The Science of Visions: Exploring the Unseen Phenomenon

[novaa77]

Then maybe you won't be so quick next time to accuse someone of hindering "scientific progress", especially when science hasn't verified the validity of these pseudosciences.

Zz.

Let me clarify, my apology was for the personal tone, I still stand by what I said.

 

[novaa77]

I disagree.

One of the things that I study is the "breakdown" effects on solids. This is an area in which we still don't have a consensus on the exact mechanism for it to occur. Why? Because it is a transient effect and extremely difficult to reproduce identically each time. Still, it hasn't gotten stuck at First Base during the many years that people have tried to study it. We have captured it happening on video and photographs, we can set up equipments that can cause it to happen, even manipulate certain parameters to induce more or less of it. In fact, I know enough about what may cause it that I'm in the middle of setting up a dedicated system simply to study breakdown occurrence and dark current.

While I know very little about ball lightning other than what I've read in the media, the FACT that a group of people can actually recreate some form of it means that they know SOMETHING about it to actually cause it to happen. In other words, they are still not just bubbling around in the dark not knowing something about it and recreated it simply by chance! The same cannot be said about many of these pseudosciences.

The point here is that you make progress in that study. You may not know exactly what causes it, but you can at least figure out what important factors are involved the more it is studied. There is a progression of knowledge beyond just establishing that such a thing exists! After more than 100 years, ESP and others are STILL trying to establish that such a thing exist!

There is no comparison here with valid phenomena.

Zz.

For all that you have said, you fail to explain the phenomena that angle 42 has experienced. If you are of the oponion the the entire experience is just a figmant of imagination or a dream, why don't you say so insted of going on and on about pseudoscience.

 

[ZapperZ]

For all that you have said, you fail to explain the phenomena that angle 42 has experienced. If you are of the oponion the the entire experience is just a figmant of imagination or a dream, why don't you say so insted of going on and on about pseudoscience.

You'll notice that I came into this thread NOT to explain what the OP has described. I came in when you decided that you knew how "scientific progress" should proceed. So I certainly had zero intention in the first place of "describing" an anecdotal evidence, something I think that you still don't quite understand. I also was replying to Ivan's post and not directly addressing the OP. If I'm given funding money and manpower to study the "phenomenon" observed by the OP, then I'll make my statements about it. Till then, even you have no basis to insist that it is a valid observation.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We can only say that at this time, nothing within the realm of science could account for true visions; we have no scientific basis to believe it possible, and it has never been shown under controlled conditions that visions can be genuine.

I think the notion of accurate visions of the future has a scientific basis. Given a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe there is really only one possible outcome once everything has been set in motion. If you accept that is the case then it's possible people have the (usually unused) ability to accurately put together what is going to happen at some future time by extrapolating from what is happening in the present or what has happened in the past. This apparently amazing calculation would be something like the talents of Autistic Savants: something every brain is capable of but which requires that all other functions that distract from it be quieted down by meditation, drugs, or even neurological defects.

 

[setAI]

Science doesn't have to explain ESP or precognition because there is no realiable scientific evidence that needs explaining.

how many times do you have to be shown the evidence from peer reviewed relplicated experiments before you stop making this spurious claim?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16398586&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus



http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMbiblio.html

http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_proceedings.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html


once again there are thousands of peer-reviewed and published Psi experiments showing measuable effects- that have been REPEATED- honestly- I ask you how can anyone take seriously someone who ignores or dismisses all of this empirical evidence? it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again- what to do?

 

[ZapperZ]

Er.. one is a book, another one is a proceeding at a parapsychology convention, the other is from a division that has closed down at princeton and was a source of embarrassment for many at Princeton, and the other two are in a journal specifically made for such a thing. I'm surprised you didn't cite The National Enquirer!

If this is such a valid phenomenon, it would be one big, major discovery and qualifies to be in Science and Nature, not some obscure journal. So you find this to be highly convincing already?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

Er.. one is a book, another one is a proceeding at a parapsychology convention, the other is from a division that has closed down at princeton and was a source of embarrassment for many at Princeton, and the other two are in a journal specifically made for such a thing. I'm surprised you didn't cite The National Enquirer!

If this is such a valid phenomenon, it would be one big, major discovery and qualifies to be in Science and Nature, not some obscure journal. So you find this to be highly convincing already?

Zz.

ARRGHH! this is exactly the sort of easily refuted dismissal that I anticipated when i said " it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again"- it is as pathetic and anti-science as 'intelligent design'- it embarrasses me to see otherwise rational people lower themselves to such childish and ignorant behavior- it is a crime and a tragedy-

the first three links are peer reviewed published results of repeated experiments endorsed by the National Institutes of Health

the Radin biblio contains a vast list of replicated experiments published in Nature/ Phys Review reject these and you must reject the body of all empirical science-

the PEAR lab was not an embarrassment- it was only called an embarrassment to a few ignorant skeptics- like you who deny AUTHENTICATED VERIFIED REPLICATED PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE and when they are given direct links to experiments immediately dismiss it WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT-

you equate the Physical Review with the National Enquirer? pathetic! and the height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to be speaking the case for science who deliberately ignores the actual science in favor of straw man tactics-


this has been an ongoing problem here and elsewhere for a long time- and it baffles me that so many smart people would allow themselves to behave that way- this is exactly why Kary Mullis put Radin's most recent book in Discover magazine's 25 greatest science books of all time-

it is very simple folks: if you are a rationalist and agree with the Scientific method- you MUST accept the evidence for Psi- else you are being dishonest

 

[ZapperZ]

ARRGHH! this is exactly the sort of easily refuted dismissal that I anticipated when i said " it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again"- it is as pathetic and anti-science as 'intelligent design'- it embarrasses me to see otherwise rational people lower themselves to such childish and ignorant behavior- it is a crime and a tragedy-

the first three links are peer reviewed published results of repeated experiments endorsed by the National Institutes of Health

the Radin biblio contains a vast list of replicated experiments published in Nature/ Phys Review reject these and you must reject the body of all empirical science-

the PEAR lab was not an embarrassment- it was only called an embarrassment to a few ignorant skeptics- like you who deny AUTHENTICATED VERIFIED REPLICATED PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE and when they are given direct links to experiments immediately dismiss it WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT-

you equate the Physical Review with the National Enquirer? pathetic! and the height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to be speaking the case for science who deliberately ignores the actual science in favor of straw man tactics-


this has been an ongoing problem here and elsewhere for a long time- and it baffles me that so many smart people would allow themselves to behave that way- this is exactly why Kary Mullis put Radin's most recent book in Discover magazine's 25 greatest science books of all time-

I know about Radin's book, thank you! And just because it cites papers out of Nature and Phys. Rev. doesn't MEAN that the content he is talking about actually CAME out of such journals! It is misleading to imply as such! I can easily show you tons of crackpot "papers" that also cite stuff out of Nature and PRL, and all they did was try to bastardize the physics in those papers. In fact, if you believe that there are credible evidence from Phys. Rev. journals on this, cite them directly so that I can read them and check citations made to those papers. You will note that in other threads on here that purported similar type of phenomena such as the "effectiveness of prayers", there have been contradictory results also published in journals. It is the main reason why I always ask for the exact citation for these reputable journals so that one can easily check if such things have been verified.

And since when has the NIH "endorses" a paper?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

this :

I know about Radin's book, thank you!

is directly refuted by this:

And just because it cites papers out of Nature and Phys. Rev. doesn't MEAN that the content he is talking about actually CAME out of such journals! It is misleading to imply as such! I can easily show you tons of crackpot "papers" that also cite stuff out of Nature and PRL, and all they did was try to bastardize the physics in those papers. In fact, if you believe that there are credible evidence from Phys. Rev. journals on this, cite them directly so that I can read them and check citations made to those papers.

not only are the citations in the book- but also the raw data- in fact the book is probably half data and half exposition about making sure that only repeatable and corroborated evidence is even considered- Radin omitted all the psi research that showed any kind of bias or was not repeated by a skeptical third-party - with every last citation and reference provided-

I just don't know Zap- in every other subject I really value your opinions and insights- but it seems like you and others have a serious handicap when it comes to accepting the Psi evidence- it's always deny- the when it is provided: dismiss- if you really read even 10% of Radin's book then- like me- you would have realized that Psi is as well established empirically as just about any other claim science makes-

if as you suggest I were to dismiss all this evidence I would also have to reject Quantum Mechanics and Natural Selection- they all share the same level and QUALITY of published evidence- in fact some of the same experiements! most of the Ganzfield and RNG-PK experiments using random number generators were essentially the same experimental framework as the Bell Inequality experiments! [which if you actually read Radin's Book you would already know and accept]

it's just crazy- Psi is not pseudoscience- it is not even fringe science- Radin has shown without question that Psi is MAINSTREAM science that is being kept in the closet by those too embarassed to admit that they were wrong wrong so very wrong

 

[ZapperZ]

Addendum: I tried looking for another source for a comprehensive review on this area of parapsychology, and I had to go back all the way to 1988 to even start to find something that I would consider as credible: an exhaustive and comprehensive research of all the evidence at that time of such remote-viewing/psi commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. Can't get any bigger and more credible than that.

In the report titled "Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques", on pg. 184, they came to this conclusion:

In summary, after approximately 15 years of claims and somtimes bitter controversy, the literature on remote viewing has managed to produced only one possibly successful experiment that is not seriously flawed in its methodology - and that one experiment provides only marginal evidence for the existence of ESP. By both scientific and parapsychological standards, then, the case for remove viewing is not just very weak, but virtually nonexistent.

Someone wants to get the NAS to commission ANOTHER study on this since then? Has anything changed?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

it's just crazy- Psi is not pseudoscience- it is not even fringe science- Radin has shown without question that Psi is MAINSTREAM science that is being kept in the closet by those too embarassed to admit that they were wrong wrong so very wrong

Note that this is the SAME Radin that, in the Aug. 2004 issue of Psychology Today is quoted as saying that random number generators (RNGs) were uncharacteristically coherent in the hours just before the 9/11 attack on WTC, and then again before the Madrid attack.

If this is the person you put so much credibility in, I'd say that I'm flattered that you don't value my opinion.

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

Randi will fund to the tune of $1000k for good evidence. Apply here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

 

[setAI]

Note that this is the SAME Radin that, in the Aug. 2004 issue of Psychology Today is quoted as saying that random number generators (RNGs) were uncharacteristically coherent in the hours just before the 9/11 attack on WTC, and then again before the Madrid attack.

If this is the person you put so much credibility in, I'd say that I'm flattered that you don't value my opinion.

Zz.

so instead of actually looking- you just dive down the path of personal insult?

again- read the damned book! I almost stopped reading when the 9/11 topic was included- but if you put aside your bias and look objectively at the data you have to accept it- well just think about it- it sounds ludicrous until you actually consider what happened: probably the most widely covered and stressful event in recent history- OBVIOUSLY there is going to statistically be a much higher number of people in stressed/paranoid states of mind- which would obviously affect any psychological study-

you know about QM- you know that Time doesn't work the way we perceive- that it doesn't flow at all- and you know the nature of an observer in a quantum system- so pre-cog concepts should not cause concern in a quantum universe only a classical one- which we don/'t live in- it should come as no surprise then that a major world event would show signs of pre-cog awareness that can be measured in the laboratory-

you are simply dismissing the whole idea because it just mentions 9/11- I did the same because it just smacks of pseudoscience conspiracy sensationalism- but that is not what is claimed when I went ahead and looked at the evidence- and was shown to be wrong for dismissing the idea-

if you are going to pick one of Radin's ideas to use against him- why not use the BIG one: Radin still believes in Uri Geller! I can't swallow that one at all- Geller is the biggest fraud in history- however Radin never claims to offer EMPIRICAL data about Geller- he only speaks of him anecdotally- it doesn't affect the real science which he is reporting

Nature does not care if our notions don't fit- you have to look at nature on it's terms- you have to exhaustively determine what is actually good science and what isn't- you aren't doing that here- WHY?

 

[setAI]

Randi will fund to the tune of $1000k for good evidence. Apply here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Randi already owes someone- but he has stated that published scientific evidence isn't good enough for him- he says he must decide on his own- screw empiricism and experiment! ["I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing." http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html - double-blind results were published and now triple-blind experiments are under way http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html ]

this whole Psi subject has stick in my craw for a long time- especially on this forum- it's just so inconsistant with the nature of the forum that actual science is being ignored [and this is no longer arguable- the science is sound and verified] and only because it challenges the NEWTONIAN /CARTESIAN view of the world which we already know is limited! it is quite perplexing


oh well- I will say it again- it probably will never matter that Psi evidence is being recognized as neural nanotechnology will make psi obsolete- wheher it exists or not

 

[ZapperZ]

so instead of actually looking- you just dive down the path of personal insult?

again- read the damned book! I almost stopped reading when the 9/11 topic was included- but if you put aside your bias and look objectively at the data you have to accept it- well just think about it- it sounds ludicrous until you actually consider what happened: probably the most widely covered and stressful event in recent history- OBVIOUSLY there is going to statistically be a much higher number of people in stressed/paranoid states of mind- which would obviously affect any psychological study-

you know about QM- you know that Time doesn't work the way we perceive- that it doesn't flow at all- and you know the nature of an observer in a quantum system- so pre-cog concepts should not cause concern in a quantum universe only a classical one- which we don/'t live in- it should come as no surprise then that a major world event would show signs of pre-cog awareness that can be measured in the laboratory-

you are simply dismissing the whole idea because it just mentions 9/11- I did the same- but went ahead and looked at the evidence- and was shown to be wrong for dismissing the idea-

Nature does not care if our notions don't fit- you have to look at nature on it's terms- you have to exhaustively determine what is actually good science and what isn't- you aren't doing that here- WHY?

I know enough to know that there are NO VALID EVIDENCE to extrapolate what goes on at the quantum scale into something at the macroscopic classical scale. That is what Radin has been doing - bastardizing QM!

I came out of an area of physics known as condensed matter. We study how large conglomerate of particles interact with one another. What we know for certain is that it is extremely difficult to main any large scale quantum effects. It gets washed out so easily. As of now, superconductivity is the CLEAREST large scale quantum phenomena, and it is highly verifiable! Would you like me to tell you under what condition we have to maintain such a condition?

FurthermoreThe study of phase transition clearly shows that what works in one domain or phase, doesn't work in another and you can't simply extrapolate the rules of one into another! So how come you pay so much attention to one area of physics (QM) and yet you completely ignore what we can learn in another (phase transition)? You and Radin pick and choose what you want to believe while you ignore other aspect of physics!

It is from my knowledge of physics that I'm basing my criticism of your acceptance of such a thing. It is very naive that you only focus on what appears to be a simple and sufficient explanation without having any clue on other areas of physics that can clearly throw a wrench into your "logic".

And I'm the one who is being bias and selective here? Puhleeze!

Zz.

 

[setAI]

I know enough to know that there are NO VALID EVIDENCE to extrapolate what goes on at the quantum scale into something at the macroscopic classical scale. That is what Radin has been doing - bastardizing QM!

.

I have already adressed this partially above:

...our perception of reality may already be modulated in subtle ways by interference from the quantum multiverse- now this sort of thinking can lead to the slippery-slope of “quantum flapdoodle” of the worst kind but it should be noted that skepticism of Psi is based on classical ideas about nature- but we don’t live in a classical world- we live in a quantum world: the most credible forms of Psi experiments with Random Number Generators and the experiments that demonstrate Bell’s Inequalities are essentially the same type of experiment! Psi and Quantum Mechanics both make the same non-trivial predictions about the nature of an observer and her environment-


one reason for persistent scientific skepticism about psi is due to outdated assumptions about the nature of reality. For centuries, scientists assumed that everything can be explained by mechanisms analogous to clockworks. But over the course of the 20th century, we've learned that this common sense assumption is wrong. When the fabric of reality is examined very closely, nothing resembling clockworks can be found. Instead, reality is woven from strange, "holistic" threads that aren't located precisely in space or time. Tug on a dangling loose end from this fabric of reality, and the whole cloth twitches, instantly, throughout all space and time.
Science is at the very earliest stages of understanding entanglement, and there is much yet to learn. But what we've seen so far provides a new way of thinking about psi. No longer are psi experiences regarded as rare human talents, divine gifts, or "powers" that magically transcend ordinary physical boundaries. Instead, psi becomes an unavoidable consequence of living in an interconnected, entangled physical reality. Psi is reframed from a bizarre anomaly that doesn't fit into the normal world - and hence labeled paranormal - into a natural phenomenon of physics.

Dean Radin


I DESPISE quantum flapdoodle- I hate it when people who don't understand QM try to gloss it over and use it as a means to whatever bull**** mysticism they are pedling- which makes it all the worse when ideas that are clearly not flapdoodle are dismissed as same-

Psi is much closer to somehthing like Hameroff's ideas- those turned out to be wrong- but were real science-

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sorry, but I live in a classical world. I don't know where you live. That whole premise that we live in a quantum world is bogus! If we are in a quantum world, then quantum mechanics would be the FIRST description that we have and it won't have been so weird and so unusual in the first place! In fact, the concept that we use such as energy, space, position, momentum, etc.. are ALL classical concept. Each time we make a measurement, it is a classical measurement!

Read Dave Pines' article on "Quantum Protectorate" and figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! You have just revealed the fatal flaw of your assumption in all of this.

So this guy, who obviously has never studied QM, seems to know how to apply it, and in fact, in your view, TRUMPS the rest of us physicists. What's wrong with THIS picture?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

I'm sorry, but I live in a classical world. I don't know where you live. That whole premise that we live in a quantum world is bogus! If we are in a quantum world, then quantum mechanics would be the FIRST description that we have and it won't have been so weird and so unusual in the first place! In fact, the concept that we use such as energy, space, position, momentum, etc.. are ALL classical concept. Each time we make a measurement, it is a classical measurement!

Read Dave Pines' article on "Quantum Protectorate" and figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! You have just revealed the fatal flaw of your assumption in all of this.

So this guy, who obviously has never studied QM, seems to know how to apply it, and in fact, in your view, TRUMPS the rest of us physicists. What's wrong with THIS picture?

Zz.

you do not live in a classical world- and are directly disputing that claim by the leading quantum physicists in the world - for instance David Deutsch has said: " Philosophically, I would like to add to that that it simply does not make sense to say that there are parallel copies of all particles that participate in microscopic interactions, but that there are not parallel copies of macroscopic ones. It is like saying that someone is going to double the number of pennies in a bank account without doubling the number of Pounds."

you are also ignoring the fundamental role of the observer and the Measurement Problem-

 

[ZapperZ]

you do not live in a classical world- and are directly disputing that claim by the leading quantum physicists in the world - for instance David Deutsch has said: " Philosophically, I would like to add to that that it simply does not make sense to say that there are parallel copies of all particles that participate in microscopic interactions, but that there are not parallel copies of macroscopic ones. It is like saying that someone is going to double the number of pennies in a bank account without doubling the number of Pounds."

you are also ignoring the fundamental role of the observer and the Measurement Problem-

I ignore nothing.

And what Deutsch said has nothing to do with what I just said regarding our measurements as being classical. Besides, since when has Deutsch's view of the world become the STANDARD that we use in QM? Or are you actually remote sensing the future?

And speaking of ignoring, you have continued to ignore my point about phase transitions. Look at a quantum critical point and tell me you can ignore such a thing. And then tell me that you can actually extrapolate with equal validity across such phase transition. And while you're at it, I'd like to see you go back through a broken time-reversal symmetry transition.

All of these are physics that you and Radin have so conveniently ignored!

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

Referencing http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html as suggested by setAI. If gullibility is a science it would surely belong in psychology. Directing good intentions? Gee, when the pollsters ask for me to tell who I support in an upcoming election I always lie. How do you measure "intentions?" If not by asking the senders if they did it, maybe by the results that showed a difference? Give me a break. Players I have beat in online backgammon tournaments persist in claims that the computer dice generator has decided to favor me. Funny how they are the low ranked players. The beaten high ranked players call me a lucky son of a biscuit eater. Now admittedly in those games I have not gone with the technically correct play but gone with a hunch. I usually lose my butt when I do that.

I do not see yet where Randi owes anyone. Specifics please.

And why the hell does the seemingly identical to gnawed spell checker not work here?

 

[setAI]

I ignore nothing.

you have continued to ignore my point about phase transitions. Look at a quantum critical point and tell me you can ignore such a thing.


Zz.

how can I continue to ignore something you just mentioned casually in your last post? whatever-

your problem with understanding the nature of the qcp of phase transitions- as with any interaction of quantum observables- is that the decohering histories in which the transition occurs/does not occur are NOT TRULY ORTHAGONAL as is often lazily hand-waved wrt measurments- orthogonality here is merely a convinent metaphore to allow you to ignore very subtle but in-principle real measurable efects on the so-called classical state that is observed- the truth is that decoherence never becomes absolute- ALL parallel outcomes in EVERY parallel universe interfere with each other- it is only very expensive and technically unfeasible [at this time] to compute those effects-

just as Deutsch points to the fuzzy edges of shadows as evidence for the interference of parallel universes emerging at classical scales- the molecular interactions that provide triggers for neuarl signals are also subject to the interference of parallel universes- this alone for instance raises the certainty of some kinds of neural signals to fire BEFORE the triggering event [as has been observed in experiments of nematode nerve cells] probably due to increased random interference from parallel histories in which a similar event occurs to a similar brain but slighty ahead of time in terms of frames of reference-the decoherence of these parallel worlds is NEARLY orthagonal- but not enough to prevent random interference which can have real meaningful affects at classical scales-

Psi is not 'magical' telepathy or fortune-telling! all that has been observed and all that is claimed is an increase/decrease of random interference with neural signals which non-trivially corresponds to stimuli that is not causally linked to the measured signal in a classically local way


"...there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other
universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences.
Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics. Just write down
the equation describing the motion of those fateful transmitter molecules, and their effect
on you and on the environment. Notice that their ”randomness” consists in their doing
two things at once: crossing that synapse and not crossing it; and that the effect on you
was likewise that you did two things at once: buy my book and buy Penrose’s. Such effects
spread out, making everything do many things at once, which is what we mean by saying
that there are ”parallel universes.”
Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are
detectable in carefully designed experiments. There are projects underway - close to your
heart, I know, as well as mine - to harness these effects to perform useful computations.
When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than
there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will prove to us
that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn’t
enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?"

http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloy...sch_debate.pdf

"decoherence is just a matter of degree. There is never a moment after which an object's invisible counterparts cannot affect it any longer. It just gets too expensive to set up the apparatus that would demonstrate their existence. "

~David Deutsch

 

[ZapperZ]

how can I continue to ignore something you just mentioned casually in your last post? whatever-

your problem with understanding the nature of the qcp of phase transitions- as with any interaction of quantum observables- is that the decohering histories in which the transition occurs/does not occur are NOT TRULY ORTHAGONAL as is often lazily hand-waved wrt measurments- orthogonality here is merely a convinent metaphore to allow you to ignore very subtle but in-principle real measurable efects on the so-called classical state that is observed- the truth is that decoherence never becomes absolute- ALL parallel outcomes in EVERY parallel universe interfere with each other- it is only very expensive and technically unfeasible [at this time] to compute those effects-

just as Deutsch points to the fuzzy edges of shadows as evidence for the interference of parallel universes emerging at classical scales- the molecular interactions that provide triggers for neuarl signals are also subject to the interference of parallel universes- this alone for instance raises the certainty of some kinds of neural signals to fire BEFORE the triggering event [as has been observed in experiments of nematode nerve cells] probably due to increased random interference from parallel histories in which a similar event occurs to a similar brain but slighty ahead of time in terms of frames of reference-the decoherence of these parallel worlds is NEARLY orthagonal- but not enough to prevent random interference which can have real meaningful affects at classical scales-

Psi is not 'magical' telepathy or fortune-telling! all that has been observed and all that is claimed is an increase/decrease of random interference with neural signals which non-trivially corresponds to stimuli that is not causally linked to the measured signal in a classically local way


"...there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other
universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences.
Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics. Just write down
the equation describing the motion of those fateful transmitter molecules, and their effect
on you and on the environment. Notice that their ”randomness” consists in their doing
two things at once: crossing that synapse and not crossing it; and that the effect on you
was likewise that you did two things at once: buy my book and buy Penrose’s. Such effects
spread out, making everything do many things at once, which is what we mean by saying
that there are ”parallel universes.”
Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are
detectable in carefully designed experiments. There are projects underway - close to your
heart, I know, as well as mine - to harness these effects to perform useful computations.
When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than
there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will prove to us
that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn’t
enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?"

http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloy...sch_debate.pdf

"decoherence is just a matter of degree. There is never a moment after which an object's invisible counterparts cannot affect it any longer. It just gets too expensive to set up the apparatus that would demonstrate their existence. "

~David Deutsch

Phase transition? Decoherence? Are you kidding?

Please give me a valid reference to such a connection. You appear to have zero knowledge of what a "phase transition" is.

.. and you appear to cite Deutsh as if he's god. You are bowing to his words as gospel.

Zz.

 

[setAI]

Phase transition? Decoherence? Are you kidding?



Zz.

are you? decoherence applies to all possible events in any possible quantum system- a phase transition of any thermodynamic system is nothing more than an evovling system of quantum observables- all quantum systems evolve through every possible outcome state with the Born probabilities- if a phase transition is observed- it is also not observed in a set of histories- just like the cat in the box-

you said "figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! " - I am saying that just as with any other possible system in nature- the decohered histories still have an effect on the observed classical state- regardless if that history was of a phase transiton of a liquid into a superconducting superfluid for instance- the specific details of the system are not at issue- what is is do other possible outcomes affect the observed classical state of ANY system- and the answer is yes- so any understanding of say quantum phase transitions where the random quantum fluctuations affect the state of the system inj an important way- you MUST understand how the entangled ensemble interacts- I posit that any prediction of such a phase transtition that does not include the effects of parallel states where the transition did NOT occur will fail to predict the necessary zero point fluctuations that allowed it to occur in the first place!

and what are the effects of parallel universe in which a phase transition did not occur on the ones that it did? we don't have the resources to simulate that yet!- but we can state as a fact that the critical point of any phase transition does not occur across all histories- and that those histories do have a causal effect on the ones where it did- one would need to know quantum gravity and have a computer capable of calculating the Hlbert Space of a thermodynamic system to see what is going on in more detail-

bottom line: any physical model that does not include the effects of parallel universes for any measurement/event in any possible physical state or process and treats them as orthagonal is WRONG

interstingly enough- this week David Deutsch issued a press release that he has shown mathematically that the "bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself " exactly reproduces the probabilities predicted by the Born rule for any system- which is why Andreas Albrecht said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science"- sorry -but it looks like those condensed matter textbooks are going to be re-written to include the Everett picture in order to accurately predict the true nature of Quantum Criticality!

Andreas works for us at UC Davis- thank god for the insight of the West Coast not to dismiss perfectly valid science because it makes us uncomfortable!

 

[ZapperZ]

You have done nothing here but insert something that doesn't apply. If you look at what is meant by a "phase transition", you'd see no such issue of "decoherence". Going from normal state into superconducting state (a 2nd order phase transition) has NO DECOHERENCE. In fact, one can easily argue that there is now a coherence of the supercurrent state due to the onset of a quantum protectorate!

Yet, my point still stand that across such phase transition, several quantities undergo an ABRUPT transition, very much like an ordinary thermodynamic phase transition. My point is bringing this up, which both you and Radin have missed, is that NONE of these quantities can be easily extrapolated from one phase to another. There is an abrupt discontinuity in either the thermodynamic state function, or in case of a 2nd order phase transition, a discontinuity in another intrinsic parameter of the system. You cannot extrapolate what is valid in one phase into another. That was my original point which you seem to have missed. And this is valid no matter who you worship because such quantities can be measured.

All you have done is tried to mix and match things that simply makes no sense. When I asked you for a valid citation on where these have been done, all you are able to do is to quote your "bible" repeatedly, very much what I encountered when I argue against some religious fanatics. You have not shown where phase transition has anything to do with decoherence other than some handwaving argument point to Deutsh's theory.

BTW, you can't propose on rewriting textbooks on condensed matter when you have no clue what they are.

Zz.

 

[kokain]

ARRGHH! this is exactly the sort of easily refuted dismissal that I anticipated when i said " it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again"- it is as pathetic and anti-science as 'intelligent design'- it embarrasses me to see otherwise rational people lower themselves to such childish and ignorant behavior- it is a crime and a tragedy- [/b]

Is he trying to be ironic? Defend a non-provable theory in the same breath as you bash another non-provable theory.

Radin is a poo-poo head. I can prove without a doubt that he is a hoax. What does he do again? I'm sure feeling angry, I hope I don't influenceewws the spell checkkkeyor on my zciiompeauter toi missspreell werds.

 

[kokain]

again- read the damned book! I almost stopped reading when the 9/11 topic was included- but if you put aside your bias and look objectively at the data you have to accept it- well just think about it- it sounds ludicrous until you actually consider what happened: probably the most widely covered and stressful event in recent history- OBVIOUSLY there is going to statistically be a much higher number of people in stressed/paranoid states of mind- which would obviously affect any psychological study-

Was Random Number Generator the woman that the French Man gave the orgasm with the dessert?

 

[Evo]

if you are going to pick one of Radin's ideas to use against him- why not use the BIG one: Radin still believes in Uri Geller! I can't swallow that one at all- Geller is the biggest fraud in history- however Radin never claims to offer EMPIRICAL data about Geller- he only speaks of him anecdotally- it doesn't affect the real science which he is reporting

Radin is considered to be a cracked pot by his peers. I wouldn't waste my time reading anything he wrote.

 

[kokain]

Last night, I was playing my computer based synthisizer. My wife was in the living room (downstairs- out of eyesight and earshot) watching Steel Magnolias. The music took a horrible turn for the worst and I began to cry for no reason. As I went to the bathroom for a tissue, my wife came in crying for a tissue herself. Is that proof enough? I want my million dollars!

 

[angel 42]

I want my million dollars!

I'm afraid there's non

no offense

 

[angel 42]

With all the respect to your opinion ZapperZ, it sounds like you don’t believe such a thing does exist "visions" in the first place. Why then bother your self typing here!
you don't have to prove your self, you already post more than 9000 posts. So you've made your point.

Although I haven't read that book by Radin, but from setAI replies it makes me abit confused?
But don't you think this discussion has gone far from where it should be.

I might be so little yet at this forum, but me and others have the right to try to find out as long as we don't across the line!

 

[ZapperZ]

With all the respect to your opinion ZapperZ, it sounds like you don’t believe such a thing does exist "visions" in the first place. Why then bother your self typing here!
you don't have to prove your self, you already post more than 9000 posts. So you've made your point.

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.

Rather than worry about me wasting my time, I'd say that you have more to be concerned with that you might be someone who accepts something as fact or to be true based on invalid and the flimsiest of evidence that have yet to be verified. I can understand if one feels compelled to consider something because one has undergone some unexplained experienced. But to simply accept it to be true without even considering the existing evidence that such an experience can in fact be explained by other means indicates an acceptance based on unverified evidence.

I don't see how anyone can be so comfortable with that.

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

I printed this dedicated to Martin Gardner. My little dragon sits on my monitor turning his head and looking at me when I move. I know it is an illusion. For me a reminder that out of noise has come familiar images generated from my past by the power of reason on auto pilot.

http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/dragon-illusion.html

Roll your own.

 

[angel 42]

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.
Zz.

Are you somehow trying to call me a liar?
Well, I "see" what I told you guys about, and there's a difference between what you called that "our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened" (which I agree with you about it cause almost every person experience that), and that what I say which is " seeing something that never existed or happened and then will happen in the future exactly the same way I saw it".


any comments,any one?

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you somehow trying to call me a liar?

Nope. Anyone here can tell you that I don't mince my words. If I think you're a liar, I would have called you one.

Well, I "see" what I told you guys about, and there's a difference between what you called that "our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened" (which I agree with you about it cause almost every person experience that), and that what I say which is " seeing something that never existed or happened and then will happen in the future exactly the same way I saw it".


any comments,any one?

But look at the study that I linked to earlier. Many people actually thought they actually did something that they never did!

Again, this is not to dismiss anything, but to bring out already established fact that such a thing can happen. This is why a scientific evidence is different than an anecdotal evidence. You may have experienced what you described, but there's a plethora of possible explanations for it. Until that evidence is established, there can not be any 'scientific explanation'.

Zz.

 

[novaa77]

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.

Just exactly what kind of "clear concrete" evidence do you expect?

You seem to have set a clear boundry on your capacity to understand/examine anything new based on your past experiences which for some reason best known to you are not to be challanged.

Rather than worry about me wasting my time, I'd say that you have more to be concerned with that you might be someone who accepts something as fact or to be true based on invalid and the flimsiest of evidence that have yet to be verified. I can understand if one feels compelled to consider something because one has undergone some unexplained experienced. But to simply accept it to be true without even considering the existing evidence that such an experience can in fact be explained by other means indicates an acceptance based on unverified evidence.

I don't see how anyone can be so comfortable with that.

This is not a discusion about what anyone is comfortable with. The majority was comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat and the sun being the center of the solar system ( all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

As I said earlier you need to step out of your comfort zone to progress!

Again, this is not to dismiss anything, but to bring out already established fact that such a thing can happen. This is why a scientific evidence is different than an anecdotal evidence. You may have experienced what you described, but there's a plethora of possible explanations for it. Until that evidence is established, there can not be any 'scientific explanation'

.


What "already esablished fact" that such a thing can happen are you talking about?

Is there an already established fact that such a thing can't happen?

As for the flag of scientific evidence that you have been waving so high, if you are dismiss the experience, how do you expect to obtain evidence The fact of the experience is the evidence that we need to consider.

You have the attitude ofa blind man refusing to believe the existence of colour!

Nope. Anyone here can tell you that I don't mince my words. If I think you're a liar, I would have called you one.

You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.