|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Oni writes: Hi Straggler, don't want to take you off-topic, but this caused my brain to almost explode. So you thought you would pass your affliction onto me huh? A headache shared is a headache doubled....... . Thanks!
Straggler writes: So in your example the person travelling to 2010 and reading the newspaper would see a future. Presumably a future that was not the product of someone in 2009 having knowledge of 2010. So when our traveller returns to 2009 with this knowledge of 2010 the universe branches off from the course he saw and there are no guarantees at all that the future events he witnessed will ever take place in this new timeline. 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...? If there is but one timeline then the sort of "loop" you describe would seem to be all but inevitable. But Kaku (rightly or wrongly) is invoking many worlds and avoiding this sort of thing. As I understand it. The timeline that your travelling self goes into 2010 on is not one that involves any time travelling. That is until the point that you turn up in 2010. So any self you meet would not have time travelled. But when you go back to 2009 and start raving about 2010 you create a different branching timeline that does involve future knowledge. But that is not the timeline you visited. Or something like that. Kaku explains all this in terms of energy being sucked into wormholes rather tha people visiting themselves (but I think your scenaro is frankly more interesting and brain killing as an idea than his more physicsy one). In your scenario using his explanation there would be an ever increasing amount of energy cycling through time. In his many worlds interpretation this doesn't happen.
Wouldn't that confirm if the events happened the same? Frankly dude there is a high posibility that I am talking utterly out of my arse here. To an even greater extent than someone invoking this sort of thing who actually claims to understand it. I'll try and find his wormhole energy example if you think it will help at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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. But this isn't just about words. It is about those who claim a genuine scientific foundation for their particular brand of new age bollocks. In particular those who invoke quantum theory to justify their multi-million dollar "self help" empires. Wiccans who cite "energy" in the context of "magic" are not claiming a scientific quantum basis for their particular brand of unevidenced belief. Thus they are not part of this thread in that regard. Deepak Chopra and his "quantum healing" and Sheldrake and his "morphic fields" are indisputably examples of such quackery and charlatanism. I would have thought that this distinction was obvious from the OP?
Straggler in the OP writes: More widely, and in anticipation of the expected use of quantum theory as a means of justifying claims of paranormal abilities, this thread is also about the use of quantum theory as a catchall justification for various forms of mysticism. I don't see this how this is any different in principle from the god of the gaps position. Take something that is complex and not fully understood and then fill in the gaps we have in our knowledge with whatever unevidenced wishful thinking floats your boat. Throw in some ill understood but technical sounding terminology about "energies", "forces", "fields" or whatever else and let the pseudoscience unravel. You seem to be complaining that we are attacking something that is not actually being attacked whilst agreeing that the thing actually being criticised is worthy of criticism. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
You seem to be complaining that we are attacking something that is not actually being attacked whilst agreeing that the thing actually being criticised is worthy of criticism.
Then I suppose I was mistaken on what was being criticized. I agree with you that people who use science to try to justify their beliefs and make money off those justifications are charlatans at best. Certainly, I like to try and imagine a scientific explanations for certain things, but I would never think of advancing any idea that wasn't falsifiable although I have, as a topic of light discussion, talked about some of my thoughts with friends. And I'll be honest, I have had a few spooky moments that I couldn't readily explain. Mostly, I just chalk it up to coincidence. For example, and this goes to precognition, I had left my cell phone in my car overnight without realizing it. The next day, I was in my home when I thought someone was calling me. I couldn't find my phone and it was at that moment that I realized I had left my phone in my car. I went out to my car and got my phone and looked at the missed calls. Apparently just a couple of minutes before, around the time I had thought someone was calling me, someone had called me. I don't chalk it up to the supernatural, but if it was a coincidence, which I mostly believe, then it was a pretty strange coincidence at that. Or perhaps I have the power of precognition. Or maybe Q just told me someone was calling. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Mod writes: LindaLou mentioned him a few times in some of those threads. Ahhhh. And it is her claims regarding precognitive abilities in posts directed at me also in those threads that partially prompted this thread. I had just missed her specific references to Sheldrake and his morphic field theory.
Unfortunately for him, he can only indirectly detect these morphic fields. 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". According to Wiki there has been an experiment to test this theory.
Wiki writes: Morphic resonance predicts that memories of one generation are automatically passed on to the next generation or to other conspecifics. A neuroscientist and memory expert, Steven Rose, has been critical of this view. A major reason for the the criticism is that Rose does not feel there to be any anomalous phenomena which require the theory of morphic resonance as an explanation. Rose suggested an experiment to resolve the matter. In Rose's opinion the resulting study, done in collaboration with Sheldrake, disproved morphic resonance,[9] but Sheldrake has challenged this. morphic fields on wiki Do you have any knowledge of this experiment at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Or perhaps I have the power of precognition. Or maybe Q just told me someone was calling. Or maybe humans are deeply prone to see meaning, pattern and significance where in fact objectively speaking none exists? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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) I have been thinking about this and was hoping you could clarify. Are we saying that because there is in fact no "particle" as such that it is not just an inability to measure the two quantities (position and momentum) without affecting one or the other as is often implied. Instead it is because there is in fact no definite values of these quantities to even measure? Because QM is inherently probabalistic. Therefore it is just a "probabalistic smudge" rather than an actual particle that we are in fact considering? Is that what you meant? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you have any knowledge of this experiment at all? Did you read the article in the footnote?*
quote: Sheldrake's version is here * That sounded like I was berating you. I was just asking because that's all I know about it, but it doesn't quite come across that way in text. I left it in there as a way to remember that very thing. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Or maybe humans are deeply prone to see meaning, pattern and significance where in fact objectively speaking none exists?
Of course, that's why I chalked it up to coincidence. It doesn't help me to think that I have predictive powers and it could be extremely harmful. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: Hi Straggler, I'm mainly interested in Sheldrake's experimental evidence for the existence of so-called paranormal abilities. Some of his more well-known studies are on the telepathic abilities of animals, specifically a dog named Jaytee and a parrot named Nkisi (though the studies have been replicated many times by other people with other animals). I believe his studies do show that telepathy is real, and that it's a natural ability that evolved because it was of benefit for animals and humans before we had things like telephones. But I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to discuss these experiments because I think what they (and probably Izanagi's anecdote) demonstrate is the existence of telepathy and not precognition. Sheldrake then attempts to explain how this could work via his morphic fields hypothesis. I don't know a lot about this and it's difficult to conceive how it would be studied and verified, but a tenuous explanation doesn't erase good evidence; what's more, given that this seems to be a real phenomenon, Sheldrake recognises a need to try to explain how it might work. Maybe he's right, maybe not; maybe somewhere in between. I'm not sure how keen I am at the moment to debate all this elsewhere though. I'd rather have a straightforward conversation with someone with an open mind, than another long argument. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Are we saying that because there is in fact no "particle" as such that it is not just an inability to measure the two quantities (position and momentum) without affecting one or the other as is often implied. Instead it is because there is in fact no definite values of these quantities to even measure? Because QM is inherently probabilistic. Therefore it is just a "probabalistic smudge" rather than an actual particle that we are in fact considering?
Hey, I just thought I'd give explaining this a go. If you start out with the hypothesis that position and momentum have definite values that you just happen not to know, you can create a probability theory to describe this. However any theory where probability arises in this way (that is through ignorance) makes fundamentally different predictions than QM. Experimental tests support QM and refute such theories. QM uses a different type of probability, a type of probability that is not the result of ignorance of the truth. What does it result from? That's basically part of the difficulties of interpreting QM.Now the bit about position and momentum affecting each other is also true and relates to this point I've just made. In the type of probability that QM uses measurement of one quantity can destroy information you used to have about a previous quantity. So measuring momentum nullifies anything you knew about position. It isn't like usual probability where you can keep learning and hence reduce your ignorance of both quantities. If you want a way to think about I can offer you the opinion of Niels Bohr. In his mind, quantum particles do not have positions and momentums, they are simply something else we cannot imagine or perhaps not even discuss sensibly. However we must use these classical concepts to analyse them experimentally. When we measure position we are not learning about some objective quality of the particle, but rather using one way of projecting its existence into our classical world. To it put another way making a choice of a classical screen through which we view the quantum world. Then there seems to be a fundamental incompatibility between the position screen and the momentum screen. I cannot use both at the same time to capture an image of the quantum particle. However that was just Bohr's way of viewing it, there are other ways. However the first two paragraphs are the facts. QM uses a probability not due to ignorance, so there isn't a real position or momentum of the particle that we happen not to know. This new probability also implies that measuring the momentum of a quantum particle and hence making it give a value of this quantity to classical instruments, will mean it no longer will give the value of position you measured earlier. Some other views besides Bohrs are similar to what you stated in that the quantum particle is just a probabilistic smudge. Or put another way a quantum particle is nothing but a collection of probabilities for different values of different quantities to be observed. Reducing the probabilities of one quantity (by measuring momentum and seeing it have specific value) will increase them in another (position will now have probabilities for any location).A final view (Rudolf Haag and others) is that position and momentum are properties of the interaction of the experimental apparatus and the quantum particle, not the quantum particle itself. So measuring a momentum with value "p", doesn't mean the particle has momentum "p", but rather that is delivered momentum "p" to the apparatus. Similarly measuring position "x" means that particle and the apparatus interacted with each other at "x", not that the particle is at "x". This view connects with the idea that QM is not a theory of subatomic particles, but rather a theory of subatomic measurment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Where does it leave us with regard to mystical or Eastern philosophical conflations of quantum theory and the ability to see the definite future?
My opinion is that it is utter nonsense. Firstly on the QM side there is absolutely no connection. No matter how wierd QM is, at the end of the day it is a theory concerning subatomic objects and has as much relation to telling the future as classical mechanics. In fact the brain is classical, so it has less of a relation. On the actual Eastern mysticism side there is also some ahistorical stuff. Hinduism, for example, is basically a polytheistic religion and has as much relation to energy fields and other "scientific" concepts as any other religion. It's obvious from reading histories of this stuff that it's entirely a modern invention, no different than if Hellenistic polytheism had survived and people claimed Zeus' lightning bolts came from nucleo-chemical reactions in his wrists and planned expeditions to Olympus to sit under the mountain and extract this energy from the rain. Edited by Son Goku, : Better title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
But I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to discuss these experiments because I think what they (and probably Izanagi's anecdote) demonstrate is the existence of telepathy and not precognition. Well this thread is about the (mis)use of modern scientific principles to justify claims of the paranormal. Precognition was my preferred example because it has specifically arisen in previous coversations. But telepathy is a perfectly valid example if Sheldrake is citing things like quantum mechanics, fields, energy or resonance to justify his claims.
I'm mainly interested in Sheldrake's experimental evidence for the existence of so-called paranormal abilities
Sheldrake then attempts to explain how this could work via his morphic fields hypothesis. I am interested in this too. Can you point me in the direction of some of this evidence? Doing some basic web searching on Sheldrake suggests that his experiments and his "morphic field" hypothesis are innately connected. Do you know if he came up with his theory before setting out to conduct experiments on it? Or if he conducted the experiments and then set out to explain the results? Which came first the parrot or the field? A fairly cursory search suggests that his experimental procedures, techniques and results are highly disputed at best. So there is much doubt even as to whether there is any phenomenon that requires explanation. By means of morphic fields or otherwise.
I believe his studies do show that telepathy is real, and that it's a natural ability that evolved because it was of benefit for animals and humans before we had things like telephones. Why do you think so many would consider this to be a really rather a bizzarre claim? Why do you think Sheldrake is accused of pseudoscience? Why do you think so many are so skeptical and "closed minded" about this?
Sheldrake recognises a need to try to explain how it might work. Maybe he's right, maybe not; maybe somewhere in between. When he uses the term "field" what does he mean? Does he mean it in the same sense as physicists mean it? Or does he mean something else? How does he define the morphic "field"
I'm not sure how keen I am at the moment to debate all this elsewhere though. I'd rather have a straightforward conversation with someone with an open mind, than another long argument. Fine. But if we cannot even establish what he means by the use of terms like "field" in this context then there really isn't much to discuss anyway. Either he is using the term scientifically or he isn't. As far as I can ascertain his "morphic field" is not a "field" by any definition relevant to modern physics. Thus I don't know what he is talking about. More to the point if he cannot explicitly define what he means by the use of the term "field" in any physical sense then I question whether he even knows what he is talking about in any scientific sense either. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Or maybe humans are deeply prone to see meaning, pattern and significance where in fact objectively speaking none exists? Of course, that's why I chalked it up to coincidence. It doesn't help me to think that I have predictive powers and it could be extremely harmful. It might be harmful to be irrational about these things. Or it might be the acceptance of such irrationalities that is the only thing that gets some people through the day. But whatever or whoever may want or need to believe in such things should not decide what is the evidenced conclusion regarding such things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: Is it? Your OP stated that this thread was about precognition, fortune telling, and how some people attempt to use quantum physics to explain these. Rupert Sheldrake's work, IMO, doesn't fit any of these categories.
quote: I have his book, The Presence of the Past, but was too ill to get very far into it when I bought it, and it is on my to-be-read stack. I'll let you know more about it when I get to it, which will probably be while since I have other priorities. However, it doesn't matter whether his morphic fields idea came before or after his experiments; the data stands for itself. Richard Wiseman tried to poke holes in the Jaytee experiments but got caught lying about his own data from the experiments he did with Jaytee himself -- which he ended up admitting. They are sound experiments though I still don't think this is the place to discuss them unless you want to divert the thread.
quote: Because many in the mainstream still consider paranormal research to be pseudoscience. It doesn't matter how rigorously scientific the investigations are, there's still that prejudice against the subject. You can see how rigorous Sheldrake is by clicking Modulous' link to Sheldrake's comments on the experiments with the chicks. I'd rather not comment on your questions about morphic fields because I don't feel I know enough about them right now to debate about them properly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Stragler writes: Fine. But if we cannot even establish what he means by the use of terms like "field" in this context then there really isn't much to discuss anyway. Either he is using the term scientifically or he isn't. As far as I can ascertain his "morphic field" is not a "field" by any definition relevant to modern physics. Thus I don't know what he is talking about. More to the point if he cannot explicitly define what he means by the use of the term "field" in any physical sense then I question whether he even knows what he is talking about in any scientific sense either. LL writes: I'd rather not comment on your questions about morphic fields because I don't feel I know enough about them right now to debate about them properly. I am not even asking for a debate from you at this point. I am simply asking if Sheldrake has ever defined what he means by the term "field" in this context. Is he using the term as used in modern physics? Or is he applying some other meaning? Do you know? Do you accept that this question is an important one to ask of his "morphic field" theory?
LL writes: Is it? Your OP stated that this thread was about precognition, fortune telling, and how some people attempt to use quantum physics to explain these. Rupert Sheldrake's work, IMO, doesn't fit any of these categories. Well fields are indisputably quantum phenomenon in terms of modern physics. And I don't see why Sheldrake's claims of describing the paranormal in terms of "morphic fields" doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the OP?
Straggler in the OP writes:
More widely, and in anticipation of the expected use of quantum theory as a means of justifying claims of paranormal abilities, this thread is also about the use of quantum theory as a catchall justification for various forms of mysticism. I don't see this how this is any different in principle from the god of the gaps position. Take something that is complex and not fully understood and then fill in the gaps we have in our knowledge with whatever unevidenced wishful thinking floats your boat. Throw in some ill understood but technical sounding terminology about "energies", "forces", "fields" or whatever else and let the pseudoscience unravel.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024