|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This thread is about the physical possibility, or otherwise, of precognition in particular. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
What I am objecting to in this thread... ...is the pseudoscientific bollocks... Those who use terms like "energy", "force", "field" and "quantum" without... ...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
What about theories of the LHC sabotaging itself from the future 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So if there was no classical things around to interact with, quantum particles would just evolve in a completely deterministic way. Precisely Strange how I used to hate all that quantum stuff, interfering with my wonderfully classical GR. And now it's the classical stuff that's the fly in the ointment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
And I'm telling you that loop quantum gravity also explains gravity without the extra dimensions. And as a theoretical physicist, who spent the first part of his life working on quantum gravity, including string theory and the predecessor of loop, I'm telling you to stop talking bollocks. If you want to learn something about these subjects, then go start a thread and we'll see what can be done. But here you are just embarressing yourself. Your own knowledge of cosmology, dark energy, dark matter, and string theory is worse than not even wrong. Now, try concentrating on the topic. ABE:
Astrophysicists saw the Universe was expanding faster than models predicted and hypothesized dark energy to explain it. This is analogous to Straggler's contention that Sheldrake saw a phenomenon and hypothesized telepathy to explain it. really? you seem to think we called it "dark energy" because it was mysterious Lot to learn... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Then some dark matter doesn't have mass really? that would be rather difficult...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
But if you have issues with what I'm saying, take it up with your colleagues that are misinforming me. It is rarely (ex)colleagues of mine that write the layman explanations on the NASA website. They would be rtaher poor colleagues if they did, given the number of mistakes and misunderstandings presented there.
Because I'm sure I could find more websites with the same information from the NASA website. Fortunately, scientists do not have to depend upon website misinformation As I mentioned, this is off-topic for the thread. My main complaint with what you were saying was regarding your misrepresentations of string theory, mainly by being caught up with the peevish idiocy of those such as Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
you have done nothing to better inform me of my mistakes. How many ways can one say off-topic, and suggest another thread? Conside this yet another one...
I wanted to show that the nature of some well-accepted concepts in physics are unknown, at least to common knowledge. The nature of just about every concept in physics is unknown - to "common knowledge". When you read "unknown", often the truth will be that we're fairly sure the answer is a combination of A and B, but the exact mix is "unknown". Dark energy is a case in point...
Since I have no access to the article, I can't explain it better than that. Try here my argument that the unknown quality of dark matter/energy is cause for skepticism of those concepts similarly as the unknown quality of telepathy is cause for skepticism in telepathy still holds true. to consider that dark matter/energy (whether true or not) has ANY similarity with the question of telepathy is exceptionally naive, betraying a complete ignorance of what leads us to suggest the concepts of dark matter/energy in the first place (physics concepts do not arise in a vacuum.) You have been asked several times - what is "telepathy"? You and Linda are prime examples of what this thread is all about: Cavediver, what is dark energy?Well, it's almost certainly a type of field. Really, how does it appear in the action? Good question - probably a bit like this. Izanagi, what is telepathy?Well, it's a transfer of thought or ideas between people. Oh, how does that work? Good question, it's a type of field. Really, a field? How does it appear in the action? Errr, what's an action??? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
In the future I hope you will refrain from insulting me for what you perceive to be gross misinformation on my part. I only insult you for what IS gross misinformation on your part. You display a common net attitude of taking to heart what you read and then attempt to wield it with a completely undeserved authority. That is what I find insulting. ABE: I have just seen this
And I'm telling you that loop quantum gravity also explains gravity without the extra dimensions. It seems to me that LQG is a better theory than string theory as it parsimonious. thank fuck you are here to help us out. Jeez, the years I've spent bashing through the most horrendous mathematics to try to get som einsight into qunatum gravity, and Izanagi here has cracked it with a quick appeal to parsimony. Where the fuck were you when I needed you? And you talk about me being insulting Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The you should correct that gross misinformation on my part by pointing me to where I can find better information. I assume that's the job of a teacher, not to insult the student for making a wrong statement, right? You are most certainly not my student. But those students of mine who have taken it upon themselves to spout bullshit with authority have been well and truly insulted. Don't confuse making mistakes with causing others to make mistakes, because of your own erroneous proclamations. But here's a correction of something I have only just noticed - you seem to have a very wrong understanding of MWI, and seem to think it has something to do with multiverses and the Landscape. It doesn't...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
...parsimony is a desired quality in a theory. Is that wrong In 99% of discussed cases, yes. How the hell do you measure the "simplicity" of a theory? Is General Relativity more simple than Newtonian gravitation? Most would say not, but it damn well is from my perspective. String Theory is far more simple than LQG in 1000 aspects, and LQG is more simple in another 1000 aspects. And in ONE aspect, that of dimensionality of the target space, you first assume that d>4 is more complex than d=4 (why? in differential geometry and algebraic topology, d=4 is nearly always the most complex case, out of all possible d) and that this one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects!!! Starting to feel a little out of your depth for making such proclamations yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My next questions would be... And that is all it takes
why d=4 is the most complex Good question, but not easily answered and would deserve a thread all of its own. Would be fun to look at this though...
why is d>4 more complex in that situation It's not - relativity in 5,6,7,8,9,10 dimensions is not much different to relativity in 4 dimensions. But go less than 4, and you get big changes. LQG is constructed in 4 dimensions, as that is what our Universe looks like. Nothing clever in that. String Theory predicts how many dimensions it needs to work in - that is very clever and completely(ish) new - though that number of dimensions just happens to be large. But we have known for nearly a century that higher dimensions are the key to unification of the forces. So the fact that String Theory predicts higher dimensions is often regarded as a strength, not a weakness.
why that one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects. It doesn't - that's what I'm saying - you can't appeal to just one aspect of a huge body of work, and declare that because that one aspect is "simpler" in some way, that parsimony dictates that that theory is the more likely correct. Need I say OFF-TOPIC ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Could you be much much more specific about what you mean by this? I doubt it, as it is extremely complicated - but I can
I mean sure, in a trivial sense, string theory "predicts" gravity. it is far from trivial
I recognize the language Izanagi is using And Izanagi doesn't have the first clue about what he is talking. He is quoting idiots such as Woit and Smolin who both have immense and unwarranted axes to grind, Woit in particular who is just a postgrad blogger who now has an idiot book. If you want to know the pros and cons of string theory, or any other aspect of quantum gravity, start a thread and I can discuss it rationally and informatively. Anyone who has a strong "passion" for or against any theory, is the last person you listen to in order to find out more about that theory...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024