Quantum Weirdness
These peculiar properties have already been proven in a lab and tapped to improve data encryption. They could also one day be used to build much faster computers. Some philosophers see quantum phenomena as a sign of far greater unknown forces at work and it bolsters their view that a spiritual dimension exists.
”We don’t know how nature manages to produce spooky behavior,” says Nicolas Gisin, a scientist at Geneva University, who led a recent experiment demonstrating action-at-a-distance. “But it’s a fascinating time for physics because it can be mastered and exploited.”
Einstein refused to believe that a photon could be in all states at once and set out to find an explanation for their seemingly odd behavior. God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he said at the time. Danish physicist Neils Bohr, a big proponent of quantum uncertainty, shot back: “Quit telling God what to do.”
The familiar “God of the gaps.” You can see why quantum theory has become the favorite football of snake oil salesmen — be they homeopaths, psychics, cultists, or others. Much like electricity in the age of spiritualism, it works, but no one knows why it works yet, so it must be the realm of supernature. Curiously, when these gaps in knowledge are filled, the underlying belief — never shaken — is always moved to a newer gap.
The familiar “God of the gaps.” You can see why quantum theory has become the favorite football of snake oil salesmen — be they homeopaths, psychics, cultists, or others. Much like electricity in the age of spiritualism, it works, but no one knows why it works yet, so it must be the realm of supernature. Curiously, when these gaps in knowledge are filled, the underlying belief — never shaken — is always moved to a newer gap.
The mistake that philosophers make by pointing at this phenomenon and saying it indicates a spiritual dimension is that this is only true on the quantum level. Meaning, it is only valid for very small things like photons, and sub-atomic particles.
Our brains are made up of much larger structures than this, and our consciousness is most likely a product of the whole network. These entanglements are on too small and too fundamental of a level to have any real effect here.
The mistake that philosophers make by pointing at this phenomenon and saying it indicates a spiritual dimension is that this is only true on the quantum level. Meaning, it is only valid for very small things like photons, and sub-atomic particles.
Our brains are made up of much larger structures than this, and our consciousness is most likely a product of the whole network. These entanglements are on too small and too fundamental of a level to have any real effect here.
Only Bohr could have gotten away with a crack like that at Einstein.
Only Bohr could have gotten away with a crack like that at Einstein.
“The mistake that philosophers make by pointing at this phenomenon and saying it indicates a spiritual dimension is that this is only true on the quantum level.”
Another way to look at that is to posit that spirit is a quantum effect.
What measurable quality indicates consciousness is is a network effect?
When we don’t know what something is, saying what it isn’t is only logical if we know what that not-it is. Spirituality and consciousness have less to measure than entanglement, yet we claim we can say what these are and are not but have no explanation for entanglement.
Reducing the philosophers to having made ‘a mistake’ when one has no more testable facts than they do is itself fallacious.
Entanglement implies an order not understood. Call it what you will. The appeal to larger structures is an appeal to locale. Entanglement implies the primacy of locale as a determinant of structural scale is a mistaken concept as currently understood.
“The mistake that philosophers make by pointing at this phenomenon and saying it indicates a spiritual dimension is that this is only true on the quantum level.”
Another way to look at that is to posit that spirit is a quantum effect.
What measurable quality indicates consciousness is is a network effect?
When we don’t know what something is, saying what it isn’t is only logical if we know what that not-it is. Spirituality and consciousness have less to measure than entanglement, yet we claim we can say what these are and are not but have no explanation for entanglement.
Reducing the philosophers to having made ‘a mistake’ when one has no more testable facts than they do is itself fallacious.
Entanglement implies an order not understood. Call it what you will. The appeal to larger structures is an appeal to locale. Entanglement implies the primacy of locale as a determinant of structural scale is a mistaken concept as currently understood.
@Space Toast: Right on.
@Space Toast: Right on.
Spelling weirdness.
Spelling weirdness.
Sopace Toast is quite right.
It is nonsense to argue ‘we don’t understand it, therefore it proves an unfalsifiable theory of the supernatural’.
Absolute codswallop.
Sopace Toast is quite right.
It is nonsense to argue ‘we don’t understand it, therefore it proves an unfalsifiable theory of the supernatural’.
Absolute codswallop.
Nope. He isn’t right. He is making assertions about assertions when the original assertions are relating unknowns.
None of them are right. It’s nonsense to argue measures among predicates which can’t be shown to be related OR unrelated.
The quirk is the anti-religionists being advocates of right, wrong, or simply just the other camp of “we know better” look sillier.
@Peter:
I recently read an article about determinism vs. free will where a couple of scientists tried to show that a particle has “free will” in a way that is not dissimilar to our own.
I admit the science of it was a little over my head, but the gist of it was clear.
So in a sense quantum physics could very well explain free will (something we all sense we have – whether we actually do or not) and that oil snake salesmen cling to in an effort to show us that science is wrong and that whatever mumbo-jumbo is right.
There is no “mistake”.
Our sense of free will in an otherwise deterministic world might very well be explained by quantum mechanics.
Our brains may be large structures, but a single neuron shooting/not shooting might effect a decision we make/don’t make.
Science, thankfully, keeps filling all these gaps that are still occupied by God.
And all the philosophers (AND oil snake salesmen) will have to move on to greener pastures once this market is cornered as well.
@Peter:
I recently read an article about determinism vs. free will where a couple of scientists tried to show that a particle has “free will” in a way that is not dissimilar to our own.
I admit the science of it was a little over my head, but the gist of it was clear.
So in a sense quantum physics could very well explain free will (something we all sense we have – whether we actually do or not) and that oil snake salesmen cling to in an effort to show us that science is wrong and that whatever mumbo-jumbo is right.
There is no “mistake”.
Our sense of free will in an otherwise deterministic world might very well be explained by quantum mechanics.
Our brains may be large structures, but a single neuron shooting/not shooting might effect a decision we make/don’t make.
Science, thankfully, keeps filling all these gaps that are still occupied by God.
And all the philosophers (AND oil snake salesmen) will have to move on to greener pastures once this market is cornered as well.
Speaking of spin and larger structures and “entanglement,” does any of this explain Arlen Specter or Newt “I’m gonna be a Catholic now” Gingrich or any of the weird and wonderful “entanglements” that used to get looked at by investigative reporters and grand juries and that also weem instantly to cause the “entangled” individuals to try real hard to break the entanglement and put an opposite spin on themselves? Does it have anything to do with one of those other quantum properties, “charm?” As in “the charming Condi Rice?”
And our first President warned us of “entangling alliances” and our 34th president about “unholy combinations” like the military-industrial complex (is that still an issue, by the way?) — does that have anything to do with “string theory?”
When you get down this far inside anything, it’s aaallll connected….
In this case, it isn’t a matter of snake oil salesman telling them science is wrong and then making up mumbo jumbo.
It is scientists telling us that science is making measurements that show the universe operates on principles that sound like mumbo jumbo in the sense that these principles contradict the security or right-thinking alledgedly scientific thinking thought it had firmly established over other alledged mumbo jumbo.
At this time, entanglement indicates that major physicists before John Bell have been wrong.
There is an old saying that God created integers and the rest is the work of man. Entanglement is a higher order structure at work and it may be the case that the fractional viewpoint inculcated by the dominance of locale is the mumbo-jumbo. No one really knows. The reason it keeps coming up is not snake oil sales but the fact that one side’s mumbo jumbo just started appearing to be more right than the other side.
Gaps scare scientific rationalists. They inspire spiritualists. Engineers simply measure the gap, determine if it can be controlled, and apply it to some profitable task. Spiritualists extol fire and use it to inspire followers; engineers measure the effect of heat on metal and make swords so the others can thin out the flocks. It’s dry fun to watch critiques from either side of the other side’s thinking when neither has a single principle they can prove that relates them. It’s just trade on mumbo jumbo with both sides trying to dominate the flock.
Like fire, we will likely debate for a long time what the force or forces at work are even as we master applying them. That’s the interesting point: we can often apply what we haven’t a single provable theory to explain.
The other point in the article was the one made about anti-particle/particle collisions behaving differently when not observed. The notion of observer-centrisms in these theories keeps rearing up and that is fascinating. The universe seems to be a different place when there are no conscious entities keeping track or alternatively, when no ‘local’ conscious entities are keeping track.
So is it the case some trees make no sound because they refuse to fall until someone is listening or only fall if that consciousness is local. Once we start discussing locale and consciousness in the same conversation, we hit the tripwire of spirituality because science can’t clarify what it can’t test. So someone has to make up a test and that someone has to be both conscious and local which limits the kinds of tests one can apply.
IOW, science may be short-sighted and spirituality, non-local.
> Curiously, when these gaps in knowledge are filled, the underlying belief — never shaken — is always moved to a newer gap.
Though it’s not much different from how science writes off ‘anomalous results’ until it has a framework to explain them. While many ways of thinking don’t have direct applicability to our more materialist lives today, they do embody systems of knowledge, quite often as metaphoric as the ridiculous ‘solar system’ model of the atom, and as such can be worthwhile tools for exploring the human condition. Writing them off vehemently reduces science to mere hegemony, and one wonders why proponents of science (and I like my science don’t get me wrong) feel so threatened by them that they need to shout it down at every mention.
One thing that’s good to keep in mind when reading about the strange things we see at the quantum level is that these effects don’t translate to the macro world that we occupy. As such, I often wonder if those ‘god gaps’ (I love that term) are really just reflections of the limits of what we can perceive.
Cool stuff, nonetheless, and quantum encryption has already been in use for a few years in satellite-to-ground communication. The future is here, it just doesn’t make the entry we expect it to.
“If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.”
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen
From the EPR paper that kicks off the debate, it described the nut at the heart of this thread which is not religion or spirituality vs science, which as shown is beggaring distraction, but that we are, at least at quantum scales, dealing with evidence that tears apart our accepted notions of time and space. What made Einstein nervous was
a) The idea that when other hidden variables were eliminated as John Bell would do after Einstein’s death, the only one left is non-locality, that indeed, the states *communicate* instantaneously.
b) That physical reality doesn’t exist unless observed (measured), in other words, quantum qualities or measures are in superposition (in all possible states) until measured/observed.
Some efforts to explain how this could work center around the existence of the Higgs boson and field both of which start sounding like the The Force from Star Trek lore. CERN is hard at work on that one.
An explanation in which the dominance of the very small over the very large as mediated by a molasses like force that results in clustering, that is mass sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar.
“If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.”
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen
From the EPR paper that kicks off the debate, it described the nut at the heart of this thread which is not religion or spirituality vs science, which as shown is beggaring distraction, but that we are, at least at quantum scales, dealing with evidence that tears apart our accepted notions of time and space. What made Einstein nervous was
a) The idea that when other hidden variables were eliminated as John Bell would do after Einstein’s death, the only one left is non-locality, that indeed, the states *communicate* instantaneously.
b) That physical reality doesn’t exist unless observed (measured), in other words, quantum qualities or measures are in superposition (in all possible states) until measured/observed.
Some efforts to explain how this could work center around the existence of the Higgs boson and field both of which start sounding like the The Force from Star Trek lore. CERN is hard at work on that one.
An explanation in which the dominance of the very small over the very large as mediated by a molasses like force that results in clustering, that is mass sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar.
“If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.”
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen
From the EPR paper that kicks off the debate, it described the nut at the heart of this thread which is not religion or spirituality vs science, which as shown is beggaring distraction, but that we are, at least at quantum scales, dealing with evidence that tears apart our accepted notions of time and space. What made Einstein nervous was
a) The idea that when other hidden variables were eliminated as John Bell would do after Einstein’s death, the only one left is non-locality, that indeed, the states *communicate* instantaneously.
b) That physical reality doesn’t exist unless observed (measured), in other words, quantum qualities or measures are in superposition (in all possible states) until measured/observed.
Some efforts to explain how this could work center around the existence of the Higgs boson and field both of which start sounding like the The Force from Star Trek lore. CERN is hard at work on that one.
An explanation in which the dominance of the very small over the very large as mediated by a molasses like force that results in clustering, that is mass sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar.
> sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar
Well put. It often gives me pause how often the sciences that I love, pushed to their limits, end up sounding like the religious and spiritual thinking I fled years ago.
> sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar
Well put. It often gives me pause how often the sciences that I love, pushed to their limits, end up sounding like the religious and spiritual thinking I fled years ago.
> sounds just as spooky to the layman as the “The Spirit of God hovering over the water” but also weirdly similar
Well put. It often gives me pause how often the sciences that I love, pushed to their limits, end up sounding like the religious and spiritual thinking I fled years ago.
Although separable from the discussion of Higgs Bosons, it is important to understand that before someone drops off into uncertainty MJ (mumbo-jumbo), uncertainty is not about what we cannot know but the precision with which we can know one thing and not another if they are complementary (eg, momentum and position). Quantum theory is a theory of statistical probabilities.
Semantics and language theory falls into some of the same oddities and there are those trying to apply quantum models to semantics (meaning of terms as probabilities similar or identical to waveform functions). Experience and not an insignificant amount of reading and discussion of this makes it intuitively attractive to me particularly in light of progress in very large dataset indexing (in English, how Googling works).
Then I see one of these and want to stop thinking about it altogether:
http://www.iarpa.gov/solicitations_reynard.html
There you go, JTMc. If you think about it all as a ‘virtual world’, you have your podium topic for the day.
Although separable from the discussion of Higgs Bosons, it is important to understand that before someone drops off into uncertainty MJ (mumbo-jumbo), uncertainty is not about what we cannot know but the precision with which we can know one thing and not another if they are complementary (eg, momentum and position). Quantum theory is a theory of statistical probabilities.
Semantics and language theory falls into some of the same oddities and there are those trying to apply quantum models to semantics (meaning of terms as probabilities similar or identical to waveform functions). Experience and not an insignificant amount of reading and discussion of this makes it intuitively attractive to me particularly in light of progress in very large dataset indexing (in English, how Googling works).
Then I see one of these and want to stop thinking about it altogether:
http://www.iarpa.gov/solicitations_reynard.html
There you go, JTMc. If you think about it all as a ‘virtual world’, you have your podium topic for the day.
Although separable from the discussion of Higgs Bosons, it is important to understand that before someone drops off into uncertainty MJ (mumbo-jumbo), uncertainty is not about what we cannot know but the precision with which we can know one thing and not another if they are complementary (eg, momentum and position). Quantum theory is a theory of statistical probabilities.
Semantics and language theory falls into some of the same oddities and there are those trying to apply quantum models to semantics (meaning of terms as probabilities similar or identical to waveform functions). Experience and not an insignificant amount of reading and discussion of this makes it intuitively attractive to me particularly in light of progress in very large dataset indexing (in English, how Googling works).
Then I see one of these and want to stop thinking about it altogether:
http://www.iarpa.gov/solicitations_reynard.html
There you go, JTMc. If you think about it all as a ‘virtual world’, you have your podium topic for the day.
I really like the comparison of semantics with quantum models, especially in the disambiguation process that is really quite remarkable when we think of how easily we narrow down from possible meanings to the (likely) correct meaning almost effortlessly and even in mid-sentence.
Neal Stephenson’s Anathem, a good read in itself, at one point speculates that the mind takes advantage of quantum reality to explore various possibilities in the process of decision making. The narrative arrives at that point by wondering how we can clear cognitive paths to what we’d call a realistic scenario when we can just as easily imagine (and sometimes perceive) unrealistic scenarios.
Great food for thought on a Wednesday.
I really like the comparison of semantics with quantum models, especially in the disambiguation process that is really quite remarkable when we think of how easily we narrow down from possible meanings to the (likely) correct meaning almost effortlessly and even in mid-sentence.
Neal Stephenson’s Anathem, a good read in itself, at one point speculates that the mind takes advantage of quantum reality to explore various possibilities in the process of decision making. The narrative arrives at that point by wondering how we can clear cognitive paths to what we’d call a realistic scenario when we can just as easily imagine (and sometimes perceive) unrealistic scenarios.
Great food for thought on a Wednesday.
IARPA. I read somewhere that if you apply a Kabalistic numerologic analysis to that acronym, it metabolizes to “Matrix.” So far from the Golden Rule as to represent a quantum breakthrough of the Satanic kind. And the smug young folks who think this is “progress.” The Metallica world of violent meaninglessness where nothing has meaning because everything is possible is peeking over the horizon.
I am glad that I am not likely to live long enough to see the Brave New World that will Have Such People In It. ‘t’ain’t human. Don’t mean shit, either. But for some it apparently feels like a nice warm amniotic sac.
Jesus Fucking-A-Christ.
IARPA. I read somewhere that if you apply a Kabalistic numerologic analysis to that acronym, it metabolizes to “Matrix.” So far from the Golden Rule as to represent a quantum breakthrough of the Satanic kind. And the smug young folks who think this is “progress.” The Metallica world of violent meaninglessness where nothing has meaning because everything is possible is peeking over the horizon.
I am glad that I am not likely to live long enough to see the Brave New World that will Have Such People In It. ‘t’ain’t human. Don’t mean shit, either. But for some it apparently feels like a nice warm amniotic sac.
Jesus Fucking-A-Christ.
IARPA. I read somewhere that if you apply a Kabalistic numerologic analysis to that acronym, it metabolizes to “Matrix.” So far from the Golden Rule as to represent a quantum breakthrough of the Satanic kind. And the smug young folks who think this is “progress.” The Metallica world of violent meaninglessness where nothing has meaning because everything is possible is peeking over the horizon.
I am glad that I am not likely to live long enough to see the Brave New World that will Have Such People In It. ‘t’ain’t human. Don’t mean shit, either. But for some it apparently feels like a nice warm amniotic sac.
Jesus Fucking-A-Christ.
The whole thing will eventually be used to develop a next-generation cellphone technology so that teenagers and motorists can be even more vapid and stupid than they are now. Which is mathematically impossible, which proves that it’s bound to happen.
When God sees us finally figure it all out, and then realizes that we can do no better than use his spellbook to sell shit at $59.95 a month (service charges, taxes, fees, excise charges, licenses, and downloads extra), he will promptly vanish in a puff of pique.
The whole thing will eventually be used to develop a next-generation cellphone technology so that teenagers and motorists can be even more vapid and stupid than they are now. Which is mathematically impossible, which proves that it’s bound to happen.
When God sees us finally figure it all out, and then realizes that we can do no better than use his spellbook to sell shit at $59.95 a month (service charges, taxes, fees, excise charges, licenses, and downloads extra), he will promptly vanish in a puff of pique.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” –Buddha
Quantum entanglement is how thought synthesizes reality.
We are not only what we eat, but all that we observe. The act of measuring collapses the wave function from superposition to a time-stamped state. It is not a ‘truth’; it is a system for selecting among probabilities and it happens at the lowest levels of whatever it is physics says it measures.
Because this happens in real time, the time-stamp only demarks the result. The collapse caused by interference (a photon is in the environment and this declares a system ) eliminates probabilities and acts as the selector.
Insight is in understanding it as a microsystem and extrapolating that into macrosystems. Here physics says that where we as observers think that macro is, we are measuring the probabilities of results that emerge from the randomness of the micro systems coalescing into self-selecting macrosystems that exhibit higher coupling values across time streams, ie, non-randomness where locale is supreme as Einstein thought rational.
If it helps, the universe really is woven or knit making up the patterns as it goes but limiting those patterns by the sequences of selections.
BTW: some say the experiments eliminate the necessity for parallel universe models. Those universes are probabilistic. They never become in this time stream.
That is time’s job as a langolier.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” –Buddha
Quantum entanglement is how thought synthesizes reality.
We are not only what we eat, but all that we observe. The act of measuring collapses the wave function from superposition to a time-stamped state. It is not a ‘truth’; it is a system for selecting among probabilities and it happens at the lowest levels of whatever it is physics says it measures.
Because this happens in real time, the time-stamp only demarks the result. The collapse caused by interference (a photon is in the environment and this declares a system ) eliminates probabilities and acts as the selector.
Insight is in understanding it as a microsystem and extrapolating that into macrosystems. Here physics says that where we as observers think that macro is, we are measuring the probabilities of results that emerge from the randomness of the micro systems coalescing into self-selecting macrosystems that exhibit higher coupling values across time streams, ie, non-randomness where locale is supreme as Einstein thought rational.
If it helps, the universe really is woven or knit making up the patterns as it goes but limiting those patterns by the sequences of selections.
BTW: some say the experiments eliminate the necessity for parallel universe models. Those universes are probabilistic. They never become in this time stream.
That is time’s job as a langolier.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” –Buddha
Quantum entanglement is how thought synthesizes reality.
We are not only what we eat, but all that we observe. The act of measuring collapses the wave function from superposition to a time-stamped state. It is not a ‘truth’; it is a system for selecting among probabilities and it happens at the lowest levels of whatever it is physics says it measures.
Because this happens in real time, the time-stamp only demarks the result. The collapse caused by interference (a photon is in the environment and this declares a system ) eliminates probabilities and acts as the selector.
Insight is in understanding it as a microsystem and extrapolating that into macrosystems. Here physics says that where we as observers think that macro is, we are measuring the probabilities of results that emerge from the randomness of the micro systems coalescing into self-selecting macrosystems that exhibit higher coupling values across time streams, ie, non-randomness where locale is supreme as Einstein thought rational.
If it helps, the universe really is woven or knit making up the patterns as it goes but limiting those patterns by the sequences of selections.
BTW: some say the experiments eliminate the necessity for parallel universe models. Those universes are probabilistic. They never become in this time stream.
That is time’s job as a langolier.
Just to clarify – “Einstein refused to believe that a photon could be in all states at once and set out to find an explanation for their seemingly odd behavior. God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he said at the time. Danish physicist Neils Bohr, a big proponent of quantum uncertainty, shot back: “Quit telling God what to do.”
Einstein may have been trapped by his own cultural and religious heritage into using “God” when he meant “Nature” but he definitely wasn’t telling he was describing.
Meanwhile, time being relative appears to be out the window anyway, given the story telling meme that is dominating our current televised lit, aka, Lost and Heroes and any other story (including the political) that wants to jump forward or back or sideways to get its plot to work. Our modern mind appears to have purchased outright the quantumness of intanglement as being the only reality. Multi-tasking I think they call it. I see the future where we can hold all thought simultaneously. One mind one unified cohesive mass all tweeting at once no matter how far apart the internetted broadband has flung us.
And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.
Just to clarify – “Einstein refused to believe that a photon could be in all states at once and set out to find an explanation for their seemingly odd behavior. God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he said at the time. Danish physicist Neils Bohr, a big proponent of quantum uncertainty, shot back: “Quit telling God what to do.”
Einstein may have been trapped by his own cultural and religious heritage into using “God” when he meant “Nature” but he definitely wasn’t telling he was describing.
Meanwhile, time being relative appears to be out the window anyway, given the story telling meme that is dominating our current televised lit, aka, Lost and Heroes and any other story (including the political) that wants to jump forward or back or sideways to get its plot to work. Our modern mind appears to have purchased outright the quantumness of intanglement as being the only reality. Multi-tasking I think they call it. I see the future where we can hold all thought simultaneously. One mind one unified cohesive mass all tweeting at once no matter how far apart the internetted broadband has flung us.
And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.
Just to clarify – “Einstein refused to believe that a photon could be in all states at once and set out to find an explanation for their seemingly odd behavior. God doesn’t play dice with the universe, he said at the time. Danish physicist Neils Bohr, a big proponent of quantum uncertainty, shot back: “Quit telling God what to do.”
Einstein may have been trapped by his own cultural and religious heritage into using “God” when he meant “Nature” but he definitely wasn’t telling he was describing.
Meanwhile, time being relative appears to be out the window anyway, given the story telling meme that is dominating our current televised lit, aka, Lost and Heroes and any other story (including the political) that wants to jump forward or back or sideways to get its plot to work. Our modern mind appears to have purchased outright the quantumness of intanglement as being the only reality. Multi-tasking I think they call it. I see the future where we can hold all thought simultaneously. One mind one unified cohesive mass all tweeting at once no matter how far apart the internetted broadband has flung us.
And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.
“I see the future where we can hold all thought simultaneously.”
That’s not quantum entaglement…nor is it multi-tasking…it’s “infinitythink”.
“I see the future where we can hold all thought simultaneously.”
That’s not quantum entaglement…nor is it multi-tasking…it’s “infinitythink”.
“infinitythink”
Thought is constant,
Is clear like glass
Yet chiaroscuro in effect,
Is swift and yet turbulent as air in flight,
Is rough like a barebacked,
Bucking bronc’s haunch,
Is wasted more often than not,
Is quick and dead before there’s time to think,
Is here and now and then gone in a blink.
“infinitythink”
Thought is constant,
Is clear like glass
Yet chiaroscuro in effect,
Is swift and yet turbulent as air in flight,
Is rough like a barebacked,
Bucking bronc’s haunch,
Is wasted more often than not,
Is quick and dead before there’s time to think,
Is here and now and then gone in a blink.
“infinitythink”
Thought is constant,
Is clear like glass
Yet chiaroscuro in effect,
Is swift and yet turbulent as air in flight,
Is rough like a barebacked,
Bucking bronc’s haunch,
Is wasted more often than not,
Is quick and dead before there’s time to think,
Is here and now and then gone in a blink.
“infinitythink”
Thought is constant,
Is clear like glass
Yet chiaroscuro in effect,
Is swift and yet turbulent as air in flight,
Is rough like a barebacked,
Bucking bronc’s haunch,
Is wasted more often than not,
Is quick and dead before there’s time to think,
Is here and now and then gone in a blink.
“And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.”
No, but it does give one some aspects of the relationships of time and measurement and how a conscious entity selects what to measure to play with. For example, if the entanglements are operating at micro time scales of measurement and the terms of the wave functions are collapsed by non-synchronized events, how do the time effects relate at the macro scales? Is the past predetermining the future or is the future determining the present? The philosophical question revolves around the relationship of consciousness to determinism where experimental evidence indicates that there is a range of random to conscious control of event selections. The question is at what scales of time and distance. Entanglement implies that the relationship of selection time and spatial distance are not fixed by locale or that locale is also scalar.
So the math fun question would be how this affects the tensor ranks.
“And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.”
No, but it does give one some aspects of the relationships of time and measurement and how a conscious entity selects what to measure to play with. For example, if the entanglements are operating at micro time scales of measurement and the terms of the wave functions are collapsed by non-synchronized events, how do the time effects relate at the macro scales? Is the past predetermining the future or is the future determining the present? The philosophical question revolves around the relationship of consciousness to determinism where experimental evidence indicates that there is a range of random to conscious control of event selections. The question is at what scales of time and distance. Entanglement implies that the relationship of selection time and spatial distance are not fixed by locale or that locale is also scalar.
So the math fun question would be how this affects the tensor ranks.
“And still, it won’t prove or disprove the existence of X.”
No, but it does give one some aspects of the relationships of time and measurement and how a conscious entity selects what to measure to play with. For example, if the entanglements are operating at micro time scales of measurement and the terms of the wave functions are collapsed by non-synchronized events, how do the time effects relate at the macro scales? Is the past predetermining the future or is the future determining the present? The philosophical question revolves around the relationship of consciousness to determinism where experimental evidence indicates that there is a range of random to conscious control of event selections. The question is at what scales of time and distance. Entanglement implies that the relationship of selection time and spatial distance are not fixed by locale or that locale is also scalar.
So the math fun question would be how this affects the tensor ranks.
@len
I have a problem with your equating of scientists and oil snake salesmen.
Just because scientists admit that something can not be proven (or perhaps even PROVE that something is unprovable – not a semantic distinction) does not mean that the other side might be right.
It might actually show us that the other side has been wrong all along – despite their claims otherwise.
The major difference between one side’s mumbo-jumbo and the other’s is that the scientific side shows you how a certain conclusion was reached.
The logic can be taken apart. Experiments reproduced. Assumptions shown to be false.
If any of the logical steps taken is shown to be broken then the whole theory can be taken apart.
Spiritualists on the other hand claim “knowledge” and “understanding” where none is had. None of the spiritualist/snake oil salesman’s steps can be falsified.
That, to me, is a major difference.
If I, or anyone else, cannot reproduce those results/conclusions – then they are forever suspect.
One of the spiritualists’ major claims was that science cannot speak of the soul or of free will.
Well, apparently they finally are speaking of exactly that.
Science might well reach a conclusion that some things are by design unknowable.
A virtual “wall to understanding”, if you will.
But that will also put a dam on spiritualists’ claims to knowledge (not that they’ll ever admit it – to others or themselves).
This last might be a subtle point to make but it’s oh-so-strong.
@len
I have a problem with your equating of scientists and oil snake salesmen.
Just because scientists admit that something can not be proven (or perhaps even PROVE that something is unprovable – not a semantic distinction) does not mean that the other side might be right.
It might actually show us that the other side has been wrong all along – despite their claims otherwise.
The major difference between one side’s mumbo-jumbo and the other’s is that the scientific side shows you how a certain conclusion was reached.
The logic can be taken apart. Experiments reproduced. Assumptions shown to be false.
If any of the logical steps taken is shown to be broken then the whole theory can be taken apart.
Spiritualists on the other hand claim “knowledge” and “understanding” where none is had. None of the spiritualist/snake oil salesman’s steps can be falsified.
That, to me, is a major difference.
If I, or anyone else, cannot reproduce those results/conclusions – then they are forever suspect.
One of the spiritualists’ major claims was that science cannot speak of the soul or of free will.
Well, apparently they finally are speaking of exactly that.
Science might well reach a conclusion that some things are by design unknowable.
A virtual “wall to understanding”, if you will.
But that will also put a dam on spiritualists’ claims to knowledge (not that they’ll ever admit it – to others or themselves).
This last might be a subtle point to make but it’s oh-so-strong.
@len
I have a problem with your equating of scientists and oil snake salesmen.
Just because scientists admit that something can not be proven (or perhaps even PROVE that something is unprovable – not a semantic distinction) does not mean that the other side might be right.
It might actually show us that the other side has been wrong all along – despite their claims otherwise.
The major difference between one side’s mumbo-jumbo and the other’s is that the scientific side shows you how a certain conclusion was reached.
The logic can be taken apart. Experiments reproduced. Assumptions shown to be false.
If any of the logical steps taken is shown to be broken then the whole theory can be taken apart.
Spiritualists on the other hand claim “knowledge” and “understanding” where none is had. None of the spiritualist/snake oil salesman’s steps can be falsified.
That, to me, is a major difference.
If I, or anyone else, cannot reproduce those results/conclusions – then they are forever suspect.
One of the spiritualists’ major claims was that science cannot speak of the soul or of free will.
Well, apparently they finally are speaking of exactly that.
Science might well reach a conclusion that some things are by design unknowable.
A virtual “wall to understanding”, if you will.
But that will also put a dam on spiritualists’ claims to knowledge (not that they’ll ever admit it – to others or themselves).
This last might be a subtle point to make but it’s oh-so-strong.
@len
I have a problem with your equating of scientists and oil snake salesmen.
Just because scientists admit that something can not be proven (or perhaps even PROVE that something is unprovable – not a semantic distinction) does not mean that the other side might be right.
It might actually show us that the other side has been wrong all along – despite their claims otherwise.
The major difference between one side’s mumbo-jumbo and the other’s is that the scientific side shows you how a certain conclusion was reached.
The logic can be taken apart. Experiments reproduced. Assumptions shown to be false.
If any of the logical steps taken is shown to be broken then the whole theory can be taken apart.
Spiritualists on the other hand claim “knowledge” and “understanding” where none is had. None of the spiritualist/snake oil salesman’s steps can be falsified.
That, to me, is a major difference.
If I, or anyone else, cannot reproduce those results/conclusions – then they are forever suspect.
One of the spiritualists’ major claims was that science cannot speak of the soul or of free will.
Well, apparently they finally are speaking of exactly that.
Science might well reach a conclusion that some things are by design unknowable.
A virtual “wall to understanding”, if you will.
But that will also put a dam on spiritualists’ claims to knowledge (not that they’ll ever admit it – to others or themselves).
This last might be a subtle point to make but it’s oh-so-strong.
@roman: I know that scientific method does not equate to snake 0il salesmen. I’m saying comparing two unknowns is not science. It is fun to consider the scales that are involved in entanglement and ascribe spirituality, but it is interesting to compare it to scales of intelligence required for the selections and ask if those scales indicate a high ordering force that acts in ways that we can map to models of our testable assertions about a property without an operating definition.
IOW, the scientists don’t know what entanglement is. They are measuring effects. The spiritualists don’t know what God is. The are imputing effects. While I agree repeatable tests are the basis for scientific assertions, comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Yet the aspect of entanglement that implies selection opens up interesting questions about the features of intelligence a testable model would require.
Show me a way to prove that a particle entangled with a particle on the other side of the universe is indeed entangled. It’s a lot like Turning completeness; give me an infinite string (not a function) to give a parser and I can guarantee you it will fail but I can also guarantee you it will never fail because of being given an infinite string, the ‘if you get one of those, email it to me’ response. Engineers don’t build for the case that could break the system but never will occur.
Now: how can you prove the spiritualists don’t have testable knowledge without tests?
“They never do tests.” – Dragonslayer
Why? Where there is a limit to testing, there is a limit to science but not *necessarily* knowledge. That is one of the open questions. Are there discernible effects on consciousness by the entanglement? Can these be tested? Tests show that precognitive effects of some kind exist because human test subjects can beat the Rhine numbers. Like entanglement, tests are showing that there are organizing features that tend to break the physics models unless you incorporate or accept effects that seem spiritual. We can say “well science has filled the gap” but we can’t say the spiritualists are wrong because they can’t do the tests if the knowledge or description offered is supported by the tests. IOW, how they arrived at that knowledge is not the determinant of its correctness, only its credibility with anyone who demands to see the steps somewhat like math classes.
I’ll have to go back to reread Penrose.
@roman: I know that scientific method does not equate to snake 0il salesmen. I’m saying comparing two unknowns is not science. It is fun to consider the scales that are involved in entanglement and ascribe spirituality, but it is interesting to compare it to scales of intelligence required for the selections and ask if those scales indicate a high ordering force that acts in ways that we can map to models of our testable assertions about a property without an operating definition.
IOW, the scientists don’t know what entanglement is. They are measuring effects. The spiritualists don’t know what God is. The are imputing effects. While I agree repeatable tests are the basis for scientific assertions, comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Yet the aspect of entanglement that implies selection opens up interesting questions about the features of intelligence a testable model would require.
Show me a way to prove that a particle entangled with a particle on the other side of the universe is indeed entangled. It’s a lot like Turning completeness; give me an infinite string (not a function) to give a parser and I can guarantee you it will fail but I can also guarantee you it will never fail because of being given an infinite string, the ‘if you get one of those, email it to me’ response. Engineers don’t build for the case that could break the system but never will occur.
Now: how can you prove the spiritualists don’t have testable knowledge without tests?
“They never do tests.” – Dragonslayer
Why? Where there is a limit to testing, there is a limit to science but not *necessarily* knowledge. That is one of the open questions. Are there discernible effects on consciousness by the entanglement? Can these be tested? Tests show that precognitive effects of some kind exist because human test subjects can beat the Rhine numbers. Like entanglement, tests are showing that there are organizing features that tend to break the physics models unless you incorporate or accept effects that seem spiritual. We can say “well science has filled the gap” but we can’t say the spiritualists are wrong because they can’t do the tests if the knowledge or description offered is supported by the tests. IOW, how they arrived at that knowledge is not the determinant of its correctness, only its credibility with anyone who demands to see the steps somewhat like math classes.
I’ll have to go back to reread Penrose.
@roman: I know that scientific method does not equate to snake 0il salesmen. I’m saying comparing two unknowns is not science. It is fun to consider the scales that are involved in entanglement and ascribe spirituality, but it is interesting to compare it to scales of intelligence required for the selections and ask if those scales indicate a high ordering force that acts in ways that we can map to models of our testable assertions about a property without an operating definition.
IOW, the scientists don’t know what entanglement is. They are measuring effects. The spiritualists don’t know what God is. The are imputing effects. While I agree repeatable tests are the basis for scientific assertions, comparing the two is apples and oranges.
Yet the aspect of entanglement that implies selection opens up interesting questions about the features of intelligence a testable model would require.
Show me a way to prove that a particle entangled with a particle on the other side of the universe is indeed entangled. It’s a lot like Turning completeness; give me an infinite string (not a function) to give a parser and I can guarantee you it will fail but I can also guarantee you it will never fail because of being given an infinite string, the ‘if you get one of those, email it to me’ response. Engineers don’t build for the case that could break the system but never will occur.
Now: how can you prove the spiritualists don’t have testable knowledge without tests?
“They never do tests.” – Dragonslayer
Why? Where there is a limit to testing, there is a limit to science but not *necessarily* knowledge. That is one of the open questions. Are there discernible effects on consciousness by the entanglement? Can these be tested? Tests show that precognitive effects of some kind exist because human test subjects can beat the Rhine numbers. Like entanglement, tests are showing that there are organizing features that tend to break the physics models unless you incorporate or accept effects that seem spiritual. We can say “well science has filled the gap” but we can’t say the spiritualists are wrong because they can’t do the tests if the knowledge or description offered is supported by the tests. IOW, how they arrived at that knowledge is not the determinant of its correctness, only its credibility with anyone who demands to see the steps somewhat like math classes.
I’ll have to go back to reread Penrose.
@Peter: that’s like saying that we couldn’t possibly exist, because we are only made up out of cells, and they exist only on the microscopic level, so therefor, how can they organize themselves into structured solids such as skin and wood, etc..
Quantum phenomena could therefor manifest as spiritual data, if large numbers of particles were governed to behave in symphony with one-another.
This happens over and over and over in living systems, on every level, from the most macro, like the building of cities, to the kingdoms of the very tiny under the microscope. We have every reason to believe that the organization of large systems of individual units would persist even further, in the realm of the quantum.
Especially because each level of magnification in the system builds upon the guaranteed organization of the level beneath it. We would not be here if matter did not behave itself in some predictable fashion.
@Peter: that’s like saying that we couldn’t possibly exist, because we are only made up out of cells, and they exist only on the microscopic level, so therefor, how can they organize themselves into structured solids such as skin and wood, etc..
Quantum phenomena could therefor manifest as spiritual data, if large numbers of particles were governed to behave in symphony with one-another.
This happens over and over and over in living systems, on every level, from the most macro, like the building of cities, to the kingdoms of the very tiny under the microscope. We have every reason to believe that the organization of large systems of individual units would persist even further, in the realm of the quantum.
Especially because each level of magnification in the system builds upon the guaranteed organization of the level beneath it. We would not be here if matter did not behave itself in some predictable fashion.
@Peter: that’s like saying that we couldn’t possibly exist, because we are only made up out of cells, and they exist only on the microscopic level, so therefor, how can they organize themselves into structured solids such as skin and wood, etc..
Quantum phenomena could therefor manifest as spiritual data, if large numbers of particles were governed to behave in symphony with one-another.
This happens over and over and over in living systems, on every level, from the most macro, like the building of cities, to the kingdoms of the very tiny under the microscope. We have every reason to believe that the organization of large systems of individual units would persist even further, in the realm of the quantum.
Especially because each level of magnification in the system builds upon the guaranteed organization of the level beneath it. We would not be here if matter did not behave itself in some predictable fashion.
@Peter: that’s like saying that we couldn’t possibly exist, because we are only made up out of cells, and they exist only on the microscopic level, so therefor, how can they organize themselves into structured solids such as skin and wood, etc..
Quantum phenomena could therefor manifest as spiritual data, if large numbers of particles were governed to behave in symphony with one-another.
This happens over and over and over in living systems, on every level, from the most macro, like the building of cities, to the kingdoms of the very tiny under the microscope. We have every reason to believe that the organization of large systems of individual units would persist even further, in the realm of the quantum.
Especially because each level of magnification in the system builds upon the guaranteed organization of the level beneath it. We would not be here if matter did not behave itself in some predictable fashion.
Wow, I walk away from a comment for a few days, and look what happens…
The point I was making about things happening at the Quantum level is that it is just that. Physics at the macro level (i.e. bigger then molecules) is still, quite nicely, described by classical physics: that’s why it was so successful for two hundred years. Once scientists started examining what was happening at smaller and smaller levels, they found that the classical model doesn’t hold up. Hence, Quantum mechanics.
@Greg: I’m not saying that at all.
Quantum effects happen at the quantum level, because the wave functions are large enough (at that scale) to interfere, or collapse at an expected position, just to name a couple of examples.
Quantum mechanics describes how those particles all get together into larger structures. The larger structures (our cells, etc) aren’t as effected by Quantum effects because their scale is now larger than the whole structure’s wave function. Rocks, and buildings and people don’t have interference patterns, and don’t have their wave functions collapse into unexpected position.
@Armand: I have the paper you mention in my reading queue, I just haven’t read it yet.
Wow, I walk away from a comment for a few days, and look what happens…
The point I was making about things happening at the Quantum level is that it is just that. Physics at the macro level (i.e. bigger then molecules) is still, quite nicely, described by classical physics: that’s why it was so successful for two hundred years. Once scientists started examining what was happening at smaller and smaller levels, they found that the classical model doesn’t hold up. Hence, Quantum mechanics.
@Greg: I’m not saying that at all.
Quantum effects happen at the quantum level, because the wave functions are large enough (at that scale) to interfere, or collapse at an expected position, just to name a couple of examples.
Quantum mechanics describes how those particles all get together into larger structures. The larger structures (our cells, etc) aren’t as effected by Quantum effects because their scale is now larger than the whole structure’s wave function. Rocks, and buildings and people don’t have interference patterns, and don’t have their wave functions collapse into unexpected position.
@Armand: I have the paper you mention in my reading queue, I just haven’t read it yet.
Wow, I walk away from a comment for a few days, and look what happens…
The point I was making about things happening at the Quantum level is that it is just that. Physics at the macro level (i.e. bigger then molecules) is still, quite nicely, described by classical physics: that’s why it was so successful for two hundred years. Once scientists started examining what was happening at smaller and smaller levels, they found that the classical model doesn’t hold up. Hence, Quantum mechanics.
@Greg: I’m not saying that at all.
Quantum effects happen at the quantum level, because the wave functions are large enough (at that scale) to interfere, or collapse at an expected position, just to name a couple of examples.
Quantum mechanics describes how those particles all get together into larger structures. The larger structures (our cells, etc) aren’t as effected by Quantum effects because their scale is now larger than the whole structure’s wave function. Rocks, and buildings and people don’t have interference patterns, and don’t have their wave functions collapse into unexpected position.
@Armand: I have the paper you mention in my reading queue, I just haven’t read it yet.
Wow, I walk away from a comment for a few days, and look what happens…
The point I was making about things happening at the Quantum level is that it is just that. Physics at the macro level (i.e. bigger then molecules) is still, quite nicely, described by classical physics: that’s why it was so successful for two hundred years. Once scientists started examining what was happening at smaller and smaller levels, they found that the classical model doesn’t hold up. Hence, Quantum mechanics.
@Greg: I’m not saying that at all.
Quantum effects happen at the quantum level, because the wave functions are large enough (at that scale) to interfere, or collapse at an expected position, just to name a couple of examples.
Quantum mechanics describes how those particles all get together into larger structures. The larger structures (our cells, etc) aren’t as effected by Quantum effects because their scale is now larger than the whole structure’s wave function. Rocks, and buildings and people don’t have interference patterns, and don’t have their wave functions collapse into unexpected position.
@Armand: I have the paper you mention in my reading queue, I just haven’t read it yet.
all I mean, Peter, is that it’s not about one photon, or one electron. It’s about the effect generated with hundreds of billions of them (or some sufficiently large number) interact non-locally at coinciding moments in time. Then you could, say, “Have an idea come to you,” for instance, which could signify a huge patch of electrons in billions and billions of your cells catching a whiff of something.
I’m just groping here, but you could extrapolate quite a bit more from quantum entanglement than silly encryption for medical records.
all I mean, Peter, is that it’s not about one photon, or one electron. It’s about the effect generated with hundreds of billions of them (or some sufficiently large number) interact non-locally at coinciding moments in time. Then you could, say, “Have an idea come to you,” for instance, which could signify a huge patch of electrons in billions and billions of your cells catching a whiff of something.
I’m just groping here, but you could extrapolate quite a bit more from quantum entanglement than silly encryption for medical records.
all I mean, Peter, is that it’s not about one photon, or one electron. It’s about the effect generated with hundreds of billions of them (or some sufficiently large number) interact non-locally at coinciding moments in time. Then you could, say, “Have an idea come to you,” for instance, which could signify a huge patch of electrons in billions and billions of your cells catching a whiff of something.
I’m just groping here, but you could extrapolate quite a bit more from quantum entanglement than silly encryption for medical records.
Just asking:
Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics turned out to be more of a suggestion, or guideline? Anybody know for sure?
My whole future depends on the answer…
Just asking:
Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics turned out to be more of a suggestion, or guideline? Anybody know for sure?
My whole future depends on the answer…
Just asking:
Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics turned out to be more of a suggestion, or guideline? Anybody know for sure?
My whole future depends on the answer…
Don’t any of you people have jobs?
Don’t any of you people have jobs?
Of course not. We’re Democrats.
So beggars can be choosers, eh?
So beggars can be choosers, eh?
So beggars can be choosers, eh?
Only if unentangled.
Only if unentangled.
Only if unentangled.
Hi Jontaplin,
I really like your blog. You might like the book I read recently there is a link on my website and some other info about Jodrell Bank in the UK and another site I visited recently provided another fantastic book I am reading now it ties in with quantum and spiritual dimensions. regards Maria