels have come off. Then everyone will swear they knew it all along.
The physics of shifting winds.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT
John,
As I get ready for church on this Sunday, I find that were running late. To the atheist physics community (which is most of them) the common answer is: why are you worried about it at all? God doesn't exist. The only part of reality that exists is the standard model and gravity.
In a way, I feel bad for atheists. I had to work very hard to take back my soul from the iron jaws of scientism by discovering how physicists routinely ignore the existence of wave-functions and other invisible, unmeasurable existent things. It is good that some things are invisible and unmeasureable. It gives us hope that life can be better.
The second worst philosophy is the one that says you have no soul (and it's right).
The worst philosophy is the one that says you have no soul (and it's lying).
report post as inappropriate
hide replies