A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

Ordinary reasoning and logic do not understand, for example, the Quantum Physics concept of the 'superposition of possibilities', as the ordinary conditioned mentality is still thinking in materialist terms.

Why would you think that? Ordinary logic ultimately lead to the formulation of quantum mechanics. That formulation is based upon mathematics and is perfectly logical. The superposition of possibilities follows naturally from this formulation. Why you think it is contrary to either reason or logic defies me.

What you seem to miss is that QM *is* a consequence of reasoning and logic as applied to the real world.

As for 'materialism', I'm not perfectly sure what you mean by the term here and to what extent it includes classical notions of what it means to be 'material'. But QM certainly is a description of the physical world and when I use the term materialism, QM is certainly a part of that model.

So, what do *you* mean by the term 'materialism'? How is it contrary to QM?

 

[Polymath257]

Nonlocal communication was demonstrated 25% of the time. How is that a
'bad' statistic? How is the fact that, when the two EEG patterns were superimposed one upon the other, they pretty much matched up?

Not double blinded. Persinger is known for his sloppiness in this regard.

Here's more recent information:

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/282/310

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/282/310

And a rebuttal:

Neuroscience for the soul | The Psychologist

So at which point do complex electro-chemical reactions become fully functional consciousness?

Not completely clear. Certainly the degree of complexity is crucial. Clearly that is also not sufficient (since the complexity doesn't change when we go to sleep, for example).

 

[godnotgod]

Not completely clear. .

IOW, 'nebulous', as in 'not really a scientific theory', as in 'assumption', a scientific theory having a different meaning than that used by laymen; a scientific theory being essentially a 'working fact', as in 'the theory of evolution', or 'the theory of gravity'.

 

[godnotgod]

Why would you think that? Ordinary logic ultimately lead to the formulation of quantum mechanics. That formulation is based upon mathematics and is perfectly logical. The superposition of possibilities follows naturally from this formulation. Why you think it is contrary to either reason or logic defies me.

What you seem to miss is that QM *is* a consequence of reasoning and logic as applied to the real world.

As for 'materialism', I'm not perfectly sure what you mean by the term here and to what extent it includes classical notions of what it means to be 'material'. But QM certainly is a description of the physical world and when I use the term materialism, QM is certainly a part of that model.

So, what do *you* mean by the term 'materialism'? How is it contrary to QM?

In classical physics, the atom was seen as materially real; in QM, it is a possibility.

Currently, the 'particle' is now seen as an excitation in the field.

 

[Polymath257]

IOW, 'nebulous', as in 'not really a scientific theory', as in 'assumption', a scientific theory having a different meaning than that used by laymen; a scientific theory being essentially a 'working fact', as in 'the theory of evolution', or 'the theory of gravity'.

Wrong. Scientific theories don't have to have all the answers. Just enough to form a comprehensible collection of ideas that can be tested. It is a 'working fact' that consciousness arises from brain processes. The details are not fully known. But that doesn't change that it has been a working hypotheses that has passed the tests thrown at it.

 

[Polymath257]

In classical physics, the atom was seen as materially real; in QM, it is a possibility.

No, atom are large enough that they aren't just possibilities. There is a probability of measurement for their positions, but even that is rather constrained for even small atoms like hydrogen.

Currently, the 'particle' is now seen as an excitation in the field.

Yes, so? And why is that not material? And more importantly, why does that take it out of the realm of logic and reason?

 

[godnotgod]

It is a 'working fact' that consciousness arises from brain processes. .

BS

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, so? And why is that not material? And more importantly, why does that take it out of the realm of logic and reason?

Particles are standing waves.

We have been down this road before. There are apparently two schools of thought here. The one you espouse, and the other that says particles are standing waves, as described and documented mathematically in this extensive piece, which I posted previously:

The Particle: From waves to particles

 

[viole]

Nonlocal communication was demonstrated 25% of the time. How is that a
'bad' statistic? How is the fact that, when the two EEG patterns were superimposed one upon the other, they pretty much matched up?

Non local communication is impossible, if quantum mechanics is true. There is a no-go theorem about that: "the no communication theorem".

But maybe you are confusing quantum entanglement with the possibility to transmit information instantaneously. Well, they are two different things. For instance, you cannot possibly send instantaneous information using quantum entanglement, despite the character of quantum entanglement. So, one does not entail the other.

And that is why QM is still fundamentally local. For any information that can influence the (statistical) state of a physical system (its density matrix), is still impossible for speeds higher than light's. With or without entanglement.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Non local communication is impossible, if quantum mechanics is true. There is a no-go theorem about that: "the no communication theorem".

But maybe you are confusing quantum entanglement with the possibility to transmit information instantaneously. Well, they are two different things. For instance, you cannot possibly send instantaneous information using quantum entanglement, despite the character of quantum entanglement. So, one does not entail the other.

And that is why QM is still fundamentally local. For any information that can influence the (statistical) state of a physical system (its density matrix), is still impossible for speeds higher than light's. With or without entanglement.

Ciao

- viole

In the study cited*, there was no information exchanged; there was only signal-less, instantaneous, non-local response of brain B to the stimuli that brain A was receiving.

Perhaps the word 'communication' is misleading, and 'interaction' or 'connection' might be preferable.

"The transferred potentials demonstrate brain-to-brain nonlocal EPR correlation
between brains, supporting the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel."

*http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

 

[viole]

In the study cited*, there was no information exchanged; there was only signal-less, instantaneous, non-local response of brain B to the stimuli that brain A was receiving.

*http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

I think we already hit that dead horse a few years ago. And again, that kind of responses to impulses require information transfer. Bits, you know.

So, if you really believe that such information has been transmitted instantaneously, do not use QM to explain it, since these things are impossible in QM. It would be like using the Bible to prove that God is Mickey Mouse.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

... that kind of responses to impulses require information transfer. Bits, you know.

So, if you really believe that such information has been transmitted instantaneously, do not use QM to explain it, since these things are impossible in QM.

In the experiment by Alain Aspect in which one entangled photon responded instantaneously to the other, was there information transfer?

If the universe is a hologram, 'these things' are indeed possible in QM.

The paper I linked to apparently IS using QM to explain it.

 

[viole]

In the experiment by Alain Aspect in which one entangled photon responded instantaneously to the other, was there information transfer?

NO. Obviously.

ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

NO. Obviously.

ciao

- viole

But according to you, there had to occur information transfer in the Jacobo Grinberg Zylberbaum experiment of entangled brains.

 

[viole]

But according to you, there had to occur information transfer in the Jacobo Grinberg Zylberbaum experiment of entangled brains.

Yes.

Don't you see the difference?

if not, at the risk of sounding condescending I have to ask you this: what is your level of knowledge of Quantum Mechanics?

By the way, I am sure entangled brains exist. For instance, I am sure that both Grinberg and Zylberbaum have each one of those

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Yes.

Don't you see the difference?

Feel free to provide your explanation, without the mind games.

 

[viole]

Feel free to provide your explanation, without the mind games.

What mind games? It is quite obvious that you, and that guy in the video, do not have the slightest clue about QM. He does not probably even know what a density matrix is.

And that is fine. Understanding, or trying to understand QM, takes a lot of work and a non negligible knowledge of math. What is less fine is pontificating as if the subject were known, which obviously isn't. Or worse: abusing it incorrectly to explain the reality of ridiculous things like telepathy, cosmic consciousness, or similar new age nonsense to an equally clueless and gullible audience.

An entangled pair is a system with only two possible states: up-down, and down-up. All the other states (like up-up) do not exist. Think of it as a constrained system. So, always observing them having different spin states is obvious and does not require any simultaneous transfer of information, since the information that they are always in opposition of spin is already there and it has been acquired when their quantum state has been prepared. You know, when the two particles have been (LOCALLY) in contact at the beginning.

On the other hand, flashing a light, or making photons collide with a system (a retina/brain), and expecting that a remote system (e.g. another brain) experiences the same physical change remotely, requires a change of the density matrix of the remote system. Ergo, a transfer of information between the two systems. And this cannot occur instantaneously in QM.

So, if you believe that stuff, please do that by all means. But do not abuse QM to justify it, because by doing that you will only betray your suboptimal knowledge about the subject.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Particles are standing waves.

We have been down this road before. There are apparently two schools of thought here. The one you espouse, and the other that says particles are standing waves, as described and documented mathematically in this extensive piece, which I posted previously:

The Particle: From waves to particles

Particles are NOT standing waves. They *are* excitations of the 'particle wave'. But that is quite different than being a standing wave.

Standing waves happen in regions that are bounded because of reflection from the boundaries. In an unbounded region, you do not get standing waves.

 

[Polymath257]

What mind games? It is quite obvious that you, and that guy in the video, do not have the slightest clue about QM. He does not probably even know what a density matrix is.

And that is fine. Understanding, or trying to understand QM, takes a lot of work and a non negligible knowledge of math. What is less fine is pontificating as if the subject were known, which obviously isn't. Or worse: abusing it incorrectly to explain the reality of ridiculous things like telepathy, cosmic consciousness, or similar new age nonsense to an equally clueless and gullible audience.

An entangled pair is a system with only two possible states: up-down, and down-up. All the other states (like up-up) do not exist. Think of it as a constrained system. So, always observing them having different spin states is obvious and does not require any simultaneous transfer of information, since the information that they are always in opposition of spin is already there and it has been acquired when their quantum state has been prepared. You know, when the two particles have been (LOCALLY) in contact at the beginning.

On the other hand, flashing a light, or making photons collide with a system (a retina/brain), and expecting that a remote system (e.g. another brain) experiences the same physical change remotely, requires a change of the density matrix of the remote system. Ergo, a transfer of information between the two systems. And this cannot occur instantaneously in QM.

So, if you believe that stuff, please do that by all means. But do not abuse QM to justify it, because by doing that you will only betray your suboptimal knowledge about the subject.

Ciao

- viole

Technically, and I'm sure you know this, it is possible to have entanglement with aspects other than spin. Also, it is possible (if the orbital parity is odd), for the entangled state to be up/up or down/down.

 

[godnotgod]

What mind games? It is quite obvious that you, and that guy in the video, do not have the slightest clue about QM. He does not probably even know what a density matrix is.

And that is fine. Understanding, or trying to understand QM, takes a lot of work and a non negligible knowledge of math. What is less fine is pontificating as if the subject were known, which obviously isn't. Or worse: abusing it incorrectly to explain the reality of ridiculous things like telepathy, cosmic consciousness, or similar new age nonsense to an equally clueless and gullible audience.

Thanks for the reply. No time right now to respond to everything, but will later.

That you would even consider 'condescension' is playing mind games. There is no need to indulge in that.

No, I don't know the math; what the math and science mean should be explainable to anyone, or what use is it if known only to a few?

It is quite obvious that you do not have the slightest clue about cosmic consciousness, except to dismiss it as 'ridiculous'. What do you know, anyway? Not much, or maybe just too much baggage in the way.

I'm not pontificating, but I guess that's just the way you see it. I have nothing to sell here.

I don't think the audience here is gullible or clueless at all; they are constantly challenging me, and i"m OK with that.

Suffice it to say for the meantime that there are many professionals who disagree with you re: cosmic consciousness as it relates to QM. We can talk about that later.

All the guy in the video did was to explain the experiment and relay it's findings. Was his information erroneous? As for being clueless about QM, I don't think he mentioned it much in terms of the experiment he was trying to explain, which was primarily about nonlocality. In fact, on rechecking, he mentions it only once in relation to particle entanglement, but never relative to the brain experiment.

You criticize the high school teacher in the video from a position of false superiority, but I say he is a gem of a teacher. Science types are always talking about how we need to inspire young people, but a condescending attitude like yours is hardly conducive. Perhaps a quick dose of what higher consciousness has to offer will place science into the proper context of Reality, instead of trying to put Reality into the context of scientific knowledge. Doesn't quite fit.

Thanks for explaining how entangled particles behave. I understood everything you said.

Later.