Member 2292
35 entries
129808 views

 RSS
Contributor to project:
What happened to nature?
Olena {The Wizard} Shmahalo (28)
New York
Immortal since Aug 5, 2009
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3

The Operating System
Tumblr
Cargo
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Olena’s favorites
    From dragon
    Smoking is cool
    From notthisbody
    The Beginning of Infinity
    From notthisbody
    You are a Receiver
    From Claire L. Evans
    Livin' In A Mycelial World
    From Claire L. Evans
    NA/SA: New Art/Science...
    Recently commented on
    From Claire L. Evans
    Book Review: Distrust That...
    From notthisbody
    The Beginning of Infinity
    From Olena
    Geometry in The Garden
    From Olena
    the Operating System
    From Claire L. Evans
    THE G*D PARTICLE
    Olena’s project
    What happened to nature?
    How to stay in touch with our biological origins in a world devoid of nature? The majestic nature that once inspired poets, painters and...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From Olena's personal cargo

    ESP, Mind-computing, & pseudo-science...
    I have a question...

    Recently I came across this article (which mentions Rene, hello!):
    "Connecting all the Dots"

    Enjoyable read, until I got to this part:

    The Imaginary Foundation states: "This movement of things from the realm of potential, the "original medium" of Tesla to the manifesting patterns of Whitehead through the act of conscious volition, finds support in the so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation" of the recent quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

    The mere act of observation seems to interact with a system. This would point to the potential that our expectations, our imaginations, help give rise to what occurs."


    A few years ago I would've been all over that. It's the favorite stuff of new-age self-help writers.
    However, recently I've grown more skeptical which led to reading tons of material written by actual scientists who talk about subjects like "the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation" first hand. Murray Gell-Mann invested some portion of his "Quark and Jaguar" to address what it means to make an observation within a system.

    Syntax is a problem. To make an observation means to literally interact with a system being watched. A system is able to observe itself; I recall one example of this record being a radioactive decay trail in an organic sample.
    What observation means to a scientist vs a "layman" is different; we need to be sure that we're speaking the same language before we can say we understand and begin to make fantastic statements that eventually result in the confusion of a populace who receives second(+)hand information and believes that to be valid.

    At once, scientists and technically-minded people have been known to lag behind the intuitions of free-thinkers. In terms of the original subject, we now know that thoughts are quantifiable. All events happen in the physical realm; there are motions for everything that we name aesthetically.

    Wildcat just tumblr'd this video:
    Thought Controlled Computing Ariel Garten, CEO, Interaxon


    The influencing of events with one's mind is a top concern of New Age thinking. One of the arguments against that, made by skeptics & scientists, is that these writers' understanding of the way physical systems work in inconclusive & misguided; that the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates no such thing. One of the counters to that is that "most people" are unable (or not open minded enough) to access their "mental power" sufficiently for this to be immediately seen as valid, or that this kind of event is too complicated to test... etc. — somewhat valid, as it does get more difficult to predict complex systems, but dangerously "magical" and thus regressive.

    Back to my question; I wonder if anyone here will be able to answer it: if it's correct to consider our universe as a synergistic system in which nothing is isolated (unlike the Newtonian view which allows for separate objects) then we are, in effect, the system observing itself... is it possible that we don't need the aid of tech tools to be "connected" and have influence, like the New Age writers claim?

    I would think not; problems with "locality" arise (influence must be local), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would seem to disallow for it, the energy required would seem too great...
    But seeing what we can do with mental-computing brought up these questions again, mostly because I don't actually know how it works, nor do I feel well enough versed in physics to answer myself with a No, neither is our scope of knowledge so complete that answers from either side of the argument are doubtless.

    What do you guys think?



    Sat, Dec 11, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    14 comments
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    Olena     Sat, Dec 11, 2010  Permanent link
    P.S.
    I'm somewhat disappointed in the video... in the way these technologies are being talked about. She mentions "paradigm shift", but her diction sounds dumbed down and her description of the implications of these technologies is totally inextricable from our current perception of "reality".

    It happens too often with new tech. and the developers and people who have the power to effect major motions with these things. I keep hearing "facebook, twitter, ..." etc. but nothing gets past the current model of commerce, living, perceiving. It's as if they're doing it so as not to scare anyone away, but at once they're perpetuating this system & its valuation of entertainment as above-all and the use of our new, frankly beautiful, abilities and knowledge in totally mediocre ways.

    Instead of doing more with less, it's more like doing less with More & Shinier!!.


    BenRayfield     Sat, Dec 11, 2010  Permanent link
    The influencing of events with one's mind ... the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates no such thing.

    In other words, the Copenhagen Interpretation could be disproven by influencing events with one's mind. When there is a contradiction between observation and theory, the theory is supposed to lose. I find it very interesting that they said "the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates no such thing" instead of "You didn't influence events with your mind, which I looked for evidence about but found none".

    Copenhagen cuts off branches of the multiverse. Infinitely manyworlds theory is smooth. Have you ever seen a corner or jagged edge in space or time?

    Back to my question; I wonder if anyone here will be able to answer it: if it's correct to consider our universe as a synergistic system in which nothing is isolated (unlike the Newtonian view which allows for separate objects) then we are, in effect, the system observing itself... is it possible that we don't need the aid of tech tools to be "connected" and have influence, like the New Age writers claim?

    I would think not; problems with "locality" arise (influence must be local), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would seem to disallow for it, the energy required would seem too great...


    Everything we can see through telescopes and on Earth is connected in a way so simple and obvious that most people overlook it... through 3 dimensions, time, mass, and energy. The existence of space does not mean space exists everywhere. Many parts of physics have been found to be made of simpler patterns. Either way, lots of stuff is connected through space without needing a direct connection.

    Similarly, if infinitely manyworlds multiverse theory is true, then there is a continuous path between any 2 things through variations of what we call reality as continuous waves. That should solve the heisenberg problems you expected by avoiding the need for a direct connection. I've thought for a long time about why I can do some of the ESP things (this thread is about), and in my opinion, it has to be interaction between brainwaves and waves of variations of reality (multiverse) in a chaos-theory way, because brains normally make extremely unlikely (compared to random movements of atoms) things happen, so if brains have a very small connection to such multiverse things then brains would be able to amplify it exponentially.

    We're connected through space and mass etc, but we're still individuals because of how much we're connected and in what ways. To answer your question, we are all connected in a similar way through infinite number of paths through the variations of reality in the multiverse, but because information only flows in useful ways through a small fraction of those paths, we're mostly individuals and a very small amount connected through the multiverse field. In that way, "we are, in effect, the system observing itself." The things that the multiverse/quantum physics equations describe are consciousness. Consciousness is real, most people will agree, so its reasonable for it to be some of the things science has observed. Its made of mass and energy and whatever else the equations describe. In some ways, we are the space, time, mass, and energy near this part of the universe, depending on what information flows between us and that part of the universe. ESP should be expected if that is true.

    You're right about how they're using the mind reading computer devices. They're using it for existing products instead of researching ESP because thats where the money is. I don't think their devices are necessary to research ESP because any psychology-based interaction with software can access brains. I prefer the interaction between mouse movements and realtime generated music (played with the mouse, learning to sound better) as the user-interface for such research, but theres lots of ways to do it without their mind reading devices.

    What I like most about infinitely manyworlds multiverse theory (the most infinite version of it) is that it beats Copenhagen at Ockham's Razor. Its the simplest of all the physics theories because it says the universe is the sum of all possibilities and averages to nothing. Like the yinyang, the universe is everything and nothing simultaneously, and theres no contradiction in that statement.

    They should be using bayesian-network software to find and amplify ESP patterns between people using their mind reading computer hardware, using a feedback loop between each person and computer in the network. The theories I wrote about are testable that way. But all this is scary to people who build their infrastructure on secrets and nondisclosure agreements and insurance policies. Its scary in a different way to people who think the universe is organized into a hierarchy with "god" at the top. The universe is a peer-to-peer network, and that can be tested with current technology.

    After we have internet access to that peer-to-peer network (using ESP as an interface), I think we should do a little experimental programming to get around that annoying speed of light limit. I want a starship. They say physics mostly fits the E8 shape which is permutations of a 57 dimensional shape in 248 dimensions, where each dimension is 1 of the quantum particles/waves... or something like that. The details are not important when done the general way through bayesian-network software accessing ESP. Lets simply program a few rotations of some variations of that, something other than 57 and 248, since theres an infinite number of dimensions and shapes available. Mostly E8, and a very small amount the other shape rotated in. In other words, use the bayesian-network to increase the chance that new particle types will appear, and use them to power the faster than light engine. You know how every particle appears to be made of a few smaller particles? If we do this, locally around the starship, and measure the quantum particles then theoretically they should be splittable into what will be called an E8 subquantum particle and a non-E8 subquantum particle which will appear to jump between quantum particles. I don't know, but in general particles that can't be found should be rotations like this, so maybe the Higgs boson is the side-effects of such a rotation? I'm sure it would take a lot of experiments to get it to work, but if infinite manyworlds multiverse theory is true, it will work.

    You did ask for better uses of the mind reading devices than facebook.
    Olena     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    The influencing of events with one's mind ... the Copenhagen Interpretation indicates no such thing.

    In other words, the Copenhagen Interpretation could be disproven by influencing events with one's mind.


    Thanks for the response first off, and the above... I should have been more careful in my writing; for me it was clear that "indicates no such thing" meant that it could be but that it's simply not necessarily indicated by that theory.

    You're right about how they're using the mind reading computer devices. They're using it for existing products instead of researching ESP because thats where the money is.


    Not sure if you're referring to my "P.S." but I didn't actually mean that I wanted ESP research; I meant that, even if we're to carry on with these devices, there are definitely implications beyond iPad games and helping the disabled, not that those are bad things, but it's disappointing that the greater possibilities (a la "Operating Manual", etc.) are not talked about.

    (Speaking of ESP research... have you heard of James Randi? Thoughts?)


    infinitely manyworlds multiverse theory (the most infinite version of it)


    About to search for it because I'm not sure I've heard of it... is it the same as M Theory? And who supports this?

    I love the last paragraph, but admittedly I'm unfamiliar with those references. Yeah, those definitely sound like better uses, though. But again, they don't have to be about building starships; it would be enough to use our technologies just to figure out how to live on THIS one instead of overworking, then spending "free time" on entertainment, and never really doing much past that for whole lives.
    BenRayfield     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    meant that it could be but that it's simply not necessarily indicated by that theory.

    I think they're incompatible. As you said, there are heisenberg problems with a direct connection, and Copenhagen cuts off the multiverse branches leaving a direct connection the only way to do it.

    Not sure if you're referring to my "P.S." but I didn't actually mean that I wanted "metaphysical" research; I meant that, even if we're to carry on with these devices, there are definitely implications beyond iPad games and helping the disabled, not that those are bad things, but it's disappointing that the greater possibilities (a la "Operating Manual", etc.) are not talked about.

    Its only metaphysical until you start talking about equations and shapes and rotations etc. The devices would be useful for lots of things between facebook and that mad-science stuff I wrote. Without any ESP, just using psychology and software, I also think it would be useful for making throughts flow together more as 1 mind to increase intelligence and intuition.

    About to search for it because I'm not sure I've heard of it... is it the same as M Theory? And who supports this?

    Infinitely manyworlds multiverse theory
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble

    It was thought of by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark  a physics professor at MIT.

    He also wrote about how the theory does not imply ESP because it takes such a short time for quantum wavefunctions to collapse (from multiverse branched to observation of 1 possibility), but since he's an expert in physics instead of math, and his theory is summarized as "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically", its a question that people more specialized in math and ESP should answer instead of him.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness 
    Olena     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    Funny, I just edited my last comment, but I guess it was too late. I realized metaphysical was very much the wrong word shortly after.

    Question still holds: James Randi?

    Fascinating stuff... thank you for the links!
    BenRayfield     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    James Randi offers a million dollars for proof of ESP under certain conditions.

    If his testing procedure was applied to something we know has been done many times, then the million dollars should be won. So lets apply his testing procedure to... Flipping a coin 10 times and it landing heads 10 times. When the coin-flipper (or psychic or whatever is being tested) comes in for Randi's test, they have only a 1 in 1024 chance of winning, get only 1 try at it, and when they lose they say "but I got 10 heads last week." Randi takes this as evidence that nobody can get 10 heads in a row, since if it could be done, somebody would have won the million dollars. ESP is similarly statistical.

    As I wrote about Noosphere "event 351" here http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6471/Parapsychology-Merges-Science-And-Religion  it took 43000 people to cause a quantum event as unlikely as flipping 5 heads in a row (97.1% chance that whatever we did changed their measurements).
    gamma     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    I have a fried who is a super genius and he talks this bad and even worse. Its a tragedy. Last saturday he claimed to have met a new person to whom he explained a certain scientific issue 20 times. I think he was trying to kill him - he knows that, but it was kind of fun to do it.

    "Quark and Jaguar" sucks totally.

    The quantum mechanics - I hope it goes to Ben's brain and see what happens. The uncertainty principle appears to be experimental flaw, an inconvenience. But, if we cannot see the particle momentum and the position at the same time, no one can, so they do not exist together. No interaction ever occurs that can reflect the position and the momentum simultaneously.

    A particle experiment can appear differently in various situations, but the theory extends the data sets so that the parameters of system can appear as a range of numbers to the observers.
    Olena     Sun, Dec 12, 2010  Permanent link
    gamma I'm not understanding your comment...

    especially
    "Quark and Jaguar" sucks totally.

    On what basis do you say that?
    gamma     Mon, Dec 13, 2010  Permanent link
    The book has no contents and value, per 500 pages.
         Mon, Dec 13, 2010  Permanent link
    yes

    he has

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4 
    BenRayfield     Wed, Dec 15, 2010  Permanent link
    gamma, I don't know if the uncertainty principle is true or not, but either way (if its only a statistical pattern or a required part of physics), ESP is real so there is some way to work around it, something brains evolved to do.

    What dmitri linked to, I wrote when I had recently figured out how ESP could interact with psychology software to form a network through people and computers. I explained it better at http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6447/Global-Telepathy-Network 
    gamma     Wed, Dec 15, 2010  Permanent link
    I don't know if the uncertainty principle is true or not, but either way (if its only a statistical pattern or a required part of physics), ESP is real so there is some way to work around it, something brains evolved to do.

    Why do you suppose that they oppose each other?
    BenRayfield     Thu, Dec 16, 2010  Permanent link
    The uncertainty principle is about what you can't know about particles/waves in physics, like the patterns of electrons in somebody elses brain thousands of miles away. If ESP occurs between your brain and that brain thousands of miles away, and it happens often enough to know it wasn't random or an accident, then the patterns between the 2 brains are more accurate and reliable than the uncertainty principle says can happen.
    gamma     Fri, Dec 17, 2010  Permanent link
    The uncertainty principle is about what you can't know about particles/waves in physics, like the patterns of electrons in somebody elses brain thousands of miles away.

    Riiiiiiight! I knew you had the potential!

    If ESP occurs between your brain and that brain thousands of miles away, and it happens often enough to know it wasn't random or an accident, then the patterns between the 2 brains are more accurate and reliable than the uncertainty principle says can happen.

    I don't know about that. The real test is the chaos theory - can the brain function by using a load of uncertain elements. With the butterfly effect it is only worse, isn't it?


    Oh, pardon me but I prepared a joke for you before. Here they say we cannot be telepathic, but we can BE ONE in some surreal manner, I suppose.

     http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44580 
     
          Cancel