Cosmic Geomancy

[bindeweede]

I've read about it, but still don't understand. Can anyone help me out?

http://www.psychicsahar.com/artman/publish/article_487.shtml

Well, I'm not sure this helps me.

Dr Jude Currivan, Masters degree in quantum physics, PhD in Archaeology

You ARE the Cosmos
Evening Talk to SSPR at the University of Glasgow
Lecture takes place on: Thursday 2nd October 2008

In these momentous times, a new vision of the Cosmos is emerging that is reconciling leading-edge science, pioneering research into consciousness and the perennial wisdom of all ages in a more profound and personally empowering way than ever before. These latest discoveries are revealing that all that we term reality is essentially integral and that the whole-world may be described as a cosmic hologram. This vision of a wholly inter-related and conscious Cosmos has revolutionary implications for every one of us, for it asks us to re-member that we are cosmic co-creators. Jude’s talk will share the emerging vision of integral reality and how we are now able to directly access our highest co-creative potential through the portal of the universal heart. Dr Jude Currivan PhD, author of The Wave, The 8 th Chakra and The 13 th Step, is a healer and scientist who works worldwide empowering others and facilitating wholeness on personal and collective levels. Her fourth book, co-authored with Ervin Laszlo CosMos – a co-creator’s guide to the whole-world is published August 2008 by Hay House. www.judecurrivan.com (http://www.judecurrivan.com)

[bobdezon]

Is this an adaptation of the theory that we create the universe around us, using the power of our minds? That we create our own reality etc? Oh the ego ::)

[edd]

Seems like someone's grabbed hold of the holographic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle) and... well... done the usual woo thing with it.

[VoodooJoe]

Actually there maybe a few grains of wisdom worthy of consideration in this woo-tastic statement. Surely in terms of "the universe" there is no such thing as individual objects, in truly cosmic terms theres nothing really seperating me from the keyboard im now typing on, except my human perception.

Wether we can change the cosmos as a whole by changing one tiny particle of it is another matter, i think this guy i sthinking along the terms of fractals, i.e you change one iteration an the entire thing changes, but assuming the universe is a giant all encompassing fractal is a bit of a leap of faith.

[Farsight]

Oh boy.

[VoodooJoe]

I am re-ordering the cosmos as we speak.

[VoodooJoe]

Is this an adaptation of the theory that we create the universe around us, using the power of our minds? That we create our own reality etc? Oh the ego ::)

not a concept i would wholly dismiss, think about it, how much of what you actually see and hear around you is actually a product of your own mind?

If a tree falls in the woods with no-one to hear it does it actually make a sound? O0

[Mulder]

We certainly create our own internal subjective versions of the universe. Whether the objective universe even notices what we think is up for debate.

I'd like to know how Jude Currivan "...directly experienced multidimensional realities and guidance from an early age."

[SimonC]

not a concept i would wholly dismiss, think about it, how much of what you actually see and hear around you is actually a product of your own mind?

An interesting philosophical problem, and one I've been trying to get my head around recently ( hey, it passes the time! ) - how can I rationally/logically prove to myself that the universe really does exist outside of my own, limited and flawed, perception of it? Here's where I've got to...

If I start from the assumption that the world outside of me is merely a product of my own consciousness, then this defines the universe as imaginary; an hallucination of my mind. If this is the case, then there is no way that I can be considered a rational being, as my values, opinions and ideas would be based on hallucinations. If I am not a rational, sane being, then no value can be placed on my conclusion that the universe is subjective and intangible, as this idea would itself be the product of an irrational, perhaps insane, mind.

Clearly this is not a objection if the universe really does tangibly exist, and that I assume a materialist point of view.

I don't think I've explored the question fully yet ( probably not by any means! ), but that's where I'm up to at the moment.

ETA - how accurately my consciousness perceives whatever's going on 'out there' is a different question entirely - not sure how to start with that one!

[Mulder]

If Jude Currivan is deriving her ideas for her 'experiences of multidimensional realities' I think they should be examined first, before getting philosophical. If the experiences turn out to be entirely subjective, they may not require any rethink of the universe after all.

[SimonC]

If Jude Currivan is deriving her ideas for her 'experiences of multidimensional realities' I think they should be examined first, before getting philosophical. If the experiences turn out to be entirely subjective, they may not require any rethink of the universe after all.

You're absolutely right, Mulder, although I'm not sure it takes a huge amount of deep-thinkery to figure out where Jude Currivan is coming from. Take a peek at the blurb for her book 'The 13th Step' -

http://www.judecurrivan.com/products/

'Soular heroes'?

Oh dear... :-X

[Mulder]

What she's doing sounds just like Psychic Questing. Or more likely re-inventing it.

[Mongrel]

not a concept i would wholly dismiss, think about it, how much of what you actually see and hear around you is actually a product of your own mind?

If a tree falls in the woods with no-one to hear it does it actually make a sound? O0

Well unless my mind continuously processing all of the physics, chemistry, geology, biology and weather equations simultaneously 24\7... then yes. If you think otherwise then you may as well chuck the entire scientific process out of the window. A tree falling in the forest without anyone listening will still propagate sound waves, unless it's magically enclosed in a vacuum or suddenly in a reduced gravity environment

What we see and hear is our interpretation of physical phenomena which are fixed and, mostly*, immutable. They do not change because we're not around


*Big Bangs, Singularities and Quantum particles notwithstanding

[Cuddles]

I'd like to know how Jude Currivan "...directly experienced multidimensional realities and guidance from an early age."

It's not exactly unususal. Reality is multidimensional, and most people experience it from an early age.

[VoodooJoe]

Well unless my mind continuously processing all of the physics, chemistry, geology, biology and weather equations simultaneously 24\7... then yes. If you think otherwise then you may as well chuck the entire scientific process out of the window. A tree falling in the forest without anyone listening will still propagate sound waves

But sound waves are not the sensation of sound are they? it might make vibrations in the air but it wont make "a noise" because "a noise" is an abstract thing that only exists in your mind, a reflection provoked by a stimulus.

The contemplation of this question perhaps belongs more to the philospher than to the scientist, so yeah, i suppose sometimes it is ok to throw the scientific process out the window every now and again.

[SimonC]

But sound waves are not the sensation of sound are they? it might make vibrations in the air but it wont make "a noise" because "a noise" is an abstract thing that only exists in your mind, a reflection provoked by a stimulus.



Without presuming to speak for Mongrel, I presumed that by 'sound waves', he was specifically referring to the vibrations in the air that a falling/moving object will inevitably make.

I do agree with you VoodooJoe that sound is a purely sensory phenomenon - the aural perception of those particular vibrations.

If a tree falls in a forest, and a deaf person is standing next to it, does it make a sound? No, it causes the potential for sound to be experienced by a person or animal who is able to interpret vibrations in the air in such a way.

If a tree falls very slowly and gently, it might not cause vibrations of a frequency/amplitude that human ears could perceive, but an animal with differently attuned hearing might be able to interpret it as 'sound'.

I think..?:undecided:

[Matt]

For me it relates to the quantum mechanical view that all possibilities exist simultaneously until observed. As such the answer to the question is that if nobody is there the tree hasn't definitely fallen. Only when when the fallen tree is observed do the assocaited historical sound waves become real. The question of whetehr these historical sound waves which disipated long before anyone came to hear them could be called "noise" is one of semantics.

I would have to disagree if you're suggesting that the word sound only describes a sensory phenomenon. We still call ultrasound, sound even though none of us can hear it. When technology makes use of sound waves the effects may still be detected without a sense of hearing. We still call the waves sound.

The word noise on the other hand might be considered to describe only sounds that are heard.

It reminds me of a joke.

If a man speaks in a forest and no woman is there to hear him... Is he still wrong?

[SimonC]

I would have to disagree if you're suggesting that the word sound only describes a sensory phenomenon. We still call ultrasound, sound even though none of us can hear it. When technology makes use of sound waves the effects may still be detected without a sense of hearing. We still call the waves sound.



You're absolutely right, and I happily concede the point. O0

*Note to self*...

Spending Friday evening at the private viewing of a friend's photography exhibition - a very good idea.

Scoffing loads of complimentary wine - a very, very good idea.

Getting home and attempting to participate in intelligent conversation online - not such a great idea.

Paracetamol would be a great idea, right about now. :undecided:

[Mongrel]

But sound waves are not the sensation of sound are they? it might make vibrations in the air but it wont make "a noise" because "a noise" is an abstract thing that only exists in your mind, a reflection provoked by a stimulus.

The "sensation of sound" is your brain interpreting the vibrations caused by the sound vibrations hitting your ear drum and the fiddly little bones, causing them to vibrate and your brain interpreting the vibrations (simplistically). If the link between the brain and ear were cut, hypothetically, the brain would stop recieving input even though your ears would still be vibrating and sending the data.

If you were that hypothetical person you'd be called misguided (at best) if you tried to declare there 'was no sound' based on your experience. It could be proven to you that sound existed (see this for a similar thought experiment (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html)) whether you personally could hear or not.

Edit - I managed to miss the last three posts when I composed the answer so it does cover the same ground, but it does bear repeating ^-^

[VoodooJoe]

The "sensation of sound" is your brain interpreting the vibrations caused by the sound vibrations hitting your ear drum and the fiddly little bones, causing them to vibrate and your brain interpreting the vibrations (simplistically). If the link between the brain and ear were cut, hypothetically, the brain would stop recieving input even though your ears would still be vibrating and sending the data.

Exactly, their is no sound as sound is a product of your mind.


If you were that hypothetical person you'd be called misguided (at best) if you tried to declare there 'was no sound' based on your experience.

Why?


It could be proven to you that sound existed (see this for a similar thought experiment (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html)) whether you personally could hear or not.

How so? if someone else has experienced the vibrations made in the air as the sensation of sound for the deaf individual then that sound is still only existing inside a human mind because someone has perceived it.

The sensation of "sound" is a perceived reflection of a reality, not a reality in totality, outside of the human mind it simply doesnt exist (or does it?)

[VoodooJoe]

For me it relates to the quantum mechanical view that all possibilities exist simultaneously until observed. As such the answer to the question is that if nobody is there the tree hasn't definitely fallen. Only when when the fallen tree is observed do the assocaited historical sound waves become real. The question of whetehr these historical sound waves which disipated long before anyone came to hear them could be called "noise" is one of semantics.

I like this


I would have to disagree if you're suggesting that the word sound only describes a sensory phenomenon.

we are talking about the sensation of sound or any other perceived human sensation.

[SimonC]

I like this




Then you may also find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat) interesting. O0 ( please excuse me if you're already farmiliar with this ).

[Mongrel]

Exactly, their is no sound as sound is a product of your mind.
No. There is sound due to an interaction between the physical component (vibrations) and the ear, the mind then interprets the electrical signals.

Why?
It can be proven there's sound and it can be shown that the hypothetical person has, for want of a better turn of phrase, a severed mechanical linkage. Whilst sound may be an unknown concept for that person it can be proven to be there.


How so? if someone else has experienced the vibrations made in the air as the sensation of sound for the deaf individual then that sound is still only existing inside a human mind because someone has perceived it.
If it only existed in the mind why are people deaf? Why can physical damage to the ear cause a person to lose hearing


The sensation of "sound" is a perceived reflection of a reality, not a reality in totality, outside of the human mind it simply doesnt exist (or does it?)

Yes it does, if sound was only in our minds how would microphones and audio recording equipment work?

[Mulder]

It's not exactly unususal. Reality is multidimensional, and most people experience it from an early age.

You say 'reality' singular, however she experienced 'realities' plural.

Incidentally, regarding sound, Wikipedia has the very sensible definition "Sound is vibration transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas; particularly, sound means those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears". This neatly ties up the relationship to people without their needing to be present. So, a sound meter or tape recorder can measure sound without anyone being present or ever needing to hear it but it is still sound.

[Cuddles]

For me it relates to the quantum mechanical view that all possibilities exist simultaneously until observed. As such the answer to the question is that if nobody is there the tree hasn't definitely fallen. Only when when the fallen tree is observed do the assocaited historical sound waves become real.

No. Quantum uncertainty does not apply at macroscopic scales. Either a tree falls or it doesn't, whether a person sees it or not.

As for the difference between noise and sound, the usual defintion relates to information content. Sound is simply noise that carries information, or, equally, noise is sound that does not carry information.

[VoodooJoe]

No. There is sound due to an interaction between the physical component (vibrations) and the ear, the mind then interprets the electrical signals.

So therefore, no brain, no sound. A tree falling in the woods makes no sound (or should i say noise?).


It can be proven there's sound and it can be shown that the hypothetical person has, for want of a better turn of phrase, a severed mechanical linkage. Whilst sound may be an unknown concept for that person it can be proven to be there.

Not if theres nobody around to experience for that person.


If it only existed in the mind why are people deaf? Why can physical damage to the ear cause a person to lose hearing

Because they have lost the ability detect and/or interpret sound waves, this is the crux of my argument im trying to get across, the sensation of hearing a sound, is not the same as sound waves travelling through the air. One is a phenomenon of conciousness the other is the physics of the physical world, like you said yourself it depends on the mechnics of the ear and then the brain interpetting it, you need to start thinking more in abstract terms to get my point.


Yes it does, if sound was only in our minds how would microphones and audio recording equipment work?

The sound doesnt exist until the tape is played back and someone hears it, otherwise all you have is some patterns made on magnetic tape by vibration in the air.

Or does it?

As this brings up another philosophical question, if the tape recorder has experienced sound does the tape recorder have a degree of conciousness?

[Mongrel]

So therefore, no brain, no sound. A tree falling in the woods makes no sound (or should i say noise?).[quote]
Philosophical nonsense. Sound exists whether an individual can experience it or not.
Explain how a falling tree could break physics just because no one was listening.

[quote]Not if theres nobody around to experience for that person.
Irrelevant. Physics doesn't cease to work or work differently just because one person is unable to interpret the signals, no matter how much post-modern crap you throw at it.




Because they have lost the ability detect and/or interpret sound waves, this is the crux of my argument im trying to get across, the sensation of hearing a sound, is not the same as sound waves travelling through the air.
So what about standing in front of the bass bin? The body can still interpret the sound waves...

One is a phenomenon of conciousness the other is the physics of the physical world, like you said yourself it depends on the mechnics of the ear and then the brain interpetting it, you need to start thinking more in abstract terms to get my point.
But since your talking about the 'conciousness' interacting with physics (in this case) you can't just ignore one.


The sound doesnt exist until the tape is played back and someone hears it, otherwise all you have is some patterns made on magnetic tape by vibration in the air.
And how does the sound get on the tape?


Or does it?

As this brings up another philosophical question, if the tape recorder has experienced sound does the tape recorder have a degree of conciousness?
Asking if tape recorders have any form of conciousness...

And people wonder why I laugh at 'Philosophers'

[Matt]

No. Quantum uncertainty does not apply at macroscopic scales. Either a tree falls or it doesn't, whether a person sees it or not.

Much as I respect your authority on matters of physics I have to ask how much of this statement is down to personal interpretation and how much is experimentally confirmed.

When schrodinger's cat was described to me it was presented as a thought experiment to ridicule quantum superposition of states. Until observed the radio isotope has either experienced decay or it hasn't. The two possibilities exist alongside each other as a superposition of states. An unecessarily complex detection apparatus is attached so that we will know whether it has decayed or not when we open the box by the status of the cat, dead or alive. Until the box is opened the cat, schrodinger says, must also be in a superposition of states, dead or alive. As this is patently ridiculous quantum superposition of states must be wrong.

Except experiment after experiment has show superposition of states to be correct. Yes it's rediculous but it's also true. It seems the universe has a sense of humour.

I find the view that the cat is in a superposition of states to be acceptable. Once I open the box this superposition collapses and one history or the other is chosen.

What empirical evidence shows that I'm wrong in this view?

[Mulder]

Much as I respect your authority on matters of physics I have to ask how much of this statement is down to personal interpretation and how much is experimentally confirmed.

According to Schrodingers equation (as opposed to his dumb cat), there is a finite chance of quantum effects at macroscopic scales, it is just extremely unlikely.

The presence of an 'observer' is not required for the 'collapse' of a quantum state, only that the system involved should interact with something else in the universe. So you do not know the state of an electron until it interacts with a photon, for instance. Although you don't know what state a particle is in until it interacts, you CAN use the equation to work out the probability that it will be in any particular state.

[Matt]

According to Schrodingers equation (as opposed to his dumb cat), there is a finite chance of quantum effects at macroscopic scales, it is just extremely unlikely.

Indeed and I cannot emphasise enough how extreme that unliklihood is.


The presence of an 'observer' is not required for the 'collapse' of a quantum state, only that the system involved should interact with something else in the universe. So you do not know the state of an electron until it interacts with a photon, for instance. Although you don't know what state a particle is in until it interacts, you CAN use the equation to work out the probability that it will be in any particular state.

That sounds like the Copenhagen interpretation to me. You're aware that it's not the only availlabe interpretation?

I was asking Cuddles if he was aware of any experimental evidence that makes one interpretation favourable over another but I'll happily ask you the same question.

As far as I'm aware the system is constantly interacting. We might determine for example that an electron has shifted energy states through emission of a photon by observation of that photon. If we are 300 thousand kilometers away we might detect that photon a second after the event. During that second surely the system is in a superposition of states having both emited the photon and not done so. It's not the interaction with the photon that collapses the waveform but our observation of the photon.

Under the many worlds interpretation there are two universes. One in which the photon was emitted and one in which it wasn't. During that second of uncertainty the versions of us observers in the two universe are indistinguishable from one another. Only by observation of the photon do we determine in which universe we are.

[Mulder]

That sounds like the Copenhagen interpretation to me. You're aware that it's not the only availlabe interpretation?

It's the one most physicists favour. I use the word 'collapse' (which is no doubt what put you onto Copenhagen) but I could have said 'discovered' ie. the state isn't known until there is an interaction and then we 'discover' what it was.

Luckily, the whacky world of quantum will be replaced in due time. The 'hidden variable' theories, never mainstream, often derided, may be making a comeback. And there are other theories in the wings putting things on a more deterministic course once again.


As far as I'm aware the system is constantly interacting. We might determine for example that an electron has shifted energy states through emission of a photon by observation of that photon. If we are 300 thousand kilometers away we might detect that photon a second after the event. During that second surely the system is in a superposition of states having both emited the photon and not done so. It's not the interaction with the photon that collapses the waveform but our observation of the photon.

Nah. When the photon appeared, the electron is momentarily in a known state, for an instant (the only one that can allow the photon to be emitted). Whether anyone is there to see the resulting photon is of no consequence to the electron. The photon's state, however, is now unknown until it interacts with something, like your eye.


Under the many worlds interpretation there are two universes. One in which the photon was emitted and one in which it wasn't. During that second of uncertainty the versions of us observers in the two universe are indistinguishable from one another. Only by observation of the photon do we determine in which universe we are.

Why would it matter what universe you are in? You can't communicate with the other universe so who cares? That's why you can't prove the many worlds interpretation. Personally, I think it's cop out! Incidentally, during that 'second', zillions of new universes would form due to particles interacting all over the 'universe'. See how silly it all gets!

[VoodooJoe]

Philosophical nonsense. Sound exists whether an individual can experience it or not.
Explain how a falling tree could break physics just because no one was listening.

I never said anything about the laws of physics changing, re-read my posts.



Irrelevant. Physics doesn't cease to work or work differently just because one person is unable to interpret the signals, no matter how much post-modern crap you throw at it.

I never siaid it did cease work, please re-read my posts, also my line of thinking isnt post modern.




So what about standing in front of the bass bin? The body can still interpret the sound waves...

But since your talking about the 'conciousness' interacting with physics (in this case) you can't just ignore one.

Thats the same thing, if theres no one there to feel it then does it make your booty tingle?



And how does the sound get on the tape?.

It doesnt, the souind comes after when you hear it.



Asking if tape recorders have any form of conciousness...

And people wonder why I laugh at 'Philosophers'

Why not? you have conciousness, and what are you, a carbon structure with 2 pounds of electrical fat in your head.

A tape recorder reacts to stimuli just as a human being does, how do you know it doesnt have a degree of conciousness? obviously nothing like a living being would, but sure why not? whos to stay a thermostat doesnt have conciousness, a beehive has a conciousness, a city has a conciousness, an atom has a form of conciousness etc, etc, etc

[bindeweede]

A tape recorder reacts to stimuli just as a human being does,I'm afraid I find this very odd. Surely a human can think and analyse. Are you suggesting a mechanical device can do the same?


whos to stay a thermostat doesnt have conciousnessWho's to say it does? I'm no scientist, but I have learned a lot from being a member here. If you make the claim, you need to provide the evidence, surely.

Added thought. Does a spell-checker have consciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

[Mulder]

Googling definitions of sound, they agree that it is a mechanical vibration which is CAPABLE of being heard, due to frequency and amplitude. However, that doesn't mean such a vibration magically becomes 'sound' just because there is someone there to hear it. You can record sound and analyse it without ever listening to it. When you listen to sound it becomes a produces a sensation but the sound itself is unchanged.

As for consciousness, that's a completely different thing. You don't need to be conscious to hear a sound and you can sometimes not hear a sound even when conscious and not deaf (such as when distracted).

[Cuddles]

Much as I respect your authority on matters of physics I have to ask how much of this statement is down to personal interpretation and how much is experimentally confirmed.

It is experimentally confirmed. Unfortunately we can't currently distinguish between many of the different interpretations of quantum physics, and may never be able to, but we know with absolute certainty that quantum uncertainty, or any other quantum effects, do not apply on the macroscopic scale (except under certain unusual conditions such as superconductivity).


When schrodinger's cat was described to me it was presented as a thought experiment to ridicule quantum superposition of states. Until observed the radio isotope has either experienced decay or it hasn't. The two possibilities exist alongside each other as a superposition of states. An unecessarily complex detection apparatus is attached so that we will know whether it has decayed or not when we open the box by the status of the cat, dead or alive. Until the box is opened the cat, schrodinger says, must also be in a superposition of states, dead or alive. As this is patently ridiculous quantum superposition of states must be wrong.

In that case it was presented incorrectly. Superposition of states is an undeniable fact of quantum physics. What Schrodinger's cat demonstrates is the absurdity of trying to apply results from the quantum scale to the macroscopic scale.


I find the view that the cat is in a superposition of states to be acceptable. Once I open the box this superposition collapses and one history or the other is chosen.

No. It is not observation by a human that matters, it is simply the interaction with any other particle. Since the cat contains particles, the superposition of states that the decaying particle exists in will collapse immediately. The only way any uncertainty could exist would be if you didn't put the cat, or anything else, in the box.


What empirical evidence shows that I'm wrong in this view?

Not to sound flippant, but basically every experiment that has ever been done on quantum physics.

Think about humans being diffracted when they walk through doors. There are two reasons this doesn't happen - firstly the de Broglie wavelength of a human is incredibly small, so the effect of passing through a large opening is essentially zero. Secondly, thermal noise will be so much larger than any possible effect it simply makes no sense to even consider the effect as existing. In order for there to be any noticeable effect, the a human would need to pass through an opening on the order of 10-35m, probably smaller. For comparison, atoms are around 10-10m across.

It's the same for cats. It's not that the idea of uncertainty at the macroscopic level is necessarily absurd in itself. It's simply that any such effect will be so small and so short-lived that it makes no sense to even consider it to exist. Given the number of particles in a cat, the time any uncertainty could exist is so short that it's just not possible for anyone to notice it, and therefore it makes no sense to talk about it. It just comes down to the standard skeptical point that if there is no difference between a world in which something happens and one in which it doesn't, then you may as well just say it doesn't happen.


It's not the interaction with the photon that collapses the waveform but our observation of the photon.

No it isn't. "Observation" in quantum mechanics means interaction with anything else, not observation by a conscious person.


Under the many worlds interpretation there are two universes. One in which the photon was emitted and one in which it wasn't. During that second of uncertainty the versions of us observers in the two universe are indistinguishable from one another. Only by observation of the photon do we determine in which universe we are.

Again, no. You are placing far too much importance on humans and consciousness. This is quite a common misunderstanding, along with the idea that uncertainty is due to finite precision in measurements. Quantum uncertainty has nothing to do with our observations, it is an actual effect at the particle level. Regardless of whether we exist or not, the uncertainty would still be there. If the many worlds interpretation is correct, the universes would split at the moment the photon is emitted, not at the moment the photon arrives at some arbitrary point somewhere else. Even in a universe with no life in it at all, the universes would still split, but the photon would never be observed at all.


It's the one most physicists favour.

I wouldn't say "favour" so much as "accept for the time being because they haven't found anything better yet". The biggest problem with Copenhagen is simply that nobody really interprets it in quite the same way, so it isn't really an interpretation, more a collection of relatively similar interpretations.


Luckily, the whacky world of quantum will be replaced in due time. The 'hidden variable' theories, never mainstream, often derided, may be making a comeback. And there are other theories in the wings putting things on a more deterministic course once again.

"May" being the operative word. And even hidden variables can still give non-deterministic results. De Broglie's own "pilot wave" interpretation, for example.


Why would it matter what universe you are in? You can't communicate with the other universe so who cares? That's why you can't prove the many worlds interpretation. Personally, I think it's cop out! Incidentally, during that 'second', zillions of new universes would form due to particles interacting all over the 'universe'. See how silly it all gets!

The trouble is that while many worlds certainly falls foul of Occam's razor, there isn't actually anything wrong with it other than that. This is why there are so many different interpretations of quantum physics - they all give exactly the same results. It may be possible to distinguish between some of them in the future, but there are some which will quite possibly never contradict each other.

[Matt]

It is experimentally confirmed. Unfortunately we can't currently distinguish between many of the different interpretations of quantum physics, and may never be able to, but we know with absolute certainty that quantum uncertainty, or any other quantum effects, do not apply on the macroscopic scale (except under certain unusual conditions such as superconductivity).

Thanks for this Cuddles, I think I shall have to refresh my view of particle physics before we can continue this conversation. I have to accept that you're representing a mainstream view with many practical benefits but I'm still not entirely clear where my ideas and the mainstream diverge experimentally (or even how they can), however I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly enough to explain what I'm trying to say.

[VoodooJoe]

I'm afraid I find this very odd. Surely a human can think and analyse. Are you suggesting a mechanical device can do the same?

Yeah sure why not, perhaps in a way that is very very different to our own experience of being concious, but yeah, why cant everything in the universe have a degree of conciousness, in that everything is reacting to stimulus.


Who's to say it does? I'm no scientist, but I have learned a lot from being a member here. If you make the claim, you need to provide the evidence, surely.

Theres no way of proving or disporving it, much in the same way you cant prove another human is concious, even if that person is walking and talking.


Added thought. Does a spell-checker have consciousness?

Im going to ignore this, english isnt my first language and i dont know how to install a spell checker, i dont like the tone of this forum sometimes its not ok to pour scorn alltime, please be respectful like i am respectful to you, thanks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Thanks for posting this bindeweede, this is very interesting.

[Cuddles]

Thanks for this Cuddles, I think I shall have to refresh my view of particle physics before we can continue this conversation. I have to accept that you're representing a mainstream view with many practical benefits but I'm still not entirely clear where my ideas and the mainstream diverge experimentally (or even how they can), however I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly enough to explain what I'm trying to say.

I suspect what you may be thinking is the quite common idea of looking at quantum effects from the point of view of the observer. For example, if a cat is in a sealed box then a person outside the box doesn't know if the cat is alive or dead. When they open the box, the cat collapses into one of the two states and the observer can see which it is. However, if the person themselves is inside a sealed room then the cat will collapse for them, but to another observer outside the room, the cat, along with everything else in the room, will still exist in a superposition of dead an alive states.

However, this is not correct, and provably so. The uncertainty does not exist with the observer, it is a property of the thing being observed. For example, look at the pi meson. This exists in three types, the pi+, made of an up and an anti-down quark, the pi-, made of a down and an anti-up quark, and the pi0, which exists as a superposition of an up and anti-up and a down and anti-down. This is where the two ideas here give very different results. If the uncertainty exists from the observer's point of view, a pi0 must actually be either up+anti-up or down+anti-down, and will collapse into one of those states when observed, with each having a different mass and different decay modes. If the uncertainty is from the particle's point of view, it's mass and other properties will be a combination of the two states. And this is exactly what is observed. There are not two different pi0 masses, all pi mesons have exactly the same mass which is in between the masses of the two superimposed states.

Does this help at all, or am I completely on the wrong track?

[Cuddles]

Theres no way of proving or disporving it, much in the same way you cant prove another human is concious, even if that person is walking and talking.

It depends how you define conciousness. I would say if you have a definition for which it's impossible to know if anything is concious or not, your definition is meaningless and completely useless.

[Matt]

Does this help at all, or am I completely on the wrong track?

The meson stuff is certainly interesting and doesn't seem to fit with what I thought. Like I said, I'll get back to you with the details of what lines I was thinking of.

Is "sum over all histories" still considered valid?

[Cuddles]

Is "sum over all histories" still considered valid?

It depends what you mean by "valid". It's a mathematically valid way of making certain calculations, but very few people have ever taken it seriously as an actual representation of reality.

[tolman]

The tree-in-a-forest thing seems to be purely down to definitions of the odd word, rather than anything deeply philosophical (unless philosophy is just the study of the misunderstandings of words).

It just depends what people mean by 'sound'.

I'd suggest that the reason that language can somewhat blur the boundary between what we experience and what's out in the real world is that our perception is generally pretty good.
Though we can be fooled by poor lighting/hearing conditions, especially when we have expectations of what we might see/hear, or by optical illusions, those events tend to be notable because of their rarity.

At one level, what we experience is clearly an internally-generated simulation of the world. However, we are the products of countless generations of evolution, in which a significant factor is the continual pruning out of individuals with internal simulations which are a poor match for reality, unless they have some compensating skill.

If there was a general serious mismatch between perception and reality, then everyday language would presumably have clearer distinctions, and such arborial philosophical musings wouldn't get off the ground.