Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 237 (530744)
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


Tarot cards. Astrology. Palm reading. Crystal balls. Tea leaves. Sheep's entrails. Alectromancy. Pyromancy. The methods of fortune telling are numerous and in many cases bizarre. However the fortune telling business is thriving and people seem keen to believe in the validity of such practices. But is precognition or divination of any sort consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them to be? Or does causality, arguably the very founding principle upon which all science is based, necessarily preclude such practices?
In his popular science book "The Physics of the Impossible" Michio Kaku classes precognition as a class III impossibility: "Class III impossibilities are feats that clearly violate the known laws of physics. If they do turn out to be possible, they would represent a fundamental shift in our understanding of physics."
This thread is about the physical possibility, or otherwise, of precognition in particular. 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.
So precognition. A possibility supported by aspects of quantum theory? Or something that requires a complete overturning of the whole of science and which is thus impossible by the laws of physics as we currently know them to be?
If promoted then "Is it science" or maybe the BB cosmology forum as a catchall for physics type stuff might be appropriate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 4:28 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 10-15-2009 8:11 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2009 8:27 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 10-17-2009 4:17 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2009 8:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 237 (530823)
10-15-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 4:28 AM


Definitions
Inzanagi writes:
It depends on how you define precognition. If precognition is simply knowledge of the future, then yes, precognition is possible, and possible without resorting to quantum physics. It is possible to mathematically model the behaviors of a system and use that model to predict outcomes.
The standard scientific methods of analysing relevant cause to determine effect is not what I meant by precognition. I was referring to the sort of abilities claimed by fortune tellers and other proponents of the paranormal.
Dictionary writes:
Philosophy Dictionary: Precognition: The paranormal ability to foresee events before they happen, and before there is normal evidence that they are going to happen.
Precognition (from the Latin pr-, prior to, + cognitio, acquiring knowledge), also called Future Sight, refers to perception that involves the acquisition of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
Inzagi writes:
The idea behind the Tarot is that a person's "energy" influences the what cards appear. There is a small ritual that involves focusing that energy so that their question is addressed by the cards, typically asking the person to shuffle the deck.
What is meant by "energy" in this context? Does this "energy" obey the known laws of physics? Is it conserved? Can it be transformed into other more conventional forms of energy? Does it obey the second law of thermodynamics? What exactly is meant by the term "energy" in such contexts?
Do I believe in the Tarot as a form of precognition? Not really, because I learned to do it as a gag, like how some people learn magic tricks. But perhaps I made believers out of some people out there.
Lots of people do believe in such things. Some people believe that they genuinely have such abilities. The question is do such claims fly in the face of physics as we know it? Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 4:28 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 8:06 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 6 of 237 (530829)
10-15-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by caffeine
10-15-2009 6:12 AM


The Clockwork Universe Vs Inherent Uncertainty
This raises an interesting issue. Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument:
1) There is no true randomness, and all physical processes are ultimately predictable assuming sufficient knowledge
2) Human behavior is entirely a product of the physical structure of our bodies (with ‘bodies’ including brains)
If both of these are true, it would mean that, given sufficient knowledge and sufficient computational power........
Except that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle precludes us from ever having all of the knowledge required. Even in principle.
Wiki writes:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics. According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.
Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia
The sort of clockwork universe, the sort of universe where everything is in principle predictable given enough data, is denied even as a possibility by QM.
This leads to the double edged sword of being far a more interesting proposition whilst also leaving the door ajar for all sorts of pseudoscientific claptrap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2009 6:12 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 4:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 237 (530841)
10-15-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
10-15-2009 8:27 AM


Time Travel and Precognition
In Kaku's book he makes a distinction between time travel (which he classes as a type II impossibility - Essentially way way beyond us technologically but not actually in contravention of the laws of physics as we understand them to be) and precognition.
I will look up the distinction he makes at some point later as it is over a year since I read the book in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2009 8:27 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 237 (530843)
10-15-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
10-15-2009 8:11 AM


Re: Stile's Boring Negative Answer
I no doubt believe your story about your friend. However, I do not think that the "green" involved was some sort of inherent physical property of the pencil-and-paper written equation. I think that the "green" involved is more of a property of his intuition.
Oh absolutely. That is all I meant. I wasn't claiming anything other than that he seemed to have an innately intuitive way of thinking that was pretty alien to most of us. Nothing paranormal.
As for the rest of your "negative boring" answer - Well I pretty much agree.
Stragggler writes:
Or does causality, arguably the very founding principle upon which all science is based, necessarily preclude such practices?
In a word: Yes.
That is Kaku's conclusion. And as much as I claim to understand these things I would agree with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 10-15-2009 8:11 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 12 of 237 (530845)
10-15-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Definitions
Setting aside the supernatural aspect for a minute, I would have to say no. Perhaps you could explain in what way would precognition violate the known laws of physics?
Making predictions based on cause and effect is what science is all about. Bypassing the causal relationship and somehow knowing the future by some other unrelated means very probably before there is any cause (positions of tea leaves in a cup, visions in a crystal ball, cards dealt from a deck etc. etc.) is violating causality. And causality is pretty fundamental to science and indeed knowledge more generally.
You'd probably have to ask a Wiccan on this point. I don't know enough on this subject to give you any adequate answers. What I infer from what I have been told is that this "energy" is a supernatural energy akin to a person's "life-force."
I realise you are not personally advocating anything here. But there is the use of another pseudo term again. In this case "force". What force? Does this force act in a way that is consistent with Newtons laws of motion? Can we measure the effects of this force?
Terms like "energy" and "force" are bandied around by people as though they were actually using them to mean something but I am never sure what it is they are talking about in this sort of context. More to the point I am not convinced that they do either.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 8:06 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 9:18 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 14 of 237 (530874)
10-15-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Definitions
Let's say some being, like Q, who is not inhibited by the our linear perception of time, tells some Joe about something that will happen in the future.
I think we are getting into timeline scenarios here. Does Q have a timeline himself? If he was in what we would call the future at some point in his personal past is that our future or his past? Or both?
In essence, what if precognition causes the future to occur exactly the way it was seen, would this satisfy causality?
Seen by who? I think we need to differentiate between precognition and time travel scenarios here. Precognition under laboratory conditions would involve someone using some means of paranormal divination to "know" a future event that then came to pass.
Q style time time travel scenarios still innately assume causality for Q himself. He presumably had to visit the "future" before he could tell Joe anything about that "future" back in the "past". If we start talking persoanl timelines then I think causality remains intact but there is no guarantee that what Q tells Joe will actually come to pass in Joe's timeline.
I think it has more to do with the imprecise nature of the English language.
I think it has to do with the inability for people to agree on what it is they are talking about. The ambiguity is borne of the fact that such terms when used in the context of pseudoscience mean whatever people subjectively feel that they should mean. Actually using a unique word with it's own meaning would require that somebody actually define what it is they mean. And I don't think they can.
People either invent new words or old words take on additional meanings as people try to find a way to describe a new concept. It might make you feel better if we called it "vurtax" and "life-grumac," but I think you would still have disagreements with the basic belief regardless of what it was called. The name for the concept, I believe, is a rather small point to be addressing in light of the bigger argument.
Well I think the commandeering of genuine scientific terms by pseudoscience is done in a, quite possibly unconscious, attempt to garner some sort of unwarranted respectability. People talk about "energy", "force" etc. etc. as if they know what these things mean in the paranormal context in which they use them but they don't seem to really have any definition at all. Certainly the scientific definitions are not at all relevant. It is a smokescreen to window dress undefined nonsense as scientifically meaningful and to unjustifiably bask in some of the authority that science has earned through hard won success.
Having had that little rant I do appreciate the irony of me seriously considering Q style time travel scenarios in one part of this post whilst railing against pseudoscience and undefined terms in the next
The difference is that I am not claiming to be able to whizz around in time whilst there are people out there claiming that they, or those that they know, can tell the future by various means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 9:18 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:18 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 16 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 237 (530926)
10-15-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 12:18 PM


What Do They Actually Mean?
What people often do is use words that have a meaning similar to what they want to say and imbue it with an additional meaning. That is the evolution of a language. To say science has claim over any word that was already in everyday language is saying that science can usurp words for its own use and once usurped can never be made to mean anything else, even its original meaning.
I am not claiming that science has exclusive hold over any particualr word at all. I am asking people who uses terminology like "force", "energy" and "field" in the context of the paranormal to explain what they actually mean by these words. If they are not using the word in the scientific sense that the context all too often unjustifiably implies then what exactly do they mean? For example this sort of thing is prevalent and typical:
Deepak Chopra talks aout his interpretation of Quantum Healing:
Quantum Healing is healing the "BodyMind" from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level.
Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum Physics Healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong. So Quantum Healing involves healing one mode of consciousness, mind, to bring about changes in another mode of consciousness, body. http://www.creative-tools.net/...umPhysicsandHomeopathy.html
I mean seriously what the fuck is he talking about? There are huge industries dedicated to this claptrap and armies of believers. But does anyone know what these people are actually saying? Do they themselves know what they mean by "fields of energy" in this context?
Give people a little credit. Most aren't trying to create a science out of beliefs. I don't hear of Shaolin monks going around trying to make "qi" a part of biology. I haven't heard of Wiccans trying to make "magic," scientific. Most people are quite capable of separating reality from the supernatural. Don't let the small, albeit vocal, minority sour you to people who have beliefs.
But I am not talking about monks, Wiccans or anybody else who is not claiming any sort of pseudoscientific basis for their beliefs. I am fairly unconvinced that they can actually define what they mean by the terms they are using either. I would also argue that any claims they may make about the ability to see the future violate causality and the laws of physics as we understand them. But I am also relatively unconcerned by how they describe their "magic" if that is what they believe it is.
I am talking about those advocates of the mystical and paranormal who attempt to justify the things that they claim are real by invoking ill understood aspects of modern science and layering them with pseudoscience to justify subjective belief in unevidenced phenomenon. Again the following sort of thing is prevalent and typical and directly relevant to the topic at hand - Precognition:
The one area of pure science which may allow for such strange concepts as precognition is invariably quantum physics / quantum mechanics.
To even define the realm of science which this discipline covers is a near impossible task. Many think it is research at the subatomic level, which of course it is, but it is also much more than this. Those who study the building blocks of reality are most interested in the true nature of that reality, how it exists independent of us, and how or if it exists dependent of us.
The simply unbelievable is becoming fact. What you read when you begin to learn about quantum physics is beyond star-trek style inconceivable, it's much stranger than anything Gene Roddenberry could have come up with. The real world in which we live in is not the simple, straightforward, solid rock of reality which we have all convinced ourselves of it to be.
It is a malleable thing that depends on us as much, or perhaps much more, than we depend on it. Quantum physics is stating that reality is created by our consciousness. This is no small statement. It flies in the face of almost every earthly thought that human civilization was built upon. We all believe in a reality that is independent of us - the world will keep going without us. http://predreamproject.com/quantum-physics.php
Studies of the paranormal, tales of "psychic energy", conflations between Eastern forms of mysticism and modern physics are full of examples of scientific terminology and concepts being abused. So lets leave the Wiccans out of this and concentrate on those that indisputably are perpetrating this brand of nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:18 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 3:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 18 of 237 (530930)
10-15-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 12:45 PM


Timelines
I'm assuming Q exists outside our timeline.
Then the moment he enters it or interferes in any way to pass information to Joe he immediately changes the timeline he was originally watching by causing it to branch off in a new direction from the point of interference.
And thus the things he tells Joe about the futrure in the previously observed timeline do not necessarily apply to the one he has now created by means of his intervenion.
The problem is humans aren't inherently logical. By logical thinking, of course it would be silly to actually believe in fortune-telling, but humans are irrational.
I am not disputing that people do believe in irrational things. I am asking whether or not holding such beliefs amounts to denial of the laws of physics as we understand them to be. Is holding simultaneous belief in both precognitive divination of any sort and the causal laws of physics logically contradictory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 12:45 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 2:56 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 22 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 5:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 23 of 237 (530984)
10-15-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Timelines
Straggler writes:
Is holding simultaneous belief in both precognitive divination of any sort and the causal laws of physics logically contradictory?
Not to the layperson simply because the layperson has no conception of why precognition contradicts the causal laws of physics and because the layperson is not sitting there thinking about it.
I am not interested in whether they know it is contradictory I am simply interested in establishing whether it is contradictory.
I suppose, thinking about science as a study of causality, then yes, precognition probably contradicts the laws of physics. Having thought about it, I can honestly say that I will forget about it because I never really accepted precognition anyway. I will admit the guilty pleasure of having my future told, but beyond that, I don't believe in the predictions. So my life doesn't change with this understanding. Sorry to disappoint you.
I am not disappointed at all. People are free to believe whatever they want. Even if it is contradictory. Even if they realise it is contradictory. I would urge people to be honest with themselves but beyond that I really don't care what they believe. This is a debate board however............
You and I may find the topic fascinating to discuss...
Well exactly. And that is primarily what I am trying to do.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 2:56 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 24 of 237 (530999)
10-15-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 3:07 PM


Re: What Do They Actually Mean?
Don't dismiss the mystical or paranormal out of hand immediately. Check to see if something like that is falsifiable first.
I am not dismissing anything out of hand. I am all for testing any claim. I am asking in this thread whether or not precognition is consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them to be. I am asking if Kaku is right when he says:
Kaku in "Physics of the Impossible" writes:
It would set off a major shake-up in the very foundations of modern physics if precognition were ever proved in reproducible experiments
I am also taking this opportunity to rail against those paranormal apologetics who cite a pseudo version of the very same modern physics that is being contradicted by precognition. In particular those charlatans riding on the success and authority of genuine science through the use of bogus and conflationary terminology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 3:07 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 25 of 237 (531001)
10-15-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Perdition
10-15-2009 4:56 PM


Re: The Clockwork Universe Vs Inherent Uncertainty
We may not be able to know exactly what people are going to do what, but we could predict, with some accuracy, the probability of certain events happening. As someone mentioned above, in the Foundation series, Asimov had Harry Seldon basically use people like radioactive atoms. He could determine what a crowd would do, but he couldn't tell you who in the crowd would do what.
A statistical approach to human behaviour patterns. Which is why this, in principle at least, is no more precognition in the paranormal sense than is weather forecasting.
Dictionary writes:
Precognition (from the Latin pr-, prior to, + cognitio, acquiring knowledge), also called Future Sight, refers to perception that involves the acquisition of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
Tarot card reading (for example) is not about analysing empirical evidence and making predictions based on that evidence. It is (apparently) about utilising the undefinable "energy" or "life-force" of the subject through some ambiguous mystical aspect of the Tarot cards to tell them about their future. It contradicts causality as we know it.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 4:56 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 6:27 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 34 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2009 9:42 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 237 (531003)
10-15-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Perdition
10-15-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Timelines
Not necessarily. If we're allowing the possibility of a Q-like being, and it's ability to exist outside our timeline and yet see into it, we have to allow the possibility that he sees into our timeline and sees his actions and their effects, meaning that the minute he steps into our timeline, he can effectively see his own timeline, albeit for only the amount of time he is inside it.
This would imply not only do we have no free will, but neither does he.
Yep I thought of this possibility too. It is intriguing to think that even the external to time "god" like entity is devoid of freewill in this scenario.
I need to respond to Mod's post above properly but the whole timeline thing is in danger of branching this thread off in parallel topics that have little to do with precognition, the paranormal or the abuse of quantum theory in the form of quantum mysticism to justify such claims.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 5:07 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 28 of 237 (531022)
10-15-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
10-15-2009 8:27 AM


Re: The LHC goes back in time and kills its grandmother
Mod writes:
So we take a wormhole and accelerate one end of it. This creates a time dilation effect at one end. Now we have a wormhole where the entrance is in 2009 and the exit is 2010 (we the experimenters would be in 2010). We read a newspaper for April 25th 2010, step through the wormhole and then go on live television and tell the world what happens on April 25th 2010. Voila - we've 'predicted' the future.
Well according to Kaku you have predicted a future. If I have understood correctly. Kaku essentially invokes the many worlds interpretation of QM along with the notion of timelines in order to distinguish between time travel and precognition. With regard to time travel he explains the same idea of a connecting wormhole that you mention (along with some of the technical challenges in costructing such a thing) and then talks about resolving things like the grandfather paradox in terms of branching timelines and parallel universes.
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. Precognition of this sort is ultimately no more reliable than guessing from amongst all the possible universes.
With regard to precognition of the type under discussion in this thread Kaku says the following:
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In chapter 12 we saw that time travel might be consistent with the laws of physics, but for an advanced, Type III civilisation. But is precognition possible on Earth today?
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In fact, precognition is difficult to reconcile with modern physics, because it violates causality, the law of cause and effect. Effects occur after the cause, not vice versa. All the laws of physics that have been found so far have causality built into them. A violation of causality would signal a major collapse of the foundations of physics.
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In summary, precognition is ruled out by Newtonian physics. The iron rule of cause and effect is never violated. In the quantum theory, new states of matter are possible, such as antimatter, which crresponds to matter going backward in time, but causality is not violated. In fact, in a quantum theory, antimatter is essential to restoring causality.
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" in conclusion writes:
It would set off a major shake-up in the very foundations of modern physics if precognition was ever proved in reproducible experiments
Although he doesn't say so explicitly, as no mention of timelines is made in the section on precognition, it seems he is talking about seeing the future portion of a single specific timeline. The future that will happen. Essentailly precognition without wormholes or related time travel possibilities as claimed by paranormalists today.
Mod writes:
Oh - and incidentally - in the news today is a story about physicists postulating that the LHC is sabotaging itself from the future.
Fantastic. I love this sort of thing. I am going to go and read these links properly.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2009 8:27 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 10-18-2009 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 237 (531023)
10-15-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Perdition
10-15-2009 6:27 PM


Paradigm Shift of Epic Proportions
Perdition writes:
The only way actual precognition works is if something comes back in time and somehow affects the "seer's" mind/brain. If there's no contra-time movement, then I don't see how it could even work.
It is worth noting that of all the areas covered in Kaku's book "The Physics of the Impossible" only precognition and perpetual motion machines were listed as totally contravening the known laws of physics. This is what Kaku has to say on precognition:
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In chapter 12 we saw that time travel might be consistent with the laws of physics, but for an advanced, Type III civilisation. But is precognition possible on Earth today?
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In fact, precognition is difficult to reconcile with modern physics, because it violates causality, the law of cause and effect. Effects occur after the cause, not vice versa. All the laws of physics that have been found so far have causality built into them. A violation of causality would signal a major collapse of the foundations of physics.
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" writes:
In summary, precognition is ruled out by Newtonian physics. The iron rule of cause and effect is never violated. In the quantum theory, new states of matter are possible, such as antimatter, which crresponds to matter going backward in time, but causality is not violated. In fact, in a quantum theory, antimatter is essential to restoring causality.
Kaku in "Physics of the Imposible" in conclusion writes:
It would set off a major shake-up in the very foundations of modern physics if precognition was ever proved in reproducible experiments
So those who advocate precognition as real are, according to Kaku and presumably the scientific consensus on this matter, contradicting causality and the very foundations of science as we understand it to be.
I agree, it flies in the face of all we think we know, and considering what we've accomplished with what we think we know, I think we know quite a bit.
Always dangerous to rule anything out entirely. But the sort of paradigm shift required to overturn causality would be like nothing ever before and would undermine just about the whole of science and human knowledge in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 6:27 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024