Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

Oh yeah. I wondered why I was getting such a sense of Deja Vu! This thread is intended to be about the forms of precognition that people claim today. Tarot, palm reading, crystal balls, precognitive dreams or visions etc. etc. etc.Unless any of these things are claiming to work on the basis of worm holes and timelines such things are not really on topic here. What is on topic are the unjustifiable claims by those who conflate mysticism (often but not always Eastern mysticism) with genuine science by invoking terms like "quantum", "energy", "force" and "field" as if these terms had sceintific meaning in the paranormal contexts in question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Heh... took me almost 15 min. to find that thread. I was scanning my post-history but couldn't remember the name of it Right. And as long as we're talking about the real universe (an assumption I didn't take for granted in the other thread... which I think is what caused most of the confusion, along with the growth of my position into one that resided within an imaginary realm as I learned more about what you were describing). I stick with my boring answer of "it's impossible."Mysticism just doesn't make any sense. It's mandatory for it to be surrounded by such excuses as "but, it doesn't work that way... I have no control over it..." and "well, my abilities aren't that powerful..."If it didn't have such excuses, it would be a definitive method, in which case it would be scientific, and then there would be evidence about it.With such excuses, however, it's rendered equivalent to chance or the random world of probability with educated guesses. And, therefore, it doesn't really exist as anything "special."

It's a shame - I kind of like Easter mysticism better It seems that this is the perfect thread to talk about Rupert Sheldrake? - "one of the world’s most innovative biologists" who explains telepathy and other 'psychic' phenomena through 'morphic fields'?

Quite right. When I did it it was about making vague generalities in line with the cards whenever possible and using a moderate amount of cold reading to tailor your interpretations to the particular customer in question.TTFN,WK

On a completely off topic Easter aside did you know that the Easter bunny, Easter eggs etc. etc. are apparently derived from the fertility goddess Eostre. Absolutely. Along with Deepak Chopra and his Quantum HealingI mean for heavens sake "Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong." What the hell does he think he is talking about? I doubt he knows himself.As well as Gary Zukav and his book The Dancing Wu Li Masters. And of course Fltjof Capra and his book "The Tao of Physics"In general any and all of those that take the notions of modern physics, things like electrons going backward in time, and use these ideas to justify the paranormal. Things such as Nostradamus and others foreseeing the future because they are somehow able to tap into "quantum information" propagating backwards in time. Abilities which would perhaps be available to all of us if we could just get past our overly materialist preconceptions and prejudices and tune into the "quantum level of being"*.*By purchasing the book, T-Shirt, personal enlightenment course of DVDs and other parephenalia of the specific quantum mysticism and guru in question.Edited by Straggler, : Add link

Indeed. As is the case with most forms of claimed "divination". But this does not stop the whole business of fortune telling being a multi billion dollar industry. Even despite the fact that such practises seem to fly in the face of the founding principle upon which we base most of what we consider genuine knowledge. Namely causality.

I had never heard of Sheldrake or morphic fields until you raised his name. But some quick Wikiing reveals the following: All of which makes little sense to me but sounds vaguely like an updating of Jung's archetypes for the 21st century. Jung with pseudo-scientific knobs on. I am interested to know exactly what he means by "field" in this context? Does he mean field in the scientific sense? Or is he using his own definition? Is there a "morpic field" force carrying particle (i.e. the equivalent of the photon in electromagnetic fields)? In fact is there any sort of empirically detectable force associated with "morphic fields"?Or is he just using bogus terminology to sound vaguely scientific when in fact his theory essentially amounts to "magic"?

This is an interesting topic as it's quite a bit deeper than at first thought - I've been wondering what to say since you started it. I'm rather surprised by some of Michio's comments in the book you reference. I'm not always a big fan of his work, research and pedagogical alike, but his comments here smack of some naivety.First off, careful with your own comments about the Uncertainty Principle - it doesn't so much express a limit to our knowledge, rather a limit to the ability to make sense of quantum variables at a classical level. It isn't that we can't know the exact momentum and position of a particle simultaneously, but that such a concept doesn't actually exist! (just to stress, even postgrad QM classes may not make this clear)QM is completely deterministic - the probability enters in the interpretation (probabilistic collapse, deterministic environmental decoherence, many worlds, etc - see Son Goku's posts for more details) - so don't immediately dismiss Caffeine's suggestion. However, causality is very important here...Causality is interesting - it doesn't really have anything to do with cause and effect in this conversation, which is why I'm surpised at Kaku. The future is predicated on the past, but the past is predicated on the future. Causality is about light-cones, about what subset of the Universe can affect a particular event, and what subset can be affected by that event. Someone today does not have access to all of the data that can influence an event in the future, as much of that data is currently outside that person's past light cone.The real question is why do we, as concious entities, remember the past, but not remember the future. I strongly suspect that the answer is because it is the only way we can have a 3d-aware conciousness in a 4d static Universe in the first place! In physics, we have no concept of a universal *NOW* that carries us through the 4d Universe at a rate of one day every 24 hours. Perhaps one day we will understand but at the moment we are clueless

I find his books interesting but admittedly simplistic. Even if I am not educated enough to be exactly sure why I find them simplistic.......? Oh no!! Can you clarify what it does mean? Where does that leave us with regard to causality? Where does it leave us with regard to mystical or Eastern philosophical conflations of quantum theory and the ability to see the definite future? Precognition as defined in this thread? Where do you stand on that? Fair play. What I am objecting to in this thread (and frankly don't let this detract from the more serious exploration you are giving - because that is far more worthwhile) is the pseudoscientific bollocks cited by those mentioned in Message 35. Those who use terms like "energy", "force", "field" and "quantum" without (as far as I can ascertain) any comprehesion at all of what they themselves are talking about.

Yep, all bollocks - and you hit the nail on its head following Izanagi's pathetic attempt to defend this sort of thing: there is virtually zero concensus on what these terms mean outside science, and they are wielded with complete ignornance.I'd address the serious stuff but Stacey's singing on X-factor

Well you know once you are done with life's important things any further advice you can give on the trivial subject of causality or mysical quantum bollocks would be appreciated. Including vocal exercise tips should the mood take you..... What about theories of the LHC sabotaging itself from the future as per Mod's links in Message 9? What do you make of those?

To be honest, I think this was probably discussed tongue-in-cheek (looking at the general failure so far to get close to Higgs), but has gone a bit viral. Us physicists have a (minimally weak) sense of humour, as evidenced in such legendary papers such as The Super G-String, and its like...The idea of it being a future effect affecting the past is rather hard to swallow, mechanism-wise. However, it is a good example of quantum suicide. If production of a Higgs is disastrous to the Earth, or existence as a whole, then in the Many-Worlds Interpretation we will only experience those worlds where the Higgs is not generated. And thus we should expect to live in a world where we see continual failure to generate a Higgs, whether by failure to build the accelerator (SSC), or by failure of the accelerator (LHC).Personally, I'm not a fan of MWI at the moment as I cannot (yet) get it to work with my ideas on time... but if the MWI is keeping us alive, then I guess it can't be that bad

Hey now! I'm not defending their attempts at pseudoscience. What I am defending are people's usage of words that happen to have one scientific definition out of many non when it doesn't relate to science. Words like force, energy, work, and fields all have usage outside of science and prior to science using them. If they use words like those it's precisely the same reason why science uses words like those - the definition of those words have meanings similar to what they want to express. What you are arguing is the exclusivity of science over those words disallowing anyone from using those words as a way to explain their ideas.I don't condone anyone trying to use science to justify supernatural beliefs that have no method of falsification in the real world. But I don't like the smug attitude that some people have when others are attempting to explain a belief using words that are in common everyday usage and have other definitions other than the ones science has attributed. Science has no claim over words.Once again folks, there is a world of difference between who use words with alternative meanings that are in everyday use to explain their beliefs and those who attempt to justify those beliefs using the scientific definitions of terms. If you want to argue against one, argue against the people who are trying to justify their beliefs through science; they are trying to confuse the issue. The guy in your local New Age store who is simply using words he knows with meanings close to what he wants to convey is not and no one who listens to his explanations will ever confuse his usage of the words as scientific in any way.And if you think that there is no consensus on what the words mean outside of science, trying cracking open a dictionary once in a while. Words like force (strength or energy exerted or brought to bear), work (activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something; sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result), field (a space on which something is drawn or projected), and energy (dynamic quality) have others meanings than the ones attributed by science and it could very well those other meanings that many practitioners are using to explain their beliefs.So argue all you want against those that attempt to use science to justify their supernatural beliefs, and more power to you. However, do not think that just because someone is using a word that happens to have a scientific meaning that they are trying to justify their beliefs through science. Otherwise you are doing exactly what all of you have argued creationists shouldn't do - jumping to a conclusion that you like without considering that there may be alternative explanations for why those people use those words.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

LindaLou mentioned him a few times in some of those threads. Morphic fields have the peculiar property of only being empirically detectable through poorly designed experiments it seems. That is to say - they themselves cannot be detected...only their effects. That is: Sheldrake contends there exists some kind of telepathy and instead of using words like "aura" or "soul" he uses 'morphic fields' to explain telepathy. They seem to me to be essentially interchangeable terms - he might as well have used P J Farmer's "wathan" as a name:

quote:

---

Wathan: a ball of tendrilous, colored energy that hovers invisibly above every person's head; the soul; holds all information about a person's life, including memory, personality and the condition of the physical body; inexorably drawn to only a body that matches the original in every way, will wonder the universe aimlessly until its body is resurrected for it.

---

(emphasis mine) But it is scientifical! How else can you explain the fact that people can detect when people are staring at them without using their eyes? Sheldrake points out that some people used to think that sight was an active process like radar (we fire 'rays' out of our eyes that 'feel' the world giving us sight, rather than rays coming into our eyes from an external source) - Sheldrake contends they were at least partially right.Unfortunately for him, he can only indirectly detect these morphic fields. No morphic field detector has been generated, but I imagine Sheldrake sees it like this (A GDV picture of a finger tip) Erm - so yeah...I'm a betting man and I'd be perfectly happy laying 100-1 that he is just using bogus terminology to sound vaguely scientific when in fact his theory essentially amounts to "magic".Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, don't want to take you off-topic, but this caused my brain to almost explode. Wouldn't the person arriving in 2010, meet his future self who, since he goes back to 2009, should have the information that was aquired in 2010...?Wouldn't that confirm if the events happened the same?- Oni