Many Interacting Worlds theory: Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds

October 30, 2014, Griffith University
Professor Howard Wiseman, Director of Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics. Credit: Griffith University

Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes.

In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science.

The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about

Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect.

As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.

"The idea of in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957," says Professor Wiseman.

"In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.

"But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."

Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that:

  • The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different;
  • All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and possess precisely defined properties;
  • All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar.

Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.

"The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics," he says.

"In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor .

"We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit ."

The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds could have significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is important for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs.

Professor Bill Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas Tech University, has observed: "These are great ideas, not only conceptually, but also with regard to the new numerical breakthroughs they are almost certain to engender."

Explore further: When parallel worlds collide, quantum mechanics is born

More information: Physical Review X, journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/ … 03/PhysRevX.4.041013

Related Stories

Does probability come from quantum physics?

February 5, 2013

(Phys.org)—Ever since Austrian scientist Erwin Schrodinger put his unfortunate cat in a box, his fellow physicists have been using something called quantum theory to explain and understand the nature of waves and particles.

Quantum holograms as atomic scale memory keepsake

October 21, 2014

Russian scientists have developed a theoretical model of quantum memory for light, adapting the concept of a hologram to a quantum system. These findings from Anton Vetlugin and Ivan Sokolov from St. Petersburg State University ...

A quantum leap forward?

November 23, 2009

The dusty boxes that line the walls of Jeff Barrett's UC Irvine office mark a high point in his academic career. Their contents: pages and pages of notes, most more than 50 years old, penned by late quantum theorist Hugh ...

Recommended for you

Entanglement observed in near-macroscopic objects

April 25, 2018

Perhaps the strangest prediction of quantum theory is entanglement, a phenomenon whereby two distant objects become intertwined in a manner that defies both classical physics and a common-sense understanding of reality. In ...

280 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.8 / 5 (24) Oct 30, 2014
All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.


I think this is a little bit dangerous, even if parallel universes do exist (I guess they probably do,but we currently don't have a scientific way to test for them).

Anyway, all possibilities huh... So is there a universe where Mickey Mouse came out of a woman's Vagina and then created Walt Disney?

Is there a universe where other universes don't exist? That's a problem.

Is there a universe where I am my own grandpa?

Is there a univese where males have wombs and eggs are injected via an ovipositor into the male abdomen?

What about a universe where G is a random number for each particle pair, instead of being a constant?

If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.
grondilu
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Isn't interference already a form of interaction in Everett's interpretation of QM?
Returners
1.2 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2014
And of course there would be a universe where the Earth is the center of the universe, and the Sun, Moon, and other planets all orbit the Earth.

Maybe there's a universe where pink elephants ride unicorns, and visit the humans in the Zoo.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2014
Now if all possibilities exist, therefore an omnipotent being exists, then the omnipotent being can then change the rules, selecting only some possibilities to exist...

Ever wonder why we perceive time as being linear and causal, even though we can "conceive" of reverse time? That's chirality. It's a bias in the universe itself, apparently, and definitely a bias in our perception of the universe.

Excluding "precognitive dreams" and "dejavu" phenomena, why don't we perceive the future the same way we perceive the past? We see the future as a "possibility", a "hope/dream" or as a set of such things. We perceive the past as a single system of events, or sub-systems of events we have experienced.

If time wasn't biased, there would be no reason we shouldn't see the future the same way we see our memories of the past.

So what biases time?

A fundamental law, even more fundamental than Relativity or QM.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2014
A Physics model is not "reality".
A physics model is a description of "reality".

The only 100% accurate description of reality is reality itself. A model of "reality" can never be 100% correct, no matter how much you work on it, because there is an ontological barrier in what mechanical, physical, or logical knowledge you can obtain.

Even within the theory of relativity there is proof that the theory of relativity cannot model the universe properly, because of loss of "information" due to the speed of light postulate.

Thus the theory of relativity proves itself incapable of modelling the universe.

This was actually shown on "The Universe" on television. It was shown, I think, there are 10^(10^123) unique pieces of information in the universe, and we can't measure nearly any of it. We can't even write that number out.

So before you propose other universes to patch holes in our model, realize our model can never be correct anyway....
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jscroft
4.9 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
You "perceive" the past because the current state of your brain is a consequence of past states. Wondering why we can't perceive the future is like walking halfway across a beach and then wondering why there are no footprints in the sand up ahead.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes.


It is strange what people will call a theory.

At most, this should be a hypothesis. More likely a simple fantasy.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2014
This metaphysical philosophy is actually mentioned in the Bible, "His ways are above our ways, his thoughts are above our thoughts."

So the Bible says humans can't fully understand reality (even if we understand the universe we wouldn't understand God or other universes).

Relativity Ultimately says we can't fully understand the universe due to loss of information.

They both agree in principle in this regard, and they are both "cosmic" statements in the classical sense, because they deal with the nature of fundamental reality and man's inability to understand it fully.

We can't rectify QM and Relativity because we either do not have the experiences and technology yet, or because the rectification requires reasoning skills which are beyond the scope of mortal beings living in a 3-dimensional space and 1 dimensional time...perhaps 3-d brains are incapable of conceiving a logical solution...or perhaps we just need decades/centuries more work...
Returners
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
You "perceive" the past because the current state of your brain is a consequence of past states. Wondering why we can't perceive the future is like walking halfway across a beach and then wondering why there are no footprints in the sand up ahead.


Well, that is the classical interpretation of time.

In QM it has been shown that reverse-time entanglement can happen under controlled conditons...which is to say that a choice in the future actually affects an outcome in the past. This has been proven and apparently repeated in laboratory experiment.

This means classical perception of time(including both Newtonian and Einstein concepts) is apparently not true even though it appears to be at the macroscopic level in most circumstances, OR it means the classical perception is mostly true, but ridiculously small exceptions can be produced.

Presumably, the experiment I mentioned could be used to code a message to yourself in the past.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
It is strange what people will call a theory.

At most, this should be a hypothesis. More likely a simple fantasy.


I think we'd likely need to be able to detect some unknown property of our own universe in order to be able to detect and validate the existence of a nearby parallel (or perpendicular?) universe.

Is it Dark Energy? (I've devised a visual representation of what Dark Energy might be, and why it is not actually an "energy" at all. Energy has units (kg*m^2*s^-2), or Joules.

"Dark Energy", if it exists, actually has units of (m^3*s^-2), which is something completely different: The acceleration in the expansion of space-time. Expansions of space-time is: (M^3*s^-1). Mass is irrelevant, since the "actor" never influences the mass of objects directly, it only expands space (and possibly time).

DE is not an "energy" because it isn't moving mass. It's expanding the volume of "nothing".
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2014
It's hard to fathom that so many other things may exist that we haven't taken into account up until now---Because we want to believe that we have everything figured out already.

True science and research takes humbleness
Humbleness? Religionists will insist that their impeccable creator God exists despite the FACT that that he wrote a book full of stories about things we know didn't happen, and people we know didn't exist.

And believers will insist that anybody who doesn't believe in this liar god, CAN'T be good, and will suffer eternity in hell for their effrontery.

Xians should swap their outrageous audacity for a little humility I think.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
In a parallel universe it's accepted that electricity flows through plasma and metaphysical nonsense such as above is viewed with extreme contempt as it deserves.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
And believers will insist that anybody who doesn't believe in this liar god, CAN'T be good, and will suffer eternity in hell for their effrontery.

Xians should swap their outrageous audacity for a little humility I think.


This is not entirely correct. Many Christians forget the fact that Paul said unbelievers uphold the law when they do the right things, and that God judges the hearts of men.

Yes, we are aware parts of the Bible are corrupted at best. I believe this is an unfortunate consequence of countless occupations by Israel's neighbors, apostacies, and the first Diaspora, where some Babylonian and Sumerian concepts may have been incorporated.

On the other hand, Gobekli Tepe is evidence that a mid-eastern/south-eastern-european mass extinction of animals happened in human time scales a mere 12000 years ago or so.

So what if the details of the story are wrong? The substance is still correct. Something terrible happened in the region.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (19) Oct 30, 2014
Therefore the many worlds interpretation of QM PROVES there must be an Omnipotent God.


Skippy, let me help you sort that out. Your interpretations PROVES you have the mental condition.

And if you aren't careful, the psychologist-Skippys might be reading the physorg. And if that happens and you keep this up, they are going to send you back to Mandeville or Jackson. And you remember how much you didn't like that when they did it before.
KBK
1.2 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014

I think this is a little bit dangerous, even if parallel universes do exist (I guess they probably do,but we currently don't have a scientific way to test for them).


Actually, we DO indeed have 10's of millions of instances and bits of evidence, entire libraries of evidence for those sort of theories and, apparent reality.

The current scientific brute force carriers, the linear ground-pounder mindset involved in science, does not 'like' (emotions) those outcomes, so it shouts down (emotions) the exploration of the 10's of millions of cases of evidence, citing each as independent (viewed with blinders) and useless, never looking at the more complex picture aspects.(emotions and limited ability)

The evidence has unfailingly illustrated the proposed reality explicitly, for millennia, throughout human history, record, and experience.
Returners
1 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2014
The story of King Saul in the Bible is true. It is known to be true because military scholars and historians have studied the tactics described in that passage.

There is even a story of a British commander in WW2 who found himself and his unit in the region, and they were preparing for battle. Supposedly he read the passages involving Saul's military exploits, and copied Saul's strategy, and the allied army won the battle easily. THIS WAS ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL.

Whatever you think, those passages are based on real events which happened in the real world, and somebody, presumably the king's scribes originally, wrote it down. The books of Kings and Chronicles are History books composed from quoting other historical documents, such as letters, books, censuses, laws, royal proclaimations, etc, and in Chronicles the author actually cites several other books or authors by name, though as far as I know no manuscripts survive.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
KBK:

Geometric abstraction does not prove such abstract objects exist, even if you can conceive of those objects.

In order to prove the object exists by pure logic, you need at least a few other axioms which are evidently true to suppor the claim.

The ontological argument for the existence of God uses multiple conditionals and proves all of them true.

1, God as we understand him is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. (T)
2, I can imagine God (T)
3, I can't be imagining a being greater than God. (T)
4, A being which exists in reality is greater than a being which exists only in the mind.(T)
5, Therefore God exists, by 1 and 4,(T)
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
Regarding manuscripts, you can't actually expect an original manuscript of the book of Gad the Seer to survive to present day. It would be 3000 years old. I don't know if an actual copy or excerpt exists any more anywhere other than as a quote or positive mention in the Bible. Maybe the Catholic or Jewish historians know, I don't, because unfortunately I was raised protestant, and protestants are notorious for not being interested in the actual origins and history of the Bible. Catholics do not believe in "Sola Scriptora", while most protestant denominations teach a closed canon, or "Sola Scriptuora", not realizing that would be a contradiction since it would require God to change his nature, which the Bible says he does not do.

So all of this is more complicated than you think. Jewish historians might know more, but where's the records would be kept? They were persecuted for 2500 years...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2014
Skippy, let me help you sort that out. Your interpretations PROVES you have the mental condition.

And if you aren't careful, the psychologist-Skippys might be reading the physorg. And if that happens and you keep this up, they are going to send you back to Mandeville or Jackson. And you remember how much you didn't like that when they did it before.


I want the administrator to give me your identifying information so that I can sue you for libel.

Falsely accusing another person of mental defect is a crime punishable by fines and restitution.

I'm sick of you doing this to me, and if we searched enough articles I can find you doing it to me and scores of other people repeatedly.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.6 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
Why bring in one of our Invisible Companions? We need no god here.

BTW, I always assumed dark matter was the pull of gravity leaking from another parallel world.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Achille
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
I recognize this is the kind of theory that gets you a job as scientific consultant for the next Hollywood blockbuster.

From a scientific point of view, it is worthless. It does not provide us with more insight into our reality than the quantum theory does.

We know for a while the local hidden variables do not exist. Hence, they introduce parallel universes, like global hidden variables would do to "explain" the quantum effects. However, since we cannot grab any information on the parallel universes, we cannot check the value of the global hidden variables before performing an experiment to predict the exact result in a deterministic way. In fact, even if one day such a thing is possible, it will be possible to invoke another parallel universe for the discrepancies between this prediction and the experimental result in an hypotetical experiment. It is all trouble and not power. Almost the same as saying God is responsible for this experimental result.
KBK
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2014
Skippy, let me help you sort that out. Your interpretations PROVES you have the mental condition.

And if you aren't careful, the psychologist-Skippys might be reading the physorg. And if that happens and you keep this up, they are going to send you back to Mandeville or Jackson. And you remember how much you didn't like that when they did it before.


I want the administrator to give me your identifying information so that I can sue you for libel.

Falsely accusing another person of mental defect is a crime punishable by fines and restitution.

I'm sick of you doing this to me, and if we searched enough articles I can find you doing it to me and scores of other people repeatedly.


More realistically, please cease the flood posting, it is indicative of unbalance that is projected upon others. I do not agree with Ira's derisive wording but your saturation technique is of fundamental concern.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uldis_Steinbergs
4.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
There is an important distinction between 'All possibilities exist' and 'infinite number of possibilities exist'. Think of Pi 3.14159...and 3.3333333, while being infinite numbers they differ. I just wonder if other worlds be also bound by our universe's rules and therefore limit some ridiculous possibilities.
richardwenzel987
4.9 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
I was not able to find the new prediction. I wish they had been more specific about that. And I should mention that surely every possible universe must be self-consistent. But I'm pleased to read that this theory seems to be testable, even though we are not told how it can be tested. Now we have the problem of relating these multiple universes to inflation. If inflation gives us a multitude of universes, are they equivalent to the multiple universes in this new theory? Or does every newly spawned universe under inflation also include a multitude of universes so that quantum mechanics will describe each "inflationary" universe? And so on.
gkam
4 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
"because each dimensions are perpendicular to each other"
------------------------------------

You cannot say that about another Universe.
xstos
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 30, 2014
@returners

Fat lot of good that does us. An omnipotent god would be bored and not give one shit about the lower beings as it's omnipotent (and bored). He would give us less attention than we give our cattle.

Before we are born there is nothing. Why should death be any different? If there is some higher level of consciousness, we are all bound to the constructs of this reality with no evidence that we can breach it. I would posit that science, higher learning, and technological evolution are the only things that will give us the tools to perhaps escape the confines of this reality. For all those unlucky enough to die before humanity accomplishes this, I'm afraid darkness awaits. We are simply cogs in an organism that must educate its way out of its enclosure. Our salvation lies in learning. Religion is but a comfort (or sometimes jail) for those unlucky enough to witness the technological marvels that await.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
There is an obvious contradiction in peoples' approach to science:

It is cultural heresy to suggest that perhaps there is a mistake in the cosmic plasma models, and that electricity can flow through the vacuum of space, as we observe in the laboratory ...

... aka the Electric Universe ...

... but apparently there is no problem with suggesting alternative, parallel universes.

I don't think you guys who are into this stuff actually like science.
Tektrix
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
You "perceive" the past because the current state of your brain is a consequence of past states. Wondering why we can't perceive the future is like walking halfway across a beach and then wondering why there are no footprints in the sand up ahead.

Julian Barbour's theory of timeless existence is predicated on the idea that we exist in a vast configuration space with as many dimensions as there are "things" in the Universe. Our perception of time is actually the reckoning of consecutive "new" configurations- where all histories are components of each newly experienced configuration. Very similar to your explanation. ;)
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014
Our salvation lies in learning. Religion is but a comfort (or sometimes jail) for those unlucky enough to witness the technological marvels that await.


John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God..."

Now think about.

"Logos" in this usage refers to the rational governance of the universe(reality).

Reality clearly has potential for intelligence (us, animals, computers/a.i.) therefore the governing principle of reality, i.e. "fundamental reality," is intelligent.

God is the fundamental law, and the fundamental reality/truth/knowledge, and this entity is provably a Being, by necessity possesses the attributes of a mind, because things produced from itself have the attributes of a mind.

If secondary reality can contain minds, then fundamental reality must have the properties of a mind.

Therefore God exists as a conscious, mental Being.
gkam
4.5 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2014
"Therefore God exists as a conscious, mental Being."
------------------------------------

I hope that was sarcasm.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2014
And if you aren't careful, the psychologist-Skippys might be reading the physorg. And if that happens and you keep this up, they are going to send you back to Mandeville or Jackson. And you remember how much you didn't like that when they did it before.


I want the administrator to give me your identifying information so that I can sue you for libel.


If you really want to find me, come on down to Port Fourchon and ask anybody for the Ira-Skippy, everybody knows me.

Falsely accusing another person of mental defect is a crime punishable by fines and restitution.


You a funny man Cher. You do this on purpose?

I'm sick of you doing this to me, .


How many postums of yours get put up every day for people to get sick of? If you don't want ol Ira to make the fun with you, don't act so silly all the time.

And I'd still be careful if you don't want them to take you back up to Mandeville or Jackson.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (19) Oct 30, 2014
For all those unlucky enough to die before humanity accomplishes this, I'm afraid darkness awaits

Well, as you say: none of us felt bad (or anything else) about not being alive for the first 14 billion years or so...why should we feel bad not being alive for the rest of the span of the universe?
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2014
Anyway, all possibilities huh...

No, not all probabilities. The article explicitly mentions that there is a finite number of these worlds.

If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.

This is not a good argument. Not all possibilities are equivalent. If you postulate that there is a being that rules all universe, then not everything is possible. In particular, it is impossible to have a universe that is not ruled by God.

This postulate you have constructed is very different from Mickey Mouse being a real person. Mickey Mouse's existence in one universe has no affect on other universes.

One could just as easily postulate the existence of a universe that cannot be governed by any sort of intelligence. Then God, as defined by you, would not exist.
gkam
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2014
I can't say anything like "By God,. . ", because the idea of an Invisible Companion is silly to me.

I have to say "By gosh."

It means when I die, I will go to Heck.
JIMBO
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
My BS detector just went off scale....First of all, the Multiverse (MV) has been shown to result from the essential triple convergence of Inflation, Dark Energy, & the Many Worlds Interp. (MWI) of QM. Despite all the criticism that it's unobservable in principle, there is a vast world-wide effort to develop observational signatures of the MV. Thus "Critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all" is dogmatic in the extreme.
Secondly, altho its controversial, many theorists claim that the MWI is the only consistent interpretation of QM which applies to cosmology.
Lastly, their theory smacks of `salesmanship' in the moniker `MIW' (~`MWI'), suggesting it might garner more interest from the QM community via a similar, established label.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2014

1, God as we understand him is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. (T)
2, I can imagine God (T)
3, I can't be imagining a being greater than God. (T)
4, A being which exists in reality is greater than a being which exists only in the mind.(T)
5, Therefore God exists, by 1 and 4,(T)


Haha. This didn't work in the philosophy of religion class, and it still doesn't work here.

1. Sandvich ees food than vich no greater food can be conceived.
2. I can imageene Sandvich.
3. I can't imageene food greater than Sandvich.
4. food that exists ee reality ees greater than food that exists een mind
5. Sandvich exists by 1 and 4.

SaAaAAaandvich.
https://www.youtu...zUZNXRbE
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
I think if there are multiple universes, it seems likely that some of them do affect one another in some way, assuming they are contained inside a larger continuum.

In M theory they talk about colliding branes as a source of a Big Bang event, but what happens when two universes get very close to one another, or touch?

We don't know really. Would seem to depend on the properties of each universe, and perhaps their relative velocity (or whatever the term woudl be) with respect to one another.

Do they merge, like two galaxies, who's rules and constants would super-impose upon one another gradually as each one's "space" overlaps the other?

Who knows.

They may be incapable of interacting due to mechanical differences.
TulsaMikel
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
It's funny the actual universe has similar limits to the universe people visually create in their mind. It sounds like it's only as big & complex as were willing to look. We shouldn't ignore the simple fact that our universe has already recreated itself billions of times at varying complexities just because it's metaphysical and were on a Physics site. Think "Occam's Razor"
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 30, 2014
The dense aether model illustrates
@ZEPHIR/erson
the daw/aw illustrates how the gullible and ignorant can be conned into believing in something when empirical evidence proves that it cannot exist
especially with such a high degree of accuracy
see here for more details:
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
Your comments are simply trolling and pushing a known pseudoscience
reported

aka the Electric Universe
@hannes alfven
this is also a known debunked pseudoscience that is mostly written by con men engineers with no astrophysical training, which is why you usually cannot link empirical evidence supporting their conjecture
also why they never debate publicly with learned astrophysicists
only pop-sci trolling
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

IOW - eu = pseudoscience
so troll elsewhere
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (21) Oct 30, 2014
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God..."
@returners
so which "god" is the most "god-like" and most powerful?
the jewish god?
muslim god?
christian god?
lakota god?
cherokee?
buddhist?
satanist?
wiccan?
druidic?
psychotic?
delusional?

you cannot see the fallacy of your own argument quoting from one fallacious source for proof of argument?
what about the crazies we have in lockup that believe with all their heart that they are jesus and it is the second coming?
that would make you a heretic, or at least make sure you are going to hell for allowing your creator/saviour languish in a mental asylum, right?

there is no room for your faith or religion in science
it obfuscates and denies reality by definition

5. Sandvich exists by 1 and 4.

SaAaAAaandvich.

@Furlong
awesome! LMFAO
you made my day... thanks!
TulsaMikel
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
All the other universes would have to be relatively logical. None would have Micky flying out of Walt's butt to create Disney. Mathematically most of the universes would have strange physics that is not conducive for creating complexities.
I would relate all the different physics from all of the different universes like the electromagnetic spectrum where one small portion in the middle has the visual wavelengths the human eye can use. There is a sliver in all the possibilities of physics where universes like ours are possible. Inside that sliver is every other (possible) scenario.
TulsaMikel
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
Do you think humanity is the most complex thinking entity the universe has ever created?
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
Do you think humanity is the most complex thinking entity the universe has ever created?

That would be a strange thing to think, considering that we've explored an essentially infinitesimal fraction of the universe.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
Do you think humanity is the most complex thinking entity the universe has ever created?

@TulsaMikel
i gave you a five for having a good question

my answer is essentially the same as what thefurlong wrote
That would be a strange thing to think, considering that we've explored an essentially infinitesimal fraction of the universe.
considering we haven't been able to fully explore our own planet, let alone our own solar system yet, and we've not had any experience outside our solar system, then the question is answered as:
there is not information saying that we are the most complex thinking entity the universe has ever created

why is this important?
justification for a deity?
plausibility is not proof of existence, if that is where you are going with that
viko_mx
1 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
The basis of the idea of ​​multi universe (multiverse), which recently is proposed in different versions by different theorists, is standing hope that when there are infinit number of universes in a hypothetical "mega universe" which containing them, at least one of them will be governed by fine parametrized physical laws appeared by purely chance, which are suitable for development of intelligent life just like our universe. So they try to circumvent causality and promote the pure chance as the foundation of everything around us. These theorists believe in the god of chance, which creates order out of chaos and create everything from nothing. They preferred to live in a fictional universe in which only 5% of matter and energy is visible and tangible for us. Of course such a nihilistic worldview is not to the taste of their reasonable colleagues who have more practical approaches to get to the truth.
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
The quantum world is strange because there is no way to observe elementary particles without influencing them physically. The observation is exchange of quantas and we never can see the original state of the particles and their true behavior. So with great certainty can be expected that they are subject to cause and effect relationshipt. Therefore quantum theory relies on probabilistic formulations. World always will remains partially unknowable to us, and brute force such as that we used in hadron coliders will not help to achieve more clarity in understanding the quantum world.
someone11235813
1 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
This is not science, in the modern sense of the word.
Darrel
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
ok... so my theory is, Only 1 universe, VERY big, EVERYTHING in it... instead of multiples, there is one, with all possible variables in it. Light disipates after a length of time, therefor the possibility that universes exist outside of our ability to see them, is aprox 99.9%... So, Everything is already here, we just cant see what we cannot detect, all humans can detect light, sound, smell, taste, and touch. That is all we can do... perhaps we don't even comprehend anything else because this is all we know, Just like being diagnosed with autism at 26, I have been this way my whole life, i did not know any different, and still feel like me. So, with that said, Unless we find another species of intelligent life to correlate data and share knowledge, We are simply stuck with only what we have and know. Idea's derive from Data being input into your brain. Sometimes connections are made, sometimes they aren't. That is just the way Human life works.
Darrel
1 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
So for someone to say my theory is incorrect would be to say that THE only dirt on earth, is the stuff we see on the surface... When infact we know, that if we go out there and dig, we will find more that we could not see before. So, as i said this Theory is thiesably 100% correct until proven wrong. Data derived from Corelated Facts derived from physics of Earth. Keep it Simple.
rgw
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014

If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.

********************************************
And One Ring to Rule them all....
jackjump
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
If I understand the idea here all the possible universes share the underlying quantum structure that they all participate in creating. That very much limits the possibilities to universes we would very probably recognize. Those universes wouldn't contain cartoon characters upon whom anvils could fall from the sky and squash flat after which they would pop back into 3D fullness . . . unless, of course, that could happen in this universe. The existence of those universes wouldn't imply anything about God that our own universe doesn't imply. Unfortunately our universe doesn't tell us much about the existence and nature of God so He would remain in the realm of faith and religion, not science, except that, instead of being removed by his position as The Creator to outside our universe He would be removed to outside all universes.
rgw
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
Do you think humanity is the most complex thinking entity the universe has ever created?

That would be a strange thing to think, considering that we've explored an essentially infinitesimal fraction of the universe.


Not to mention the infinitesimal fraction of the Earth we explored....
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
I think mega universe has a fractal structure, which contains identical elements at various levels in an infinite hierarchy. In the real world, we can see many examples of fractal structures and the golden section embedded in them. People also have a fractal structure.
Maybe_ maybe not
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2014
If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.


CHECKMATE ATHIESTSTS!

I like that theory, though, but not that limited version.

The logical extension of that theory is that I would be omnipotent in at least one universe, too. So would you, so would everyone. That omnipotent version of myself may be helping me here, as He would be able to hear my prays and act accordingly. I guess everyone's omnipotent version of themselves would do the same for their own infinite less powerful versions of themselves.

So I guess it's not that (one) God exist. It would be that an infinite number of Gods exist. We are our own Gods and if things don't go our way, we can only blame Ourselves.

Either that or the definition of "omnipotent" is only true within each omnipotent being's own universe. Then maybe, in this universe, there is no god after all.
malapropism
5 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2014
Skippy, let me help you sort that out. Your interpretations PROVES you have the mental condition.

I want the administrator to give me your identifying information so that I can sue you for libel.

Actually, that would be defamation.

Falsely accusing another person of mental defect is a crime punishable by fines and restitution.

Only if the accusations are untrue. If the statements made were the truth, that is always a sufficient defense in a defamation case. I seem to recall that some time ago you admitted within this very forum that you had previously suffered some form of mental condition, in another reply to Uncle - if that's correct (and no, I'm not going to bother to even go looking) then you haven't a case.
malapropism
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2014
Now if all possibilities exist

No. All possible *physical* conditions of each quantum particle in the universe exist. There are a nearly infinite number of alternate universes (if this theory is true) because the combinatorial possibilities of any single change in any 1 given quantum particle combined with the potential for any single change in any other given quantum particle in the universe, is a gigantic number in itself.

therefore an omnipotent being exists

No again. Just because every possible physical particle combination exists and creates a different universe due to the varying combinations does not mean that every imaginable fantasy will also be created as a universe. There is probably no "Walking Dead" universe, there is probably no universe where Marty McFly skates around on a hover board, there is probably no tooth fairy, there is probably no god.

Luckily, there might be a universe where you don't exist to post in these fora.
krydan2167
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
If there are a infinite number of worlds it would follow logically "If it were even possible that God could exist, he would exist" Or the atheist would have to explain why out of an infinite world of actual possibilities why doesn't that allow for God or a God like entity? It seems to me that they "atheist" have an ABG theory of reality: ANYTHING BUT GOD!
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
malapropism
4.4 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2014
1, God as we understand him is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. (T)

Fail on #1 because no matter what you imagine as the abilities of your god, someone can imagine a being with more abilities. Besides which, a god is normally defined as omnipotent and omniscient (and I believe that your bible defines your god as this). The metaphysical difficulty here is, of course, that these states are mutually exclusive. Even just omnipotence on its own is an impossible condition because it implies that the being can do something that this same being cannot undo. But if they are omnipotent there is nothing they cannot undo. (The common example is, "god creates a rock so big god cannot move it".)

By your own argument, if all metaphysical possibilities existed as real alternate universes (but they don't because that's not what the article is about) then your god must abide by the limitations of these logical inconsistencies. It cannot be omnipotent.
MrVibrating
4.3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Whatever happened to Occam's razor..? Multiplication of all possible entities = all possible anti-occams = least likely correct theory.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
malapropism
5 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2014

1, God as we understand him is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. (T)
2, I can imagine God (T)
3, I can't be imagining a being greater than God. (T)
4, A being which exists in reality is greater than a being which exists only in the mind.(T)
5, Therefore God exists, by 1 and 4,(T)


Haha. This didn't work in the philosophy of religion class, and it still doesn't work here.

1. Sandvich ees food than vich no greater food can be conceived.
2. I can imageene Sandvich.
3. I can't imageene food greater than Sandvich.
4. food that exists ee reality ees greater than food that exists een mind
5. Sandvich exists by 1 and 4.

SaAaAAaandvich.
https://www.youtu...zUZNXRbE

That was brilliant! If I could have given you more than 5, I would have.
richardwenzel987
5 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
On the other hand the multiverse makes quantum strangeness an emergent property, something that happens sort of by default, and in my opinion, that simplifies things.
Consultofactus
1 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
@Returners Despite your voluminous number of posts I agree with much of what you say. As far as interacting with other parallel universes or multiverses the eternal question of the exact nature of time is brought to the forefront, right? Afterall, it is truly challenging to imagine a universe where the nature of time different than in our reality - and conversely if the nature of time was identical in a parallel universe would it really even then qualify as a distinct universe or just a different section of our universe???
thatsitalright
4.6 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
I'm only commenting because I want to be part of the madness. There's probably a universe where I miss out on the fun but it isn't going to be this one.

When it's said "all possibilities occur", I believe that accepts there are some outcomes which are not in fact possibilities. Possibilities, not impossibilities.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
4.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
Wow, what a lively thread Ha! hate to put a spanner in the works but the article says '...All possibilities are therefore realised...' Surely one possibility is our universe exists while in the alternative parallel...nothing, just pointing this out, that's all.
And to all those proposing 'god' then the 'devil' must be lurking around too...perhaps somewhere in these posts eh?
rick_fromtexas
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
I knew it! There must be a universe out there with even more great Thai restaurants, MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
big_hairy_jimbo
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
Yes other possibilities exist but with smaller and smaller probabilities. See Richard Feynmans sum over Histories approach. So don't get too carried away with far flung ideas.
jamesbuddy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
If I don't use the filter it feels like I am picking through the garbage. o.O
FainAvis
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
In many of these other crazy universes you all were spoofed on the sheet.
Job001
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
To all you "Multiverse True Believers", please go there and report back, ASAP!
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2014
Well, I wasn´t much of a fan of multiverses because it never added anything to `our` world´s physics, so it could just as well be ignored. But if they say there is interaction between worlds, surely it must be possible to find some form of evidence.

The dense aether model illustrates well both pilot wave interpretation, both many worlds interpretation with water surface model


I see, it's like taking a piss in a pond, where the flow of warm water crosses the water surface, yet only slightly interacts with it, leaving only little traces of urine at the other universe´s surface while the most of the piss-universe remains intact. In this universe I think you´ve gone completely bonkers, yet I must say, in a multiverse with infinite possibilities there must be quite a few ones where you´re absolutely right.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2014
If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists

Logical fallacy. For something to be a possibility it has to have a finite probability. An ominpotent god is just a fancy. Making stuff up does not imbue that something with a probability greater than zero.

E.g., I can make up the idea of a purple-green color (well, Pratchett already did that). Does that mean that there exists a possibility for a purple green color? No.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2014
Blah. Blah. Blah.

Therefore God exists

Returners, in your struggle to prove this I see nothing more than weak faith, loudly proclaiming otherwise. Please take your faith crises elsewhere. This is a science forum.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
What is the mechanism in which the number of protons and electrons become equal after the big bang? How randomness can born such colossal matches? And in the same situation we do not have such a quantitative correspondence between dominant matter and mising antimatter in our universe. For me such ideas are statistical insolence.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists

Logical fallacy. For something to be a possibility it has to have a finite probability. An ominpotent god is just a fancy. Making stuff up does not imbue that something with a probability greater than zero.


Replacing one logical fallacy with another is no better,.... and it's especially egregious for scientists to do it.

The point being if an idea, be it many-worlds theory or a omnipotent being, is not observable in principal, it is metaphysics, period,.... and metaphysics can not be a source of scientitic knowledge or otherwise.

The many-worlds proponents have no better empirical basis for their hypothesis than religious people in believing in a god imo. The basis of that theory is in believing the Schreodinger wave-function is a Real entity, rather than just a mathematical construct, which does not collapse into a single observable value upon a measurement.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2014
I am very much afraid that these fine gentlemen's alternative possible selves in the many worlds of string theory are having a good laugh at such obvious dreck...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
continued,.... iow, they associate mathematical entities with Reality itself, despite those mathematical entities being unobserverable.

As an example of a physicist, who thinks because he is a physicist, he is somehow specially privileged in claiming knowledge of independent reality, that is not empirically justified, see Max Tegmark's book "our mathematical universe",.... in which he proposes a level IV multiverse where all the mathematical structures not applicable in this universe reside. He says reality IS mathematics,... and like the wave-function,.. must find a place for all the other "real" mathematical structure to exist. Is he an extreme case? No? He merely has taken Everett's MWI to its logical conclusions,...... where metaphysics and scientific speculation merge.

That something has a finite-probability implies only that it has a finite-probability of being Observed, and NOT that it has an ontological finite probability.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
,... if physicists speak in such Ontological terms they are on par with religious priests, who do likewise, imo.

Is an electron a point particle or a string? No, it is not observable in either of these conceptual forms, .... it's just a convenient mathematical means of synthesizing experience to allow for predictions,... likewise for the wavefunction describing a quantum state.

[That something has a finite-probability implies only that it has a finite-probability of being Observed [in a given state], and NOT that it has an ontological finite probability.]
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
@Returners Despite your voluminous number of posts I agree with much of what you say. As far as interacting with other parallel universes or multiverses the eternal question of the exact nature of time is brought to the forefront, right? Afterall, it is truly challenging to imagine a universe where the nature of time different than in our reality - and conversely if the nature of time was identical in a parallel universe would it really even then qualify as a distinct universe or just a different section of our universe???

The actual nature of time itself is fundamental to understanding our universe and why it is unique - i.e. there are no other universes, only one general chaos, our path thru' which is dictated by the laws of physics. Time is the progression from one state of the fundamental particles of chaos to the next as chosen to obey the laws of physics in general. As this is a macro obeyance, at a micro level the laws become meaningless thus giving rise to uncertainty.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
Why bring in one of our Invisible Companions? We need no god here.

BTW, I always assumed dark matter was the pull of gravity leaking from another parallel world.


Hoisted by your own petard.

Is not "another parallel world" just another Invisible Companion? You should ask why some physicists think they're more qualified to be priests, than priests.

If there are observable and quantifiable effects in "this world", then by definition it is describable, for the purposes of predictive knowledge, in "this world". The problem is when people expect "explanations" and "why", when physics can only supply the "how", and can only do so with mathematical models.
jscroft
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
If you guys understood warp drives and photon torpedos even HALF as well as I do, you wouldn't even be having this discussion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2014
5, Therefore God exists, by 1 and 4,(T)
As usual another goddamn godder using deist arguments to somehow justify his belief in another clown god. Deist gods are designed by philos to be impossible to disprove. But even if they do exist they have NOTHING to do with bookgods who are concerned with what we eat and when we eat it, who we sleep with and in what position, whether we hide our faces in public, or how we mutilate the genitals of our children.
http://youtu.be/dUHYqCtHoIw

-If those gods exist elsewhere in the universe they are the product of flawed imaginations and wishful thinking, just as they are here.

TulsaMikel
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

"why is this important?
justification for a deity?
plausibility is not proof of existence, if that is where you are going with that"

Human consciousness fascinates me. Living things can obviously survive very well without it, so why do we have it? That leads me to wonder what other things might have it.

Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
What is the mechanism in which the number of protons and electrons become equal after the big bang? How randomness can born such colossal matches?]/q]
Who says they are equal?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
Explain why you think that they are equal in number? Are you going to explain the world again with invisible phenomena such as dark matter and energy?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
I was not able to find the new prediction.
Me either. Nor even a suggestion what prediction this interpretation might make that would differentiate it from others, or would be unprecedented. And this is the second article on this on PhysOrg. The first was by one of the authors of the original scholarly paper.

Until there is a possibility mooted that answers this objection, I see nothing to distinguish this interpretation from the others.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2014
The fact, they're often proposed with scientists itself introduces a big disappointment for me. The scientists should be first here, who is trying to think logically
@ZEPHIR/tritace
you are delusional and cannot comprehend a logical argument if it were glued to your forehead
and this can be proven with your own words here on this comment section alone:
you state
The dense aether model illustrates well
& also
...it's rather close to the idea of God. Personally, I don't see any motivation for it, if I can use the dense aether model for explanation
if you thought logically
or if you were in any way capable of recognizing logical thought
you would immediately dismiss aw/daw as pseudoscience based upon a single published experiment which proves your philosophy wrong: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

TROLL elsewhere
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2014
if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period
So nou presents an example of something metaphysical. Something from which supposedly we can glean no information whatsoever.

Let's just skip over the obvious contradiction that an idea IS info, the synthesis of experience and reason, waiting to be acted on, communicated, or not. Let's examine the nature of an idea itself and where it resides.

An idea is the result of neurons firing in our brains and NOTHING ELSE. The activity of these neutrons can in principle be detected and the patterns they make can be deciphered as info without the individual actually expressing this info.

And so we have potentially 2 wholly physical paths to accessing ideas. There is NOTHING metaphysical about them. Since they occur entirely within a physical organ, they are nothing BUT physical.

You slip up from time to time nou and expose your true beliefs wrt philobabble.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
An idea is the result of neurons firing in our brains and NOTHING ELSE. [.....] There is NOTHING metaphysical about them. Since they occur entirely within a physical organ, they are nothing BUT physical.


Your objection seems convoluted, even by your standards. Of course I'm not saying ideas exist in a metaphysical realm. Obviously, the mind has a physical basis. This is all irelevent to my point.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
All that means, noum, is that you're talking about consensus reality and then denying there's a consensus.

Typical philo-sophistry.
OneLove
1 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2014
All possibilities are therefore realised...If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.


What if instead, everything was everything, and nothing all at the same time, and in so, we too are everything and nothing...therefor we are all the same being...we all are God?

What if, we lost our way in this 'mindset' and had forgotten who we are, and now are just different 'viewpoint's' of our varying thoughts?

What if, ultimately our thought's became reality?

I'd love to hear thoughts!
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2014
"I'd love to hear your thoughts."

This is a physics board. Let's try to keep the philo-sophistry and reLIEgion to a minimum, shall we?

Thanks in advance.
OneLove
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
"I'd love to hear your thoughts."

This is a physics board. Let's try to keep the philo-sophistry and reLIEgion to a minimum, shall we?

Thanks in advance.


It's still on topic, I'm just showing how this article could help prove what I said (although very vaguely)
Noumenon
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
All that means, noum, is that you're talking about consensus reality and then denying there's a consensus.

Typical philo-sophistry.


I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify? What are you referring to with "denying there's a consensus"? It is probably best if you not tell me what I am saying.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
All that means, noum, is that you're talking about consensus reality and then denying there's a consensus.
Typical philo-sophistry.


You have a bad habit of informing others of what they are saying rather than putting an effort in yourself to understand them. Then that person must defend themselves against your random accusations.

I do not deny there is an objective reality,.... only that scientific Positivism is supported by empirical facts while scientific Realism, ....knowledge of an independent reality, ....is scientifically unfounded speculation.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist.

OneLove
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
vv See what I mean :D vv Same thing is it not? ALSO, Da Schneib (or anyone), I don't mind elaborating if asked. (But ask me a specific question, I'd be here for days trying to explain every part of this)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist.

I don't buy it. Human consciousness, presumably, is still subject to the laws of physics,though to be certain, it is a very complex, nonlinear, process. Hence, when conscious beings perform QM, it is just another example of macro-states interacting with micro-states.

This is really what measurement in QM really is. Take the geiger-muller tube for example. A single collision of a beta particle ionizes a single atom, which creates more beta particles, which ionize more atoms, and so on, creating a cascade effect, which is what we detect. The single electron was fired because we created a macro-state in which an electron was "forced" to be released from an anode. But, there is nothing stopping nature from arbitrarily creating anodes on its own.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
What if instead, everything was everything, and nothing all at the same time, and in so, we too are everything and nothing...therefor we are all the same being...we all are God?

But what does that even mean, though? What do you mean by nothing? How does being everything and nothing imply that we are all God?

Suppose that one subscribes to this hypothesis, whatever it means. How does it actually help us advance our objective understanding of the universe? Will it help us develop better energy sources? Will it help cure disease? Will it allow us to physically leave this planet and explore other parts of the universe?

I confess that years ago, I used to be--ahem--more spiritual, and would encounter platitudes like this all the time from people like Wayne Dyer. The reason I left this mindset was specifically because I noticed how impotent it was for actually effecting change. The only place where it helped was internally, but even then, it didn't solve my problems.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
The single electron was fired because we created a macro-state in which an electron was "forced" to be released from an anode. But, there is nothing stopping nature from arbitrarily creating anodes on its own.

Oops. Sorry. What I meant was that the beta particle comes from a radioactive isotope and is detected because the corresponding cascade produces a current between an anode and cathode. What I meant to say was that nature could, in theory, produce this same setup. There is no good reason I've heard to think that consciousness is vital to have a universe.

Though, it does raise some interesting philosophical questions. Specifically, if there is nothing to actually experience the universe, there is nothing to ascribe a reality to it, which I find troubling from a metaphysical standpoint, but that still doesn't imply that the universe needs consciousness, which is very complex, to be there.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist.

I don't buy it


It is very easy to misread that d'Espagnat quote if it is not considered within the context of the difference between scientific realism and scientific positivism.

For example, by "made up of objects", he means simply "observable objects" which necessarily involves the conditions for observation by a macroscopic being.

By "human consciousness", he means only "the process of conceptualization" which necessarily is mind dependent. Theories are a conceptualization of reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
Nou says
if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period
-And then he says
Of course I'm not saying ideas exist in a metaphysical realm
What, do you think the people here are idiots, that you can act and say anything you want? Read the above - youre a liar.
This is all irelevent to my point.
Of course. Your point is to talk in circles and play word games. You do your hobby a service by displaying its structure and modus operandi here for all to see. TALKING for an AUDIENCE is what philosophy is all about. The plays the thing.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
There is no good reason I've heard to think that consciousness is vital to have a universe.


Yes, none,..... except to acquire knowledge of that universe. d'Espagnat believes in an objective independent reality, as do I.

Human consciousness, presumably, is still subject to the laws of physics


Yes, the mind, being a physical thing, is certainly subject to the laws of physics,.... but thoughts, ideas, and conceptualizations, are certainly not controlled by the laws of physics, since They Can Be Wrong.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
when conscious beings perform QM, it is just another example of macro-states interacting with micro-states.


I'll even go a step further,... a conscious observer, his equipment, and the quantum system being inspected can be considered by an "omnipotent being" as a single complex quantum system.

However, on that basis if there is no difference between Observation and Quantum Interactions, then why the incompatibility between the Schrodinger deterministic evolution and the state reduction to a particular observable value,.... why that value rather than another,... why do repeated measurements (before decoherence occurs with equipment) show only that value again and again? Where did the rest of the wave-function information go? Postulating many-worlds is an act of desperation while d'Espagnat's approach is entirely rational.
nevermark
5 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
Wow, a lot of religious psychobabble going on here.

With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math:

When the information from two quantum states A and B in superposition reach an observer, the observer also becomes part of the superposition with one version seeing A and the other B.

It appears to the A-observer that the A/B wave collapsed to A. It appears to the B-observer that the A/B wave collapsed to B. Both observers witness what appears to be a random choice, but which is actually deterministic.

This demonstrates why a random wave-collapse is perceived but in fact the universe remains deterministic and information is conserved. (If quantum mechanics really did introduce random collapse that would mean information was being created, with no explained source.)
nevermark
5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
And for the psychobabblers:

Trying to "prove" anything using quantum mechanics is a waste of time if you don't actually use the math that defines quantum mechanics.

Phrases like "all possibilities" in QM for instance mean specifically all possibilities allowable by a given set of conditions. It doesn't mean all possibilities you can imagine!

"All possible universes" means all universes that conform to the laws of physics, not "Every damn religious scenario I want to be true".

For some reason, the less people understand QM or math the more confident they are they know what it means and it means what they want!
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Nou says
if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period
-And then he says
Of course I'm not saying ideas exist in a metaphysical realm
What, do you think the people here are idiots, that you can act and say anything you want? Read the above - youre a liar.


I'm referring to "metaphysics" in the pejorative, and only to delimit what is valid scientific knowledge. I never even came close to implying that "ideas" are metaphysical. What is your motivation here. I will however reword the first quote,.... [If an idea refers to an entity that is not observable in principal.....i.e. god, parallel worlds".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
So lets review your list of respected advocates.

Heisenberg - mystic
"...had a spontaneous experience of kevala samadhi"

d'Espagant - religionist
"Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize"

Penrose - mystic
"...has argued forcefully, and... that the human mind possesses physical capabilities that enable it to reach into a realm of reality that lies beyond time and space"

Schrodinger - mystic, religionist
"...outlined his mystical and metaphysical view as derived from Hindu Vedanta philosophy"
Omnes,

Bohr - mystic
"Einstein accused Neils Bohr of introducing a mysticism incompatible with science"

Pauli - mystic
"...favored a hypothesis of "lucid mysticism," a synthesis between rationality and religion"

Bohm - mystic
"...said [he] found mysticism useful in developing [his] scientific ideas,"

Nou - pitiful denier of the obvious
This ignorant article does complete injustice to the core philosophical question
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
Philos are experts at doublethink and self-deception.
I never even came close to implying that "ideas" are metaphysical
You didnt IMPLY it you SAID it..
if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period
-and then an attempt at equivocation
If an idea refers to an entity that is not observable in principal.....i.e. god, parallel worlds"
-Well of course these are 2 different things, and equating them is disingenuous. Hallucinations, ie the malfunction of the brain, the misfiring of neurons, can also in principle be mapped and interpreted. The parallel worlds concepts as described in the article are postulates meant to satisfy certain mathematical discoveries based on empirical evidence.

In the vid I posted, krauss responds to dennett that math is based on empirical evidence of how the universe functions.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math


It was meant to take the math to it's logical conclusion,...to let the math do the interpretation rather than a physicist.. and in so doing proposes that reality IS math. It is psychobabble metaphysics of the highest order to multiple observers, so why even complain about the religious psychobabble above but yet not MWI?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
So lets review your list of respected advocates.

Heisenberg - mystic..... d'Espagant - religionist..... Penrose - mystic..... Schrodinger - mystic, religionist.... Omnes, Bohr - mystic,..... Pauli - mystic.... Bohm - mystic....


The fact that you found need to insult all those preeminent physicists only demonstrates your lack of substantive contextual counter points, and your willingness to engage in Jerry-Springer quality arguments. Not interested.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
the mind, being a physical thing
'Mind' is a useless term. It describes nothing and implies some functionality beyond the physical realm. This is why you philos live the term. We have brains, not minds.
but thoughts, ideas, and conceptualizations, are certainly not controlled by the laws of physics, since They Can Be Wrong
MALFUNCTION is an entirely physical phenomenon. It can be analysed, anticipated, corrected.

More noumian bullshit from past threads circa 2009:
The mind does NOT influence reality. The mind effects our CONCEPTION of it
... in contrast to:

""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist, religious pundit

-You enjoy making up shit as you go along dont you? The wordplay's the thing-
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
Philos are experts at doublethink and self-deception.
I never even came close to implying that "ideas" are metaphysical
You didnt IMPLY it you SAID it..
if an idea is not observable in principle it is metaphysics period


Well, jezz Otto, why are you pretending to be so dense as to think that I meant literally that an "idea" itself could be observable, rather than the obvious,.. "what the idea is to refer to",... if not for the purpose of trolling? How can an "idea" itself be observable, Otto?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
The fact that you found need to insult all those preeminent physicists
-Those are NOT my quotes, but those from physicists and experts. And it is entirely your own opinion that they are insults; pauli for instance probably enjoyed being referred to as a mystic.
Jerry-Springer quality arguments
Jerry springer did not write the 2009 physorg article you commented on, nor the "paper published in the European Journal of Physics... written a short history, based on a longer analysis, of the mysticism controversy in the early quantum physics community"
http://phys.org/n...588.html

-Nor the wiki article on quantum mysticism, nor the books written about it, nor the articles and bios describing Despagnet and his religious underpinnings as the origin of his philosophy and the reason why he won the tempelton, etc etc.

This info has been developed by experts and is freely available on the internet, which is where I found it. I did not find it on a tv talk show.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
the mind, being a physical thing
'Mind' is a useless term. It describes nothing and implies some functionality beyond the physical realm. [...]. We have brains, not minds.

Speak for yourself and it does not imply that.

More noumian bullshit from past threads circa 2009:
The mind does NOT influence reality. The mind effects our CONCEPTION of it
... in contrast to:

""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist, religious pundit

-You enjoy making up shit as you go along dont you? The wordplay's the thing-


There is no contradiction between those statements even despite the deliberate lack of context, despite evidently being incomprehensible to you.

The thing with low-class people,... they don't have discussions, they have confrontations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
How can an "idea" itself be observable, Otto?
I explained that to you. As the function of our brains is entirely physical and finite, in principle it is possible to map the entire mechanism and sequence responsible for generating an 'idea', complete with sensory input, memory reference, and neural functioning.

We can already do this with the function of computers. We know how all this operates in COMPUTERS. And we should soon be able to model it at the level of the human brain.

But whether we ever do or not doesnt mean that 'ideas' arent entirely physical.
The thing with low-class people,... they don't have discussions, they have confrontations
The thing with effete pissants - they like modes of discourse which employ esoteric concepts and words which they can use to imply superiority where none exists. Sorry nou - your shit dont flush here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
shit like this:
There is no contradiction between those statements even despite the deliberate lack of context,
In 2009 nou says:
The mind does NOT influence reality
-but in 2014 he references a statement which says that it does. Youve said it many times havent you? Its your whole 'raison d'entree' isnt it?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
The fact that you found need to insult all those preeminent physicists

-Those are NOT my quotes, but those from physicists and experts. And it is entirely your own opinion that they are insults; pauli for instance probably enjoyed being referred to as a mystic.


That Pauli or Heisenberg or d'Espaganat or Omnes, or Penrose, had other thoughts and ideas, does not logically negate nor undermine their pov in another subject. They're your quotes in the sense that you chose to dump them here completely out of context.

I have no interest in these substantive-less political style arguments.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
shit like this:
There is no contradiction between those statements even despite the deliberate lack of context,
In 2009 nou says:
The mind does NOT influence reality
-but in 2014 he references a statement which says that it does. Youve said it many times havent you? Its your whole 'raison d'entree' isnt it?


The mind does not influence reality, but does influence our Knowledge of reality. That is what was stated by both of us. I have clarified d'Espagnat's for thefurlong above to this effect.

I don't have time to correct your self-inflicted and deliberate misapprehensions,..... doing so is to play wack-a-mole with one who desires disinterested confrontation rather than substantive discussion.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
The AWT is time arrow symmetric
@ZEPHIR/tritace
it is also empirically proven wrong and not a theory as it is debunked with the following experiment and evidence: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
Clinging to it is no different than any religious acolyte proselytizing for their religion, especially as you bring no empirical evidence to the table supporting your philosophy

Living things can obviously survive very well without it, so why do we have it?
@TulsaMikel
i don't think we have the ability to answer this question at this time

i do think that, based upon the advances of science in the past 150 years, that we will eventually have an answer to this, and it will not likely involve invoking any deities nor invisible omnipotent/omniscient beings
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
I don't have time to correct your self-inflicted and deliberate misapprehensions,..... doing so is to play wack-a-mole with one who desires disinterested confrontation rather than substantive discussion
@nou
and avoidance is going to solve what?
so far, i happen to agree with what Otto is saying... and you are trying to use a philo distraction & now avoidance rather than clarity and concise arguments which can be well defined and discussed

isn't one of the principle methods of philosophy to argue the semantics of a point?

You redefine the argument, argue semantics & refuse clarity, & that is essentially what is seen in philo arguments, which is why they are wrong to use in science

Otto made some great points & you are not clarifying nor are you even trying to be concise and specific, from what i am reading

i try not to vote on your philo stuff (when not involved) because of the double talk

i think Otto is correct
he called you out, now clarify yourself
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
How can an "idea" itself be observable, Otto?
I explained that to you. As the function of our brains is entirely physical and finite, in principle ...And we should soon be able to model it at the level of the human brain.

But whether we ever do or not doesnt mean that 'ideas' arent entirely physical.


I asked you that question in sarcasm given your ridiculous claim that I was saying 'ideas themselves are metaphysical' rather than the obviously, 'the entities those ideas refer to...'.

Yes, ideas and mind have a purely physical underlying basis. I have never stated otherwise.

However, even though the notion of god as a given state of a brain can be reproduced given it's physical arrangement and state of synapses and neurons, does not imply that the idea god itself has physical meaning or is observable.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
The mind does not influence reality, but does influence our Knowledge of reality. - N


Whatever we are and whatever labels we create ...do we have a choice?
Have a choice in what?
A part of reality apart from reality?
What part is apart from reality?
The mind?
My only lifeboats in this discussion are consistency and contradiction-free assumptions.
All necessary. Sufficiency will always be lacking.

Back to the article. Several have asked this before: What is predicted?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
With regard to physics, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just the most literal interpretation of the math:

... Both observers witness what appears to be a random choice, but which is actually deterministic.
This at least makes sense.

This demonstrates why a random wave-collapse is perceived but in fact the universe remains deterministic and information is conserved.
Well, actually there are several competing interpretations of QM that don't feature a collapse of the wave function; the MWI is not the only one. I also note that you're talking about conservation of information, which is well-defined classically but not quantum mechanically. QM breaks the 2LOT. See the Fluctuation Theorem, which is not only a mathematical theorem, but has been tested in the laboratory. "Conservation of information" is actually entropy, in this context, and it is not conserved in quantum mechanics.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
(If quantum mechanics really did introduce random collapse that would mean information was being created, with no explained source.)
Virtual particles appear out of nowhere and disappear back into nowhere. This is a proven fact; the Casimir Effect proves it. Are you claiming this process is not random? That's a pretty bold claim; I'd need to see some evidence.

Radioactive nuclei have a half-life; that means that over a period of time, half of them decay. Which half? Are you claiming this is not a random process?

How many alternate universes does this generate? A particular nucleus could pop now, or could wait a billion years, or pop at any time between the two. How many alternative universes is that?

There are problems with this approach.

Nevertheless, good post.
Requiem
5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2014
Wow, new most annoying poster on physorg: Returners. When he first showed up I figured he was just an enthusiastic(and obviously young) poster who would eventually research, learn and stop posting nonsense about everything he thinks is cool, maybe even become a regular contributor of the rare quality comment here.

It seems all the downvotes and being told he's wrong constantly about everything he posts(when people bother) have somehow had the opposite effect and actually emboldened him to sit here spewing even more ignorant and ridiculously simplistic what can really only be called fantasies at this point for many hours per day. The EU/AWT/etc crackpots are actually less annoying now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
their pov in another subject
You cite these people in support of your philosophical ideas. Their pov wrt these ideas, and not their science, comes from religion and mysticism. Kants ideas which you cite, come directly from his religion which has been shown to you.

It is disingenuous of you to use the scientific achievements of these people to justify mystical and religious-derived notions about the way things work. They are easily dismantled. You even threw einstein into the mix despite the extreme objections of his to penroses mystical beliefs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
Wow, new most annoying poster on physorg: Returners. When he first showed up I figured he was just an enthusiastic(and obviously young) poster who would eventually research, learn and stop posting nonsense about everything he thinks is cool, maybe even become a regular contributor of the rare quality comment here.

It seems all the downvotes and being told he's wrong constantly about everything he posts(when people bother) have somehow had the opposite effect and actually emboldened him to sit here spewing even more ignorant and ridiculously simplistic what can really only be called fantasies at this point for many hours per day. The EU/AWT/etc crackpots are actually less annoying now.
Turn him off. He deserves to be ignored and Im sure it infuriates him as he is an incredible egomaniac.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
their pov in another subject
You cite these people in support of your philosophical ideas. Their pov wrt these ideas, and not their science, comes from religion and mysticism. Kants ideas which you cite, come directly from his religion


Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is not about religion. You have been told this. d'Espagnat's book "On Physics and Philosophy" is about quantum mechanics and it's interpretations, and is not about any mystical beliefs. You have been told this. I, Noumenon, do not hold any mystical or religious beliefs nor have any such interest. You have been told this. Epistemology has zero to do with mystical or religious beliefs. You have been told this.

It is offensive for you to slander preeminent physicists using out of context irrelevancies, as a means to undermine quotes that I have used.

i.e. Hugh Everette was a drunk and failed father, unemployable as a physicists. Does this have any baring on whether MWI is true or not?
nevermark
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
[qVirtual particles appear out of nowhere and disappear back into nowhere. [...] Are you claiming this process is not random?

How many alternate universes does this generate?

There are problems with this approach.

Nevertheless, good post.

I don't claim true randomness does not exist, but that is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead of randomness you have an expansion of superposition as particles interact that is indistinguishable to observers (who are engulfed in superposition like any other particles without any special "observer" status) from real randomness. From each observers perspective it is appears as true randomness in every way.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
Yes, the MWI isn't contradicted by any known physics.

Personally I'm of the opinion that all interpretations of QM are equally weird; every one of them has a counter-intuitive component, at least from the viewpoint of monkeys who live in a classical world. It's better just to accept this and try to form a logic that accommodates it rather than trying to eliminate it.

You should check out retrocausality. The TI uses it, for example. It's a clear result of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.
nevermark
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
The whole universe doesn't split with each quantum event, superpositions spread (or in the perspective of the past, join) as particles interact. There is a combinatorially growing number of superpositions along any chain of interactions. The universe is like a mesh of all the configurations of its parts consistent with its laws of conservation.

It is clear that superposition exists, and Occam's razor suggests the need to postulate primal randomness or special observer-related wave collapse are unnecessary since superposition explains why we perceive those. But the idea that at any given moment we are the nexus of all consistent past and future versions of ourselves is daunting for many.

Scientists who don't like that interpretation might view Occam's razor as suggesting that a more complicated universe is unwarranted without special evidence for it beyond consistency with theory and experiment. (Even though it requires fewer interpretive concepts.)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Consistent Histories has no wavefunction collapse, but proposes that all the histories possible for a given interaction contribute to its probability of having a particular outcome. This is consistent with the Feynman "many paths" (AKA "path integral") approach. But these other histories didn't happen; only the one that created the measured situation did. This is the weirdness in CH; things that never happened but "could have" contribute to the outcome. Just as paths that are classically impossible but quantum possible contribute to the path integral.
nevermark
4.5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
Well, actually there are several competing interpretations of QM that don't feature a collapse of the wave function; the MWI is not the only one.


That's interesting, if any of those alternative theories seem credible to you?

I also note that you're talking about conservation of information, which is well-defined classically but not quantum mechanically. QM breaks the 2LOT. See the Fluctuation Theorem, which is not only a mathematical theorem, but has been tested in the laboratory. "Conservation of information" is actually entropy, in this context, and it is not conserved in quantum mechanics.


With many-worlds superposition quantum information is conserved in the classical sense, but not from the perspective of any individual observer.

By the way, I think the "Many Worlds" is a very misleading name for this interpretation. It implies multiple universes instead of one universe interconnecting all consistent configurations of each of its parts.
richardwenzel987
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
I see a lot of discussion re the noumenal vs phenomenal. If we take the distinction seriously, then we must imagine a mapping of the noumenal into the phenomenal world we experience. If the mapping is inconsistent then the phenomenal world would surely reflect that inconsistency. But the phenomenal world is consistent and describable by means of observation and mathematical inference. If one world maps in a non-random way into the other then surely they can't be so very different. And I see no reason why an inverse mapping of the phenomenal into the noumenal should not be possible. In fact, the mapping rules should be discoverable. And then I wonder why one would even bother to make any distinction between things-in-themselves and the things we experience. Just a random thought...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Well, actually there are several competing interpretations of QM that don't feature a collapse of the wave function; the MWI is not the only one.


That's interesting, if any of those alternative theories seem credible to you?
They're not theories, they're interpretations. And all of them agree with QM, so there is no way to differentiate between them. They all seem like viable interpretations to me. Whether they're "correct" seems to me to be a philosophical question rather than a physical one.

You didn't answer my objection that conservation of information is not a law of QM.
russell_russell
not rated yet Nov 01, 2014
[q}Radioactive nuclei have a half-life; that means that over a period of time, half of them decay. Which half? Are you claiming this is not a random process? - DS[/q}
"Remember that the notion of coherence is one of the essential features of the quantum world, where the evolution (of the total system) is always unitary."..."Because quantum dynamics, i.e. the Schrödinger equation, is symmetric in time, we obviously expect the survival probability to go back to unity after a certain elapse of time, which is of the order of Poincare time. However, a purely exponential decay of the amplitude would actually imply an actual ("eternal") loss of probability, that would never be recovered. Rigorously speaking, this is at variance with the underlying unitarity of the temporal evolution. Since ... quantum systems never behave exponentially at very long times, ... to realize the exponential law at long times on the basis of quantum theory, some additional manipulation is necessary."
russell_russell
not rated yet Nov 01, 2014
Temporal Behavior of Quantum Mechanical Systems.
http://arxiv.org/...16v1.pdf
International Journal of Modern Physics B
Link to quotes above.
nevermark
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
That's interesting, if any of those alternative theories seem credible to you?
They're not theories, they're interpretations. And all of them agree with QM, so there is no way to differentiate between them. They all seem like viable interpretations to me. Whether they're "correct" seems to me to be a philosophical question rather than a physical one.


Cool, can you give me names of any that you find credible?

I think interpretations are more than philosophy. Different interpretations make a difference when looking for a theory more general then QM and the Standard Model. For instance, in this article the Many Worlds interpretation suggests we look for interactions.

In the meantime, the more interpretations the better as they each may inspire different kinds of thought experiments, even though the math is the same.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Explain why you think that they are equal in number? Are you going to explain the world again with invisible phenomena such as dark matter and energy?

I DON'T think they are equal. You SAID they were with your previous statement. I wanted to know where you got that info from...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
By the way, I think the "Many Worlds" is a very misleading name for this interpretation. It implies multiple universes instead of one universe interconnecting all consistent configurations of each of its parts.

Dead on.
russell_russell
not rated yet Nov 01, 2014
http://phys.org/n...lly.html

See second sentence...of link
You didn't answer my objection that conservation of information is not a law of QM. - DS


Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2014
[q}Radioactive nuclei have a half-life; that means that over a period of time, half of them decay. Which half? Are you claiming this is not a random process? - DS[/q}[quotes]
What is your point? Maybe I'm just a little opaque this evening... but please indulge me if so.

Cool, can you give me names of any that you find credible?
All of them that don't disagree with QM.

I think interpretations are more than philosophy.
You may have misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say they're philosophy; I said whether one or another is "correct" is a philosophical question. This seems obvious to me since they all agree with experiment.
nevermark
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
You didn't answer my objection that conservation of information is not a law of QM.


This one may be me overshooting the facts, but since the many worlds interpretation removes randomness from the global view no information is created or destroyed. Someone more knowledgable than me could better judge if that implies conservation of information.

I think that conservation of information is likely behind every conservation law, but that's an intuitive conjecture on my part.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Actually, Noether's Theorem says that every conservation law corresponds to a continuous symmetry; for example, the symmetry of results over location (if I do this experiment over here, I get the same results as if I do it over there) is correspondent to the conservation of momentum, and the symmetry of results over time (I get the same results tomorrow as today) is correspondent to the conservation of energy.

Thus the conservation laws are linked to the dimensions. Dimensionality determines most if not all of the physical laws of the universe.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

See second sentence...of link
You didn't answer my objection that conservation of information is not a law of QM. - DS


If you are claiming this is an answer, it's not. They are talking about quantum information, not classical information.

The Fluctuation Theorem makes the difference between them a matter of measurable, explicit reality. Quantum information is not entropy, and is not conserved in the manner entropy is. Its conservation is governed by Bell's Theorem, not the classical entropy of Boltzmann and Maxwell.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 01, 2014
http://en.wikiped...operties

The classical joint entropy is always at least equal to the entropy of each individual system. This is not the case for the joint quantum entropy. If the quantum state ρAB exhibits quantum entanglement, then the entropy of each subsystem may be larger than the joint entropy.
I.e., classical entropy is not a conserved quantity in quantum mechanics.

Gee, wasn't that what I said? Silly me.
nevermark
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2014
Actually, Noether's Theorem says that every conservation law corresponds to a continuous symmetry.


Thanks for the pointer. I will read up on that.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
Be careful that you understand exactly what it says; I made the mistake once of not realizing that it doesn't apply to discrete symmetries like spin. There is no conservation law that corresponds to the symmetry of spin over axes; spin is a discrete, quantized value, and can be only UP or DOWN in x, LEFT or RIGHT in y, or IN or OUT in z. And only on one axis, because the spin on a second axis is conjugate under Heisenberg uncertainty, and since spin is discrete, you either know it or you don't; there isn't any continuous symmetry like there is over position or momentum, or over energy or time.

Also you'll note that position and momentum, and energy and time, are conjugate pairs under Heisenberg uncertainty; this is not accidental. Noether's Theorem is compatible with uncertainty and relativity. There is even an equivalent law for quantum field theory, called the Ward-Takashi identity.

This is a clue to deep physics.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 02, 2014
Worth mentioning that the Ward-Takashi identity is responsible for the conservation of electric charge; it's dual to, and I quote, from Wikipedia "the invariance with respect to a change in the phase factor of the complex field of the charged particle and the associated gauge of the electric potential and vector potential." Which is pretty intimidating, but makes sense if you understand vectors and phases of complex fields.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PeterKinnon
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
As dogbert and others have pointed out, this is pure fantasy.
These pathetic purveyors of pseudoscience have absolutely NO hard evidence to validate their claims.
Furthermore, neither does the proposal even warrant any merit for heuristic acceptance as a hypothesis by virtue of consilience. In other words, by being a likely consequence if the "big picture" provided by the sciences
The proposal even fails in terms of originality, being simply a rehash of Everett's much earlier "many worlds" interpretation of quantum effects.
Nevertheless, as seen in other comments here, there are still those who take such fantasies seriously.
Which does support PT Barnum's far sounder hypothesis that "There is a sucker born every minute"
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
If we take the distinction seriously, then we must imagine a mapping of the noumenal into the phenomenal world we experience. If the mapping is inconsistent then the phenomenal world would surely reflect that inconsistency. But the phenomenal world is consistent and describable by means of observation and mathematical inference. If one world maps in a non-random way into the other then surely they can't be so very different...


Excellent thought Richard!

Why "must"? If your starting premise is indeed to assume a one-to-one correspondence, then it merely follows as a truism that we're waiting for science to make the correspondence complete,... but assuming this at the start is to 'beg the question',... especially when mathematics is deductive and science is inductive.

In any case, it doesn't in fact map in a non-random way, because QM is indeterminate and non-local, yet QM (the basis of QFT) is taken as a self-contained (complete) theory.

Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
In the following quote Wigner correctly does not make the presumption....

"The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious." - E. Wigner

If Kant is correct that a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions of science,..... i.e. that mathematics are a-priori judgements of intuition in synthesizing the thing-as-it-appears,...... then a seemingly mysterious correspondence will necessarily follow, because such a synthesis is not possible without mathematical intuitions. The dog finds it mysterious that a tail is following him.

I will end this line of response with a few more relevant quotes, ⇒
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover." - Bertrand Russell

IOW, We wrap a mathematical structure around very limited and conditioned observations. We apply mathematics, and discover a limited correspondence (not the mathematics itself).

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

IOW, Mathematics is Deductive where no new knowledge is obtained not already implicit in the starting axioms but is certain,... whereas science is Inductive where new knowledge is discoverable but yet is uncertain.

"The simplicities of natural laws arise through the complexities of the languages we use for their expression" - E. Wigner

IOW, We force reality to conform to our a-priori conceptualizations in obtaining knowledge, ....not the other way around.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
They're not theories, they're interpretations. And all of them agree with QM, so there is no way to differentiate between them. They all seem like viable interpretations to me. Whether they're "correct" seems to me to be a philosophical question rather than a physical one.


I think interpretations are more than philosophy. Different interpretations make a difference when looking for a theory more general then QM and the Standard Model. For instance, in this article the Many Worlds interpretation suggests we look for interactions.


Actually you're both exactly correct, imo. Differentiating interpretations ARE philosophical questions. And philosophical questions DO guide hypothesis.

A point of contention here could only arise by an artificial insistence of mutual exclusiveness between science and philosophy.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
By the way, I think the "Many Worlds" is a very misleading name for this interpretation. It implies multiple universes instead of one universe interconnecting all consistent configurations of each of its parts.

Dead on.


If that is not what is implied by that interpretation then what is the point of MWI? By 1957 when it was proposed the math was already existent,... (albeit MWI emphasized the important point of what is now called decoherence). Everrett and people like Tegmark, take it as meaning multiverses literally as far as I can tell. What does it MEAN Physically that observer-A splits into also observer-B given an alternative possibility.

Yes you could say that the "multiverse" are really just one Universe logically, and our language is tripping us up,...however, "multiverse" implies separate disconnected realms of possible experience,... sounds like separate universes by definition?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
,.... ok, yes, "connected" by the mathematics of qm, but separate in terms of observation by the same consistent conscious observer.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
They're not theories, they're interpretations. And all of them agree with QM, so there is no way to differentiate between them. They all seem like viable interpretations to me. Whether they're "correct" seems to me to be a philosophical question rather than a physical one.


While I generally agree, the original Bohr/Heisenberg/Born Copenhagen approach (now amended to include decoherence) was one based on instrumentalism,... an Operational approach (as in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics),... that by definition is supported by experimental facts,... although it presumed that qm was a 'complete theory' ... (no missing variables),... this turned out to be correct.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
'Critique of Pure Reason' is not about religion. You have been told this
It doesn't matter what you tell me, it matters what I see when I look. One glance at the table of contents shows Kants preoccupation with God and soul.

The following is a complete expression of why kant thinks humans can't appreciate his 'ding an sich' -aling.

"The Soul is separated from the experienced world
"The soul is not separate from the world. They exist for us only in relation to each other. Whatever we know about the external world is only a direct, immediate, internal experience. The world appears, in the way that it appears, as a mental phenomenon. We cannot know the world as a thing-in-itself, that is, other than as an appearance within us."

-IOW it is our SOULS which determine what we can experience. Why do you not ever include the soul when you talk about kant? It is apparently central to his philosophy, no matter how one philo or another wishes to interpret it at any given time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
"The simplicities of natural laws arise through the complexities of the languages we use for their expression" - E. Wigner
Wigner - mystic

"Wigner showed much courage in relating the then unresolved questions of the measurement problem to the much deeper problem of consciousness. In view of this very unorthodox proposal it is astonishing that Wigner was very reactionary with respect of the dogmas of orthodox quantum mechanics."

-Funny - most of your pundits appear on the "quantum mysticism" wiki page and elsewhere in reference to mysticism. Are we to conclude that nou himself is a voodoo mystic as the evidence indicates? Mind over matter? Faith over reason?

Apparently your views are regarded by the greater physics community as mystical in nature ie having no basis in reality. This is what you resent isn't it nou?
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
I've shown that even if "conservation of Information" is technically true, it is not functionally true in terms of the universe itself. Once space-time expands to a point where the speed of light can no longer interact between two regions, then "information" about one region is in fact permanently lost to the other region. In fact, this may even be yet another possible cause for the "acceleration" of expansion (believed to be caused by DE), because losing information about GRAVITY from the other regions would result in the appearance of either flattening or expansion...

Two photons move in opposite directions. Over their life time each encounters slightly different gravitational environments, then finally each passes all "matter" that will ever be within their path, having successfully navigated the universe without collision. We assume they were entangled.

If you measure one will you know the path and destination of the other? How it's path was curved differently..?
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2014
Remember, these two photons are some approximately 95 billion light years apart now, but we assume they are entangled. Does measuring one tell you what happened to the other? How heavily curved it's path was? How red or Blue shifted the other ended up being at the end of it's life?

I don't believe so, some of that information does not appear to be stored in the photon itself as "retrievable"...for all you know as the recipient, it could well have come from a completely different direction, because we assume its path has been curved repeatedly over 13.7(or 8) billion years.

Even if the information exists, it may as well not exist, because it can never be retrieved.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gailandallen
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
No "dinosaur-killing asteroid" - it was a flood. The parallel universes might only be earth and Heaven. How about that?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
'Critique of Pure Reason' is not about religion. You have been told this
It doesn't matter what you tell me, it matters what I see when I look. One glance at the table of contents shows Kants preoccupation with God and soul.


Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is notoriously difficult, requiring study, meaning multiple readings (I own two different translations myself),... so it is a Monty-Python'esque level joke to state,... "One glance at the table of contents shows me....".

One glance at the table of contents is only sufficient for guaranteeing misapprehensions or for use as a source of deliberate propaganda designed to blindly discredit rather than understand. You have not read the book, period. You have been told that the point of it is to refute that knowledge of metaphysical entities are even in principal possible.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014


"Kant identifies metaphysics with an effort to acquire knowledge of "objects" conceived, but in no wise given (or giveable) to us in experience.

In its efforts to bring knowledge to completion, that is, reason posits certain ideas, the "soul," the "world" and "God. [......] Although we think the soul, the world, and God (necessarily) as objects, these ideas actually lack objective reality (there is no object that corresponds to each of these ideas that is or could be given to us in any intuition).

It is thus not uncommon to find Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
"The simplicities of natural laws arise through the complexities of the languages we use for their expression" - E. Wigner


Wigner - mystic


The list of preeminent physicists and mathematicians that you attempt to insultingly discredit with out of context irrelevancies continues to grow, while any substantive counter argument still remains vacant.

Are we to conclude that nou himself is a voodoo mystic as the evidence indicates? Mind over matter? Faith over reason?


Even after telling you multiple times I have zero interest in anything "mystical", you persist in your deliberate lies.

your views are regarded by the greater physics community as mystical in nature ie having no basis in reality. This is what you resent isn't it nou?


What views are you talking about?

Your comments are vague and merely designed to give superficial "impressions", and are in the form of accusations, exposing your degenerate intensions.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2014
In AWT even the
@ZEPHIR/tritace
it doesn't matter what AW/DAW says because it is proven false by experimentation and empirical evidence
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

clinging to this tired, false philosophy model is simply a faith... a belief in something even in the face of evidence to the contrary which proves it wrong or unreal

your faith is strong, i will give you that much, but it is not science, no matter how you paint it

you can call it religion, or dogma, or many things (like BS for starters)
BUT...
it is NOT SCIENCE!
something proven false cannot be used to explain the reality around you
if it has been proven NOT REAL, it is NOT REAL and cannot be used to define reality

it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
(caps used because apparently zeph has problems reading and may be illiterate)
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2014
With your attitude every theory or idea could be disproved, no matter what it says.
@ZEPHIR
no, only the ones completely debunked, like aw/daw are dismissed as being fallacious
you don't know and don't care, that the AWT predicts the negative result of M-M experiment for some range of wavelengths of light use
and you have never once provided empirical evidence of this from any reputable source with peer review, either
which makes this conjecture, unproven and fallcious
especially considering all the chances you have had to prove this correct
you're applying the deeply non-scientific if not ignorant attitude
no, i am trying to point out (very rudely now because of your blatant stupidity) that you are promoting a fallacious claim that has no evidence
this is the essence of science

if you cannot prove anything is legitimate about your argument while i can prove your comments fallacious, then the "proof" is that you are a liar and promote pseudoscience
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2014
more fundamental problem of yours is the absence of logical reasoning
@ZEPHIR
you think being logical and dismissing something that is proven fallacious is wrong?
so... answers time:
YOU believe in aw/daw
i proved it to be false ( http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf )
but you think that I am being illogical because i believe in empirical evidence published in a reputable peer reviewed journal over you and your personal conjecture and no empirical evidence at all...

PLEASE explain this!
tell me how
You cannot win such a battle at the opened forum
when open forums require the same thing as here: evidence and logical extrapolations of said evidence

if i can provide the empirical evidence of my statements and you cannot, how would you be the victor in ANY argument or debate unless you yourself are the judge?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
Does it support the dense aether model or does it violate it?
@ZEPHIR
it cannot "support" a model that is proven false with empirical evidence, so your argument is a logical fallacy
you are arguing from delusion again
that would be like me saying: "if Toyota's are cars, and only cars are parked in a garage, how many tomato's will a Toyota eat during thanksgiving if thanksgiving is celebrated two weeks after Yom Kippur?"
Do you really believe, my deductions violate the mainstream science?
your arguments violate science as well as the scientific method if you believe in a completely debunked model that is proven false with empirical evidence

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
Actually the scientists already established a nice business just with proving of various aspects of dense aether model
@ZEPHIR
personal conjecture based upon a delusion and fallacy
you have NO empirical evidence supporting your conclusions
They're doing money with the same things, which you're trying to deny and censor here - if you didn't realize it already.
personal conjecture based upon a delusion and fallacy
you have NO empirical evidence supporting your conclusions

this is the problem you have all over the internet: you give plenty of conjecture and you like to allude to things not evident
then you make assumptions not proven

and you never, ever give empirical evidence of any of it

you simply give a glimpse of one thing and then try to BS talk your way into some explanation that you THINK is logical

no evidence = pseudoscience
daw/aw = pseudoscience
zephir = TROLL
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zera
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2014
God exists.


""Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing." - Douglas Adams (THGttG)
Ha Ha Ha
2.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2014
Science is a liar sometimes.

Aristotle. Thought to be the smartest man on the planet in his time. He believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everybody believed him, because he was so smart.
Until another smartest guy came around, Galileo, and he disproved that theory, making Aristotle and everybody else on Earth look like a bitch.

Galileo also thought comets were an optical illusion, and there was no way that the moon could cause the ocean's tides. Everybody believed that because he was so smart. He was also wrong, making him and everyone else on Earth look like a bitch again.

And then, best of all Sir Isaac Newton gets born, and blows everybody's nips off with his big brains. He also thought he could turn metal into gold, and died eating mercury, making him yet another stupid bitch!

Are you seeing a pattern?

Some say these were all the smartest scientists on the planet in their time. Only problem is, they kept being wrong.

Sometimes.

Ha Ha Ha
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
........Sometimes.....

People are fools because they have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible? Because they just read the words of a bunch of guys that they never met, and take it on faith that everything they wrote was true?

And what makes one think that scientists writings is any more truer than saints?

Because there are volumes of proven data? Numbers? You know, figures? Fossil records?

Have any of you seen these fossil records? Have you pored through the data yourself? The numbers? The figures?

So you get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of of, dare I say it?

Faith?

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Does it support the dense aether model

it cannot "support" a model that is proven false with empirical evidence


Stumpy, for someone who so impetuously insinuates that others don't know how science works and needs to be informed of something so basic,..... it's remarkable that you continue the same logical error;

You presume that science "proves" things. It does not. Worse, you refuse to study zephirs aether model in enough detail to determine in fact whether it is the same aether model of that existent between Maxwell and Michelson/Morley. For example Einstein continued to use the term "aether" wrt GR i.e. "space-time is curved" implying substance, and even in SR wrt accelerations and rotations. Also, Paul Dirac wrote of aether as late as 1951.

The point is not that I, Noumenon, have any use for AWT, but that the way science Actually works is by studying in detail his AWT to determine WHAT experiments it supports or not and WHY it is wrong.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
,.... likewise, during the Stumpy and Otto hour, it is routinely claimed that Philosophy of Physics is useless or invalid, using "evidence" that several preeminent physicists who have written on the subject are "mystics" or "religionists",... again without either of you two having studied the subject for itself. You do not call out Otto for his egregious slander and irrelevant ad hominem's which are obviously anti-science minded, while reflections on and discussions of the implications and interpretations of physics theories that i'm entitled to make ARE relevant and on topic.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
.....more than this Noumenon, the reason their view of science is so skewed is that they're attempting to accomplish the same funny farm science via different roadmaps than AWT & EU proponents. They are attempting to push the concept of an "infinitely expanding universe" in direct opposition to what Einstein describes in his General Relativity, in other words "perpetual motion", the same as what AWT & EU theorists hope to accomplish.

The end goal of AWT, EU, & Stumpy/Otto/Schneib "funny farm science" are demands to end many of the basic concepts of GR simply because this bunch is so diminutively educated in math & science. The 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics contradicts all their funny farm science, so to make up for being ignorant they embark on linguistic diatribes to include arguments about religion which real scientists don't care about, it seems by engaging in such diatribes they feel more like they are invoking the good names of competent scientists.



jscroft
5 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
Gaaaah this is no fun. Let's talk about Anthropogenic Global Warming!

>ducks<

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Of course the CoPR is difficult

"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the CoPR."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
-it was designed to be impossibly difficult.
you attempt to insultingly discredit
Nou has been posting here for years and still has not learned to distinguish the opinions of posters from the opinions of the references they provide. I provide references which say philopap is pap.
likewise, during the Stumpy and Otto hour
Funny - pussytard - remember that freak? -used to lump all her detractors together as a way of disparaging them, and of confronting their objections. You really think that's a valid way of defending your dogma nou?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
the list of preeminent physicists and mathematicians
-who were not doing physics and math when postulating about the religious and mystical implications of their work. And they were routinely called to task for their deviations, as Einstein did with penrose. His quantum microtubule consciousness was lambasted by einstein for instance, because it was NOT science.

And neither is deciding that our faulty consciousnesses prevent us from accessing your 'ding an sich', or that a current, and as yet unsuperceded, theory such as quantum mechanics can define the limits of scientific inquiry for all time.

Only philos and religionists looking for the ultimate explanations for everything, would propose such mystical nonsense.
I have zero interest in anything mystical
Your dogma is a mystical one. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
you refuse to study zephirs aether model in enough detail
@nou
how can i refuse to study something not offered?
& when some IS offered, there is no empirical evidence of existence other than a link to a known pseudoscience web page
this is your fallacy, nou, and why you think philo's are needed for science
it is also why there is failure written all over science in the past (philo influence over empirical evidence)

just because something is published on the internet doesn't mean it holds the same validity as a scientific experiment or empirical evidence from a study

I refuse to learn pseudoscience over real science

when zeph can offer some empirical evidence for something regarding his daw, then it will be more logical
however, i will NOT simply accept his word that something is relevant or empirical regarding daw, it MUST BE PEER REVIEWED, RELEVANT AND PUBLISHED

otherwise i would be just following a faith with no evidence
like cd, or halfven
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
You presume that science "proves" things
@nou
word shortcut, moron
writing "there is empirical evidence showing that aw/daw is false as written based upon the empirical evidence of the following study" is too wordy, and it makes sense to write "proven wrong" short-cutting the whole mouthful

i would have thought a philo moron like yourself would be used to that kind of talk.. after all, you've been using it to downplay your quotes and links that i proved you false with in this thread: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
where you seem to believe philo's are needed to answer the fundamental questions (i thought that way once)
they are not
science is designed to define reality, which means answering the fundamental questions
not with "thought"
or with double talk
or with speculation...
but with empirical evidence like presented against zephir and his daw/aw philosophy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2014
by studying in detail his AWT to determine WHAT experiments it supports or not and WHY it is wrong
@nou
when he can bring empirical evidence to the table published in a reputable journal from a peer reviewed source that impacts the subject, then i will consider it
i am NOT a scientist, i am an investigator
and until he does publish, then he is only a promoter of pseudoscience, like you are
it is routinely claimed that Philosophy of Physics is useless or invalid
I claimed that it is not necessary for science
perhaps you should start re-reading the arguments and posts, or are you too in the "zone of philo" to think logically?
or repeat/link proof?
and don't mistake us, either
without either of you two having studied the subject for itself
conjecture without evidence and logical fallacy
studying it doesn't mean agreeing with you
studied it in college, and i have no use for it myself
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
Science is a liar sometimes.

As opposed to religious dogma, which "is a liar" almost all the time?
People, who were much smarter than I am, made mistakes because they were not omniscient. This shows that they were not smartypants at all, but lying idiot liars who didn't know better than anybody else about anything.

Yes! The only way one can truly be a scientist is to never be incorrect, and to predict effects that could not have been observed using their contemporary level of technology. Yes, that's how it works.
Are you seeing a pattern?

Of science still being self correcting more than a millennium after its inception?
Some say these were all the smartest scientists on the planet in their time. Only problem is, they kept being wrong.

Yep. It doesn't matter that they happened to be more correct than than their contemporaries. All that matters is that they were wrong about things that they didn't have the tools to understand.

NOT. QUITE.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
the reason their view of science is so skewed is that they're attempting to accomplish the same funny farm science
@lenni-tard
pull your head out, idiot
you are being a moron with that statement
I am here to learn REAL science, not pseudoscience like that crap you promote, lenni
when someone posts pseudoscience then it should be noted that it is pseudosciece
just like you, lenni
that is what i ask for and require: not conjecture, like lenni gives
not kohl-slaw word salads, like lenni gives
not conjecture that cannot be proven, like lenni does
Stumpy..."funny farm science" are demands to end many of the basic concepts of GR simply because this bunch is so diminutively educated in math & science
blatant lie
I've never contested GR or SR
you cannot prove this in ANY way, either
reported for lying/posting pseudoscience/trolling/baiting

troll elsewhere, lenni-tard
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
The 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics contradicts all their funny farm science
@lenni-tard-beni
blatant lie
trolling/baiting/logical fallacy
please show where the 1st and 2nd LOT contradicts the following which was what i posted in refute to zephirs aw/daw: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
to make up for being ignorant they embark on linguistic diatribes
Blatant lie
please demonstrate why asking for empirical evidence is a linguistic diatribe
please demonstrate why asking for empirical evidence is wrong in science as well
it seems by engaging in such diatribes they feel
personal conjecture not supported by evidence
please demonstrate where i've not finished any education proving ignorance, etc

your problem is that you have been caught in a blatant lie so many times, that is all you have

troll
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
And what makes one think that scientists writings is any more truer than saints?

Nuclear bombs, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, radios, tv, MRI, the transistors and lasers in your computer, radio galaxies, GPS, vaccines. What is this thing called objective demonstrability, and how does it work?

Because there are volumes of proven data?

Yes.
Numbers? You know, figures?

Or...you know...actual physical demonstrations of said theories.
Fossil records?

pshhht...stuff you can check for yourself? http://fossilwork...=paleodb
So you get your information from a book written by men you've never met.

Whose results are confirmed by objective demonstrations daily? LOL! You sheeple!
...you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe

Ummm..no. Based on Bayesian probability, actually.
Faith?

Or...ummm...actual results. But just ignore those. Because I am a smarty! Yes I am!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
@Noumenon
It is very easy to misread that d'Espagnat quote...

Admittedly, I am not familiar with his writings, so you have me at a disadvantage, there.
For example, by "made up of objects", he means simply "observable objects" which necessarily involves the conditions for observation by a macroscopic being.

The key word here, though, is "macroscopic". Consciousness has nothing to do with it.
By "human consciousness", he means only "the process of conceptualization" which necessarily is mind dependent. Theories are a conceptualization of reality.

I still don't see your point, though. Yes, the universe seems to consist of more than observable objects, to wit, objects that don't alter macroscopic quantities, but I still don't see how consciousness, even as you define it, has anything to do with their existence.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
The point was in the distinction between scientific Positivism and scientific Realism. The Realists propose metaphysical non-sense like many-worlds above and take it literally. One's philosophical outlook guides one in proposing hypothesis,... 'the trouble with physics'.

but I still don't see how consciousness, even as you define it, has anything to do with their existence.


It doesn't, ....that is ...if you have in mind Reality as it exists independent of conceptualization by mind. But that is not science, that is metaphysics. An objective reality certainly does NOT require consciousness (mind) to exist, but then by definition it is unknowable.

He is referring to our Knowledge of objects from observation, ...which obviously is the only scientifically meaningful way of speaking of 'objects'. Our knowledge of 'objects' will always be conditioned upon mind dependent elements, as observation requires mind by definition.

paul_ringo0815
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
It actually makes very good sense. Even from a Biblical standpoint, energy and spirit are describing the same 'event' or spiritual 'thing'. When the Bible says that God was IN Christ, reconciling the world (exchanging) to Himself, it is talking about this very concept. When it talks about being 'hid in God', it could very well be describing this phenomena. In addition, it could explain how other spirits could 'inhabit' physical bodies creating all kinds of havoc.
Noumenon
not rated yet Nov 03, 2014
edit

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
the reason their view of science is so skewed is that they're attempting to accomplish the same funny farm science


I am here to learn REAL science, not pseudoscience like that crap you promote


Like Einstein's GR which I believe implicitly & you don't......

when someone posts pseudoscience then it should be noted that it is pseudosciece
just like you


Like excerpts from Einstein's GR which always draws a one star vote from you?

that is what i ask for and require: not conjecture, like lenni gives
not kohl-slaw word salads


not conjecture that cannot be proven, like lenni does

Like your consistent one star votes when I post quotes from Einstein's GR?

I've never contested GR or SR

Because you don't have the math & science background to do it, so you just cast your one stars when I post quotes from the GR & hope no one's the wiser.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

@El Stumpo-above is a quote directly from Einstein's GR. Anything you read there that you disagree with?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Einstein's GR which I believe implicitly & you don't
@lennitard
and you have proof of this?
NOPE
excerpts from Einstein's GR which always draws a one star vote from you
no, they haven't
i vote you down- not Einstein
and which post are you specifically referring to... and can you prove i downvoted you? NOPE because if i remember correctly, you DID quote Einstein and i just didn't vote at all (like above- i simply ignored you because you were not making a point relevant to the physics or the article)

i WILL down vote you, specifically, because you have repeatedly lied in the past, which makes anything you say now suspect

I respect Einstein and his work... you? not at all
you don't have the math & science background to do it
personal conjecture without evidence
blatant lie and troll/bait post
i've proven myself in the past
you have YET to prove yourself at all

reported

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Einstein's GR which I believe implicitly & you don't

and you have proof of this?
NOPE
excerpts from Einstein's GR which always draws a one star vote from you
no, they haven't
i vote you down- not Einstein

Well then, head right back up & 5 Star my quote from his GR

I respect Einstein and his work... you? not at all

I just quoted him above. Where's your 5 Star?

i've proven myself in the past

Yeah.....as the King of Copy & Paste extolling perpetual motion along with Schneib/Ghosty, and the rest of the AWT crowd.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
One's philosophical outlook guides one in proposing hypothesis
Again youre confusing a persons general outlook on life with the formal academic philosophy of all your heroes - kant et al. One has nothing to do with the other.

The great bulk of scientists have no idea what the difference is between 'scientific Positivism' and 'scientific Realism'. And they DONT CARE.

More shameless efforts to interject yourselves where you dont belong.
if you have in mind Reality as it exists independent of conceptualization by mind. But that is not science, that is metaphysics. An objective reality certainly does NOT require consciousness (mind) to exist, but then
Translation = pure rubbish.
by definition it is unknowable
Correction; by the definition of mystical kantian philos who think that only those with sufficient intelligence can collapse the waveform. With their minds.

To scientists NOTHING is potentially unknowable. But they wont know for sure until they look.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
I am not familiar with his writings
Allow me...

"[d'Espagnat] member of the Brussels International Academy of the Philosophy of Science since 1975, and of the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences since 1996. His experiments with Bell's inequalities to further his concept of veiled reality won the attention of the John Templeton Foundation. D'Espagnat became the 2009 Templeton Prize winner in March for his "work which acknowledges that science cannot fully explain 'the nature of being.'"

Tempelton Prize
"... annual $1.5 million Templeton Prize to a 'living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual [read - mystical] dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works'... recipients of the prize have included Mother Teresa, Taizé Prior Roger Schutz, Evangelist Billy Graham, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Baba Amte. In recent years the prize has been awarded to a number of religiously minded scientists."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
"But what d'Espagnat was really interested in was what all of this meant for discerning the true nature of ultimate reality... contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments."

"So what is it, really, that is veiled? At times d'Espagnat calls it a Being or Independent Reality or even "a great, hypercosmic God". It is a holistic, non-material realm that lies outside of space and time, but upon which we impose the categories of space and time and localisation via the mysterious Kantian categories of our minds."

-This is the sort of stuff that can earn you $1.5M. Deepak Chopra is worth more than that I would guess. So is John Tempelton, evangelical xian. WAY more.

-Heres a nice list of similar mystics whom nou seems to enjoy referencing.
http://www.endles...tics.htm
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2014
Ghosty,

Your attempts here at becoming incarnate are not going over very well. Remain a ghosty wandering entity looking for a place to live out your retirement days in peace.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
bye bye benny with an i
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2014
bye bye benny with an i

Your're leaving, right? That leaves more real estate in the Commentary section for those who desire to have serious discussions about science & math, not your indecipherable twattle about your retirement career on PhysOrg.
tritace
Nov 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet, physicist.


Admittedly, I am not familiar with his writings


The quote can be found Here, in it's original context. Some very good books on the conceptual foundations and interpretations of QM and explanation of d'Espagnat "Veiled Reality" concept, are Here, and Here.

There is no mention of god, mystics, or religion in any of these sources. They are purely about QM. I, Noumenon, am an atheist.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
"Bohr probably was right in that the real objective of physics is not to describe reality as it really is but to describe how we apprehend it. This then led me to part with Einstein who at the time was really an ontological realist....I think that our scientific knowledge finally bears, not on reality-in-itself – alias 'the Real', alias 'the ground of everything' – but just on empirical reality, that is, on the picture that, in virtue of its structure and finite intellectual capacities, the human mind is induced to form of reality-in-itself." - d'Espagnat

Abraham Pais, nuclear physicist and biographer of Einstein, regarded N. Bohr the 'natural successor to I. Kant'. Kant's epistemology is what Bohr and d'Espagnat 'rediscovered' in physics.

That Kant and d'Espagnat have also written on spiritual subjects and even made reference to their respective works on epistemology and philosophy of physics in that context, has no baring on the importance of their core work.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
Otto, has not read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, nor any of d'Espagnat's books on QM, but yet claims to be qualified enough to discredit them anyway,.... as well as Heisenberg, Penrose, Omnes, Bohr, Pauli, Bohm, Wigner. Otto is therefore as unscientific minded as Jerry Springer, but not less so.

In fact what is ironic, considering Otto's uninformed accusation style smear tactics, is that despite Kant's and d'Espagnat's speculative use of their respective views to .....'protect religion from disproof by science',.... the implications FOR science is to effectively discredit scientific statements about non-observable objects, making science more rigorous.

IOW, to promote in science, Instrumentalism (i.e. logical positivism, operationalism) as opposed to Realism which tends toward the metaphysical as it claims to know of entities not observable.
mooster75
3 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2014


E.g., I can make up the idea of a purple-green color (well, Pratchett already did that). Does that mean that there exists a possibility for a purple green color? No.

Are you sure? I remember a pair of elephant bells I had in the seventies...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2014
quote can be found here
-So explain for the studio audience just how you go about separating despagnats veiled reality from his descriptions of it, zB hypergod which lies outside of space and time? How are you able to trim off these mystical aspects, which are apparently central to his dogma, and end up with something which might remotely be considered scientific?

The tempelton committee were quite happy to leave it wholly intact.
has not read the CoPR nor despagnat
I read parts of the COPR and found it to be unreadable. I found that God and the soul were integral to Kants spiel. And then I found plenty of critics like the one I posted above who agree that it's rubbish, having thoroughly studied it.

This is a far better and more honest approach than pretending to understand it and insisting that there is some worthwhile substance to it, which there is not.

Re despagnat, hypergods and asstral planes have no place in science despite what john tempelton would prefer.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
The quote can be found Here, in it's original context.

-So explain for the studio audience just how you go about separating despagnats veiled reality from his descriptions of it, zB hypergod which lies outside of space and time?


I already did this above. You will never learn nor admit you are wrong.

B. d'Espagnat is a theoretical physicists. The three works I listed above are purely about physics. His core motive as a theoretical physicists is to understand physical theories. Any subsequent metaphysical speculation on his part is irrelevant to interest in physics.

I have also explained to you the same wrt I. Kant,.... that any subsequent speculation from his core epistemology, is irrelevant to my interest of it in physics.

I don't agree with everything that any one person has ever said.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Otto, has not read Kant's CoPR, nor any of d'Espagnat's books on QM, but yet claims to be qualified enough to discredit them anyway,


I read parts of the COPR and found it to be unreadable..... pretending to understand it and insisting that there is some worthwhile substance to it


Just because you find a work unreadable, does not logically mean that it is incomprehensible in an absolute sense, nor that everyone else is "pretending to understand it". My dog finds my GR text unreadable to.

Are you vying to become the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
I found that God and the soul were integral to Kants spiel.


This is a lie because you did not read the text. It is a lie because you have been told that the CoPR is a work on epistemology, not theology. You have been told the following multiple times,...

"It is thus not uncommon to find Kant referring to these alleged metaphysical entities [god, soul, ] as "mere thought entities," "fictions of the brain," or "pseudo objects."

despagnat, hypergods and asstral planes have no place in science despite what john tempelton would prefer.


The Templeton prize is not a physics award.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
Well then, head right back up & 5 Star my quote from his GR...
I just quoted him above. Where's your 5 Star?
@lennitard
TROLL POST
baiting/flaming/blatant fallacy

are you stupid or illiterate?
did you not READ what i wrote? let me quote it for you again!
if i remember correctly, you DID quote Einstein and i just didn't vote at all (like above- i simply ignored you because you were not making a point relevant to the physics or the article)
you keep waiting, lenni
i suggest holding your breath till i upvote you
(and when you make a relevant point that i see, it will happen)
i have upvoted Zephir, RC and others in the past that are usually morons like you and i normally downvote
i've even upvoted Uba, so deal with it, whiner

and LEARN TO QUOTE properly
your post doesn't make much sense unless you back up and re-read everything which is time consuming and not necessary if you learn how to quote properly
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
And then I found plenty of critics like the one I posted above who [inform me what to think] that it's rubbish, having thoroughly studied it [because i'm ill prepared to understand it myself]...... This is a far better and more honest approach.


LOL, being told what to think by someone else rather than studying the work for yourself and thinking on your own behalf,.... and then "proclaiming" in an Absolute sense that it is gibberish,... is a "more honest approach" ? ....than actually studying it without self-inflicted aversion to it at the start,.. ???!

You are everything but honest.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014


Kant's CoPR is widely regarded as "one of the most influential works in all of the history of philosophy".

So, obviously, I too can find sources who think it is valid and important, ...just as I listed preeminent physicists who write on philosophy of physics, while you attempt to claim that all of philosophy is invalid in an absolutist sense.

Are you sources omnipotent? Not everyone even agrees on what qm is saying about reality, which is why there are a plethora of interpretations. I don't even agree on everything Kant has ever said.

So, what then is the point of trading baseball cards?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014


@Otto,

You're so anti-religion that it's actually become religious for you,...... their/your modus operandi is precisely the same; ....Absolutist statements irrespective of careful disinterested analysis of facts,.... blind reliance upon Authority..... and thought police'esque spear tactics in replace of substantive counter argument.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Kant's CoPR is widely regarded as "one of the most influential works in all of the history of philosophy"
-within the philo community that is. Where else?
LOL, being told what to think by someone else rather than studying the work for yourself and thinking on your own behalf
-Which is what YOU do when you ref all your mystical heroes who reinforce your mystical beliefs in a netherworld which you (and kant and despagnat and pauli et al) insist exists despite absolutely no evidence for it. This is mysticism. Pauli admits it. Whats your problem?

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence
is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict
with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment " despagnat

-Human brains are not needed for the universe to exist or to function. The notion that they are is a mystical one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
I found that God and the soul were integral to Kants spiel.
This is a lie because you did not read the text
Well again lets look at the table of contents. The first word we find:

tran·scen·den·tal adj.
1. Philosophy
a. Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience.
b. Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience.
3. Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural.

-And from the wiki page on the CoPR:

"Transcendental Aesthetic he argues that space and time are pure forms of intuition inherent in our faculty of sense."

"The Transcendental Analytic sets forth the appropriate uses of a priori concepts, called the categories [which have been declared nonsense] and other principles of the understanding, as conditions of the possibility of a SCIENCE of METAPHYSICS."

-This all sounds very mystical and supernatural to me.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
@Otto,

You continue to misread that, which is not surprising given aversion to the subject.

being told what to think by someone else rather than studying the work for yourself and thinking on your own behalf


-Which is what YOU do when you ref all your mystical heroes who reinforce your mystical beliefs in a netherworld which you (and kant and despagnat and pauli et al) insist exists despite absolutely no evidence for it.


I write in my own worlds, and only provide links embedded in what I write, and only to refute people like you who naively believe it is not relevant to science. I have read all sources that I have linked.

You have been told that mention of 'Noumenon', or 'Veiled Reality', or 'objective reality', are not statements ABOUT them but rather a means of delimiting what is valid knowledge. IOW they are stated in the pejorative sense,... and it is stated that knowledge of such metaphysics is not possible, thus agreeing with you to that extent.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
This all sounds very mystical and supernatural to me.


It does to my dog as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Just because you find a work unreadable, does not logically mean that it is incomprehensible in an absolute sense... My dog finds my GR text unreadable to
Well, me and the many learned critics I have cited regard it as unreadable. Many people read palms and tea leaves as well, and by the same sort of mechanism derive meaning as you do from kants babble.

Perhaps your dog is more able to recognize the smell of shit? Intuitively I suppose?
The Templeton prize is not a physics award
??? "The Prize has been awarded to scientists, philosophers, theologians, members of the clergy, philanthropists, writers, and reformers, for work that has ranged from the creation of new religious orders and social-spiritual movements to human sciences scholarship, to research about the fundamental questions of existence, purpose and the origins of the universe."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
I write in my own worlds
Well thats obvious.
IOW they are stated in the pejorative sense
-Are you saying that despagnats conjecture on his veiled reality are all pejorative?
I don't even agree on everything Kant has ever said
IOW you keep what is compatible with your dogma, and disregard what isnt. We already knew this.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Just because you find a work unreadable, does not logically mean that it is incomprehensible in an absolute


Well, me and the many learned critics I have cited regard it as unreadable.

Then by definition, they are not qualified critiques. There are many who understood it and yet write countering opinion on specific points,... see Schopenhauer for example.

The Templeton prize is not a physics award,.... not one handed out by the physics community.

[EDIT] "I write in my own [words], and only provide links embedded in what I write"
Estevan57
4 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2014
This all sounds very mystical and supernatural to me.


It does to my dog as well.


Ha ha haha ha ha ha. A literal LOL.
Thanks, Noum. Have a good day.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
This all sounds very mystical and supernatural to me.


It does to my dog as well.


Ha ha haha ha ha ha. A literal LOL.
Thanks, Noum. Have a good day.
Buh bye little stain
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Then by definition, they are not qualified critiques
OF COURSE they are, by definition. Theyre philos who know more about the Wizard than you.

"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible"

-Source - Ayn Rand edited and published a series of monthly periodicals. The first of these was The Objectivist Newsletter

"if reality is unknowable, then so is a man's self. A man is able, Kant concludes, to know only his phenomenal ego, his self as it appears to him (in introspection); he cannot know his noumenal ego, his "ego as it is in itself." Leonard Peikoff, professor of philosophy, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
More?

"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion (including the essence of religious morality) from the onslaughts of science. His system represents a massive effort to raise the principles of Platonism, in a somewhat altered form, once again to a position of commanding authority over Western culture." Ayn Rand

"The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics of modern philosophy, is the notion that only an ineffable consciousness can acquire a valid knowledge of reality, that "true" knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition... The entire apparatus of Kant's system, like a hippopotamus engaged in belly-dancing, goes through its gyrations while resting on a single point: that man's knowledge is not valid because his consciousness possesses identity. . . ." Ayn Rand

"Kant is the most evil man in mankind's history." Ayn Rand
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2014
I Iike Ayn Rand's political philosophy and read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. However, to comment on her opinion of Kant would require in depth study not clips from here and there without context,... and at present I do not have time.

"The only legitimate, "scientific" metaphysics that the future may hold, Kant therefore held, would be a thoroughly critical, non-speculative examination of the bounds of pure reason, a careful description of what we can know accompanied by a clear recognition that our transcendental concepts (however useful they may seem) are entirely unreliable as guides to the nature of reality."

I don't follow Kant 'all the way' because now we know as a matter of empirical discovery spacetime is not euclidean, and in QM whilst our intuitions break down and fail, we are still able to make predictions, ...but the theory is not intuitively comprehendible, and does not provide an understanding of reality independent of the observer.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2014
I've never claimed that everyone agrees with Kant. I don't even agree with everything he has ever said.

So, quoting others who have never read my posts is never going to be effective in debating me,.... I could quote someone who says Rand is a wack-job, then would this cancel out her opinion of Kant? If not then it likewise does not cancel out mine of Kant.

You purport to disagree with me and my use of particular points of his epistemology, so you must put forward a counter argument to a specific one that I have made. I have reason to believe that Rand knew little of science much less QM/GR.
TulsaMikel
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2014
Some of you remind me how much I really don't know or can't yet visualize. Some I feel sorry for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
The Templeton prize is not a physics award,.... not one handed out by the physics community.
Well of course not. one, the community is not in the habit of awarding non-physics speculations about the nature of time and space, "what [despagnat] calls "veiled reality," a hidden yet ultimate reality beyond time, space, matter, and energy... the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out by cogent scientific arguments. Although d'Espagnat concedes the theological implications of the term "veiled reality"

"In his nomination of d'Espagnat for the Templeton Prize, Nidhal Guessoum, Chair of Physics at American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, wrote, "He has constructed a coherent body of work which shows why it is credible that the human mind is capable of perceiving deeper realities..."
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
-And two, despagnat was not doing science when speculating about the mystical nature of his 'veiled reality' or hypergod, which is what he received the award for.

"the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics"

-Here is despagnat expressly referring to himself as a mystic.

"Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated," he said. "On the contrary it is one of the constitutive elements of being."

"Templeton Prize each year honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension"

-And YOU are similarly not doing science when speculating about such things.

An obvious point - kant NEVER did science. He never experimented, nor did he gather and analyse data. He SAT and THOUGHT.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2014
Actually, Kant was very interested in science,... the "island universe" hypothesis is from him. Of course, epistemology is about the validity knowledge, so it is relevent to all attempts at acquiring knowledge.

-And two, despagnat was not doing science when speculating about the mystical nature of his 'veiled reality' or hypergod, which is what he received the award for.


Thank you for at least acknowledging that fact.

He WAS writing about purely science in the three sources I listed, ..... and that is all I have made reference to,... not any of his tangential speculations. Do indeed why bring them up here?

The 'veiled reality' is a purely physical hypothesis fom an analysis of QM,.... nothing mystical. You are invited to read 'On physics and Philosophy' to see this for yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
Actually, Kant was very interested in science,... the "island universe" hypothesis is from him. Of course, epistemology is about the validity knowledge, so it is relevent to all attempts at acquiring knowledge
-including divining and channeling the dead. Only science has the tools to examine the natural world. And the natural world is all there is.
He WAS writing about purely science in the three sources I listed, ..... and that is all I have made reference to,... not any of his tangential speculations
-But his tangential speculations are central to your own veiled metaphysical non-reality thing.
The 'veiled reality' is a purely physical hypothesis
NO its NOT.

"contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality"

-This is MYSTICISM. You cant claim that it is based on physics. Wel you can, and you will, but you are only deceiving yourself.
rosey1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
In theory, it should be "possible" to communicate with the other universes, worlds or dimensions, if a "connection" is made to them each time a quantum measurement is taken.

Take the double-slit experiment: It is possible to modulate an electron stream to carry information. That information would be transmitted through the slits and a "measurement" can be taken after the electron stream passes through the slits.

In theory, we could "request" a reply from another dimension. They could constantly run a stream of electrons through the slits for months on end, modulated with their own "return" message. We could do the same.

At some point, we might be able to configure a device that could receive the modulations and demodulate them into a known language pattern. Theoretically, we should be able to contact our own doppelgangers in other dimensions and communicate with them.

That would be the greatest and most remarkable achievement in modern physics.

sanjosemike
rosey1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
In theory, it should be "possible" to communicate with the other universes, worlds or dimensions, if a "connection" is made to them each time a quantum measurement is taken.

Take the double-slit experiment: It is possible to modulate an electron stream to carry information. That information would be transmitted through the slits and a "measurement" can be taken after the electron stream passes through the slits.

In theory, we could "request" a reply from another dimension. They could constantly run a stream of electrons through the slits for months on end, modulated with their own "return" message. We could do the same.

At some point, we might be able to configure a device that could receive the modulations and demodulate them into a known language pattern. Theoretically, we should be able to contact our own doppelgangers in other dimensions and communicate with them.

That would be the greatest and most remarkable achievement in modern physics.

sanjosemike
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
"island universe" hypothesis is from him
MORE rubbish.

"In 1750 the English astronomer Thomas Wright, in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the galaxy might be a rotating body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale... The first attempt to describe the shape of the Milky Way and the position of the Sun in it was carried out by William Herschel in 1785"

-Kant discovered the milky way like Ford invented cars. More shameless effort by your bard guild at legend-building.

Kants raison d'etre from 'An Essay on the Constitution and the Mechanical Origin of the Entire Structure of the Universe';

"Many people have become atheists through the apparent truth of such reasons which, with a more scrupulous consideration, could have convinced them as forcibly as possible of the certain existence of the Highest Being."
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
"The material which is the primordial stuff for all things is thus bound to certain laws. Freely left subject to these laws, it must necessarily bring forth beautiful combinations. It has no freedom to deviate from this plan of perfection. Since it also finds itself subject to the loftiest wise purpose, it must of necessity be set in such harmonious relationships through a First Cause which rules over it. There is a God for just this reason, that nature, even in a chaotic state, can develop only in an orderly and rule-governed manner."

"others who since then have, with more approval, attempted the same thing through the primordial properties of matter, with which it was created, is far from being worthy of punishment or demeaning to God, as many have imagined, since in this way a higher idea of His infinite wisdom is far more likely to be brought about."

-These are some of the naughty bits you skipped over, yes?
One Wild Kiwi
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2014

Presumably, the experiment I mentioned could be used to code a message to yourself in the past.


Gregory Benford did it in "Timescape" 1980. I think he cheated by using tachyons.
rosey1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2014
In theory it should be possible to modulate an electron beam through a double slit experiment and take a measurement, which would be (by definition) a quantum measurement. The electron beam should be encoded with a message asking for a reply...from anyone who takes a quantum measurement at the exact time as the quantum measurement you took.

It should be possible to create some kind of encoding mechanism to receive a message. It might be difficult, since the reply is basically coming from another dimension or Universe. But the two might intersect as a totality of the modulated electron beam YOU send...which would appear along with theirs.

The idea would be to maintain a constant measurement by leaving the experiment running for several years, which is trivial. You would then try to modulate the message YOU are sending to see if another is super-imposed over it.

You would also ask your "doppelganger" to constantly run their experiment too.

sanjosemike
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2014
The 'veiled reality' is a purely physical hypothesis

NO its NOT.
"contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality"

-This is MYSTICISM. You cant claim that it is based on physics. Wel you can, and you will, but you are only deceiving yourself.


You have already been told that the three sources I have listed above are about physics only. That he elaborated further with spiritual speculations in another context has no baring on his work in physics, which has a long distinguished career. I have not made reference to anything non-scientific in relation to d'Espagnat.

Newton wrote more on theology than science,..... he has no baring on his scientific work.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2014
"In a treatise in 1755, Immanuel Kant elaborated on Wright's idea about the structure of the Milky Way.....[.....].... Immanuel Kant used the term "island Universe" to describe these distant nebulae..... In 1845, Lord Rosse .... managed to make out individual point sources in some of these nebulae, lending credence to Kant's earlier conjecture...."

This was from your source,..... dishonest.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2014
I have not made reference to anything non-scientific in relation to d'Espagnat
Of course you have. This:
If Kant is correct that a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions of science,.. i.e. that mathematics are a-priori judgements of intuition in synthesizing the thing-as-it-appears,.. then a seemingly mysterious correspondence will necessarily follow, because such a synthesis is not possible without mathematical intuitions
-is mysticism. Wigner and despagnat BOTH discuss such mysticism separately as you admit, but you are STILL confusing it with science. You USE their science to justify YOUR mysticism, which they themselves did as well.
This was from your source,.. dishonest
Kant was obviously guessing as he didnt have Rosse's data did he? And the nature of galaxies was discovered years earlier.

Lucky guesses are not science and using them to enhance the rep of the guesser is indeed DISHONEST.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2014
"Immanuel Kant used the term "island Universe" to describe these distant nebula"

-In his original paper on the subject
http://web.calsta...eory.htm

-The term doesnt occur. I assume it was assigned to him by one of his admirers. More dishonesty.

But in the last paragraph he does acknowledge his primary inspiration,,,

"The theory which we have proposed opens up for us a view of the infinite field of creation and offers an idea of the work of God appropriate to the infinite nature of the Great Master Builder."

-you know, the One who designed our faulty consciousnesses so we could not know the full extent of his wonderous works? Perhaps this is only the result of Original Sin. Which means of course that its our fault.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2014
"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion (including the essence of religious morality) from the onslaughts of science. His system represents a massive effort to raise the principles of Platonism, in a somewhat altered form, once again to a position of commanding authority over Western culture." Ayn Rand

-Platonism - you know, as in shadows on a cave wall? What rubbish. Plato showed religionists how to maintain the illusion of god in the age of enlightenment. They only had to call themselves philosophers.

You guys are the true shadow puppets.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2014
"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion (including the essence of religious morality) from the onslaughts of science. His system represents a massive effort to raise the principles of Platonism, in a somewhat altered form, once again to a position of commanding authority over Western culture." Ayn Rand


Actually, it was not a motive goal in writing the CoPR, at all. The CoPR is FAR more important than just such a pointless end. It is a analysis of reason and knowledge.

In fact, 'saving religion from science',... equally means concluding that religion is not amendable to the scientific method and thus is not knowledge. IOW, an atheist, like myself (or yourself, if you were blinded with anti-Xisms), could read the CoPR with the goal of substantiating my position.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2014
I have not made reference to anything non-scientific in relation to d'Espagnat

Of course you have. This:

If Kant is correct that a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience and so the conditions of science,.. i.e. that mathematics are a-priori judgments of intuition in synthesizing the thing-as-it-appears,.. then a seemingly mysterious correspondence will necessarily follow, because such a synthesis is not possible without mathematical intuitions


You misread it as usual. Wigner said [usefulness of math to science] was mysterious, I disagreed, by saying "seemingly", and giving a reason that it is not. Each time you claim that I believe in some "mysticism" is just more proof that you have not understood me in five years.

[EDIT] "or yourself, if you were [not] blinded with anti-Xisms)"
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
just such a pointless end
-Beginning, middle, and end.

"But Kant's project was even more ambitious than that, as he was to make clear in the revised edition of the Critique six years later. There, in addition to more explicitly describing his strategy for explaining the certainty of the first principles of human knowledge as one of supposing that 'objects must conform to our knowledge' rather than vice versa (B xvi), Kant described his whole project in broader terms: 'I therefore had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith' (B xxx)."

-His primary motives are obvious- to sell religion in a different form by insisting that the full extent of gods creation could not ever be grasped by flawed creatures like us. Science of course does not accept such arbitrary limits.
read the CoPR with the goal of substantiating my opinions
-You have learned to substantiate your opinions by ignoring the parts which do not support it. Why would I want to do that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
copr is far more important ... analysis of reason and kmowledge
ONLY to select philos who are the only ones who continue to insist that it is. To most everyone else it has proven to be useless gibberish.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
copr is far more important ... analysis of reason and kmowledge
ONLY to select philos who are the only ones who continue to insist that it is. To most everyone else it has proven to be useless gibberish.


Sure there are simply many more who have not read it or did but could not understand it given lack of preparation or a self-inflicted aversion preventing a desire to understand it,.... than those who have.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
"Must men then resign themselves to a total skepticism? No, says Kant, there is one means of piercing the barrier between man and existence. Since reason, logic, and science are denied access to reality, the door is now open for men to approach reality by a different, nonrational method. The door is now open to faith. Taking their cue from their needs, men can properly believe (for instance, in God and in an afterlife), even though they cannot prove the truth of their belief. . . . "I have," writes Kant, "therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith." Leonard Peikoff
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
Kant - Religious propagandist, mystic... marxist.

"In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.

"Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.

"The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes."

-Perhaps you have some objective reading to do for a change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
But do keep in mind, the effort may prove futile.

"... to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason."

-And as dan dennett says,

"My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."

-But if you dont find meaning I am sure you will just make some up, as usual.
also65
not rated yet Nov 09, 2014
Think about two intersecting fields that vary (expanding and contracting) periodically. Their mutual interaction comes from their periodical variation: curvaturasvariantes.com/2014/10/09/animacion-de-modelo-atomico/
senselocke
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
Is there a universe where other universes don't exist? That's a problem.

Is there a universe where I am my own grandpa?

What about a universe where G is a random number for each particle pair, instead of being a constant?

If all possibilities exist, then there would have to be a universe where an omnipotent God exists, and by definition an omnipotent being rules all universes...

God exists.

What is "altered" is quantum events, real things that might have happened didn't, or real possibilities that didn't happen did.

The question of god, the existence of other universes, Mickey's virgin birth... these are thought experience and philosophical musings, not events. Not intrinsic to a universe. "A universe where event X results in Y" does not result in a God or not, does not create/destroy other universes, does not alter rules of science for particular particles.

"All possibilities" is only what's /possible/, not what's imaginable.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2014
It means when I die, I will go to Heck.

I now understand your ignorance.
SSSIXXX
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2014
YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT, IT'S TOO LATE. YOUR SPECIES SHOULD HAVE HEARKNENED.

REGARDS,
SSSIXXX l..l,
SSSIXXX
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2014
They are right. But, it's too late. Your species should have hearkened to what intelligent conscious being from other worlds was saying to you.

Regards,
SSSIXXX l..l,
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2014
aLL yOur PhYSic aRe belONG tO Us.
godsatheist
not rated yet Dec 05, 2014
Imaginary things will not become real in one of the interacting worlds. Only one of the many possibilities of something that is real here will be possible there. Santa, the Tooth Fairy and God will not appear.
Mimath224
not rated yet Dec 05, 2014
Mmmm, wonder if in another reality this thread would have closed before this time?
24volts
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2014
You guys are funny. On one hand a bunch of you say there is no way there could be a God that created the universe but on the other hand you also say dark matter, dark energy and the big bang are all real but you can't prove any of those actually exist any more than you can prove God doesn't exist but you BELIEVE they do. All I see is that all you so called hard core scientists simply have a different version of religion than people that claim religion based on God does. Ya know something. I can't think of a single thing in the Bible anywhere that says we can't learn all the science available/possible and then create out own universe once we learn how.... and you know what's funny.... any people you create along with your new universe is probably going to call you God. Strange how that works out isn't it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.