Grant Cameron – Classified documents suggest UFO/consciousness link |324|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    David, oh boy, do I have thoughts on that! ;-) Can't respond in detail right now, but will try tomorrow. Glad the book is turning out to be interesting!
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  2. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,555
    I don't know where this Roswell-wasn't-real meme started, but it definitely doesn't fit with Grant's research into the Wilbert Smith memo.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  3. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    David,

    So, a little bit of a story behind this one for me. Rewind almost 25 years ago to when I was back in school taking my courses on relativity. I was looking at what are called the Lorentz Transformation equations, which are used for transforming from one Inertial Frame to another in Relativity. I couldn't help but notice the equations seemed to say that time did not exist for a photon, or that "photons would not sense the passage of time". It's like the twin paradox. The faster the one twin goes the more he ages with respect to the other. Take that in the limit as v goes to c, and the equations seem to say he's getting closer and closer to not aging at all. Anyhow, I asked my instructor who told me the equations are nonsense at v=c, because the equations blow up. Well, he's right, they're not valid at v=c, but you can analyze them in the limit as v gets infinitesimally close to c and that is the clear message they seem to say, i.e. time is coming to a virtual standstill. I probed a few more times, but my instructor basically shut me down. I had pretty open-minded instructors, but not here apparently. I figured what the hell do I know and gave up asking.


    Fast forward 10-15 years later and I'm watching a show on how they solved the solar neutrino problem - they only see ~1/3 of the neutrinos they expected because they were looking for one specific type of neutrino, but neutrinos "oscillate" or transform from one type to another. Then came the clincher for me. Another physicist comes on and explains how this solves the problem of whether, or not, neutrinos have mass too. He said they must have at least some mass, because if they didn't have any mass, they would have to travel at c and then they could not experience time-dependent phenomenon in their frame, i.e. "oscillate", meaning they "would not sense the passage of time". Bingo! I was like, ah, yes, vindication! That's exactly what I was asking 10+ years earlier! Anyhow, I have always joked if you want to know what eternity is like, ask a photon. Eternity not being never-ending time, but rather the complete absence of time, or a realm transcendent of time.


    From here, there are all sorts of debates as to what this means involving technical arguments, where eventually folks can't see the forest through the relativistic jargon. Null world lines vs. time-like world lines, proper time, etc. I've been through it a million times and it all seems to boil down to the same idea that photons "do not sense the passage of time", even if that is speaking, admittedly, a bit loosely. The technical arguments make good points, provide a bit more insight, but it still boils down to the same thing, in essence.


    So, I think there is more going on than meets the eye when it comes to light. I don't think we really understand light. Much like with entangled particles and the strange acausal correlations in QT, I can’t help but feel that we're only seeing a limited perspective of a richer (higher-dimensional?) phenomenon. Maybe what we see of light can be likened to a "shadow" of the true phenomenon of light we have yet to understand. Or, like a projection of a 3D object onto a 2D world - we're focused on the flat projection, but the 3D object is still waiting to be discovered, meanwhile giving us strong hints to its existence via some wild and strange behavior.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ethan,

    Thanks for that. Some more thoughts of mine:

    1) Actually photons don't enjoy a totally timeless state because no vacuum is perfect, and so will have a tiny refractive index (which obviously lowers the speed of light). Light also gradually looses energy due to Raman scattering, so its timelessness would seem to be something of an idealisation itself! Anything that Kripal and Strieber saw, would not be really timeless.

    2) Seth makes repeated mention of electromagnetic effects and ψ. That could be just rambling, if Seth is not what he claims to be, or it could be that, as you say, all these effects could be a projection of a richer phenomenon.

    3) Photons are, of course, just part of a much larger range of electromagnetic phenomena. I don't know if Kripal and Strieber considered timeless radio frequency photons, or gamma radiation, etc.

    4) I find it very hard to visualise what timelessness means in this context. After all, at a certain time the photon hasn't been born, and therefore isn't travelling from A to B, then at a later time, it is, then at a still later time, it has been absorbed!

    5) What did you mean by QT?

    I wonder if you personally think the wonderful world of theoretical physics is related to non-material reality?

    David
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  5. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Just some quick responses, Ill go ahead and number them to keep track of yours

    (1) Light doesn't actually ever slow down, it always moves at c. In a medium, it is just being absorbed, re-emitted over and over, i.e. interacting with the medium, but in between these interactions it always moves at c. The delay caused by the interactions gives an effective speed,v, slower than c. Mathematically, the equation is v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction and related to the properties of the material in question and the vacuum, but c is always c. Losing energy does not decrease the speed of light either, just its frequency/energy. As far as Krippal, I don't really know how all this relates to their experience and it may just be a convenient metaphor, or analogy, for them to express their ideas. Still, I think physics is strongly suggesting there is an aspect of reality out there richer than our usual notions of causality and space-time, and maybe Whitley experienced it.

    (2) I'm forgetting who Seth is. Is this from the book? Andrew Collins argues that plasma UFOs effect human consciousness via EnM fields. Is this similar? Really, that's what Persinger is demonstrating in his labs. In fact, I think he makes the same argument as Collins, IIRC.

    (3) No comment, I don't either. Again, maybe it's just a convenient analogy.

    (4) I have a hard time with this, as well. It's exactly why I used the word "shadow" above, because I feel like I am trapped in Plato's Allegorical Cave staring at shadows, thinking it's something real, and wondering what the heck is going on!

    (5) Sorry, QT = Quantum Theory.

    I think the whole material/non-material thing is a false dichotomy we've set up, like we humans always do about everything. I think that's what our little friends in our story here - the photons - are trying to tell us. They're part of physical reality, yet at the same time, seem to transcend it, in that how can something really partake in space-time without the experience of time. They're little guys with no mass right on the border of material/non-material, yet straddle both sides of the border, suggesting there is no border, we just made it up! Of course, a photon cannot experience anything, I'm using it as analogy to just get the point across.
     
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,217
    I rather thought you would say something like that, but light that moves in tiny steps (at least in air or water) and is absorbed and re-emitted over and over again, isn't very timeless!

    I know losing energy doesn't decrease the speed of a photon, but it does mean it is evolving over time - but then I guess you would say the photon is being repeatedly emitted and absorbed!

    Seth is an entity that was channelled by Jane Roberts, and supposedly gave a partial explanation of the nature of reality.

    David
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  7. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Well, from the perspective of something timeless, tiny/large don't make sense anymore, it doesn't really matter. The Lorentz transformation equations imply not only zero time between any two events (as light would see it), but also zero space. It's everywhere before it ever left! (Again, please realize I'm speaking a bit loosely here). In other words, light transcends space-time and the concepts of tiny, large, etc don't have any meaning from that perspective. Only space-time-bound 3D creatures like us staring at the "shadow of light" get tripped up on this.

    That's Roger Penrose' whole point with his Conformal Cyclical Cosmology Theory. When the last piece of mass radiates away, there will be nothing left in the Universe to act as a clock, or nothing left that experiences time, however one wants to express that. That immediately implies distance loses all meaning too and the infinitely vast Universe becomes "equivalent" with the infinitesimal and you get another Big Bang. That's Penrose's idea on cosmology, put rather crudely, but gets the point across. It's the exact same idea.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  8. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    Yeah, the idea of any "disclosure" president is patently absurd IMO. If the phenomenon is real, I think in time it will disclose itself, regardless of governments.

    Also his notion of the Clinton's being spiritual is ridiculous. Perhaps I'm misremembering his words, but that is just an absurd thing to say. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else alive today that so embodies the idea of "anti-spiritual" than the Clintons.

    Other than that, I had a hard time following him around his thoughts sometimes. He's a bit frantic and all over the place. Maybe his books are better. It just seemed like he said a lot, without really saying anything. He also seemed to contradict himself at times. I do however totally agree that we shouldn't wait for science to get on board, because they likely never will. After all, Galileo didn't wait for the church to approve of or endorse his studies. Where would we be if he did?
     
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,217
    I do seriously wonder if theoretical physics is struggling with things that simply don't make sense - probably because they encroach on the realm that we are discussing here (paranormal, non-material, however you want to call it).

    I mean as you have illustrated, we have a theory that conceives of photons as being timeless, and yet also conceives of photons as being repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted as they pass through transparent materials - being delayed and slowly losing energy. The double slit experiment is normally conceived of as a desktop experiment with photons passing through the two slits and interfering in the space behind the screen, and yet the photons are being absorbed and re-emitted as they pass through the apparatus! BTW I wonder if anything changes if the two slit experiment is repeated underwater?

    I know there are mathematical ways of squaring all that up, but perhaps it is worth remembering that QM can't even exactly solve for the energy levels of a nitrogen molecule, still less solve the interaction of a photon and a nitrogen molecule - approximations have to be used.

    Suppose photons only interfered with themselves in high vacuum, don't you think physics would explain that as being due to the fact that photons in air were constantly colliding of molecules and losing quantum coherence.

    Would physics even notice that it could provide explanations for both possible outcomes?

    Please don't think I am getting at you, Ethan (because you are far more open to non-material ideas than most), but is it possible that theoretical physics isn't so much demonstrating the wonderful mathematical basis of physical reality, as quite unintentionally providing a huge toolbox of mathematical tricks that hide the true nature of reality!

    I guess the question to ask is, whether physics as it is now understood would really be much different is some facts were different.

    1) If interference and entanglement only occurred in high vacuum.

    2) If PK abilities were more easily demonstrated.

    3) If efforts to demonstrate interference in a stream of C60 molecules had failed.

    etc etc.

    Your talk about thinking of light as being like playing with a shadow of a 3D object, may be getting at the same idea.

    David
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  10. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    David,

    I didn't want to totally split your post apart, so I hope you don't mind but I re-arranged some of your response as I quoted them depending upon how they related to my thinking. Hopefully, I didn't totally make things confusing in the process!

    I actually had kind of a goofy thought about this after I replied to you last. Supposedly, we're ultimately timeless, eternal beings, if everything myths, NDEs, etc have been saying are correct. But, here we are moving from tiny neuron firing to tiny neuron firing, to the extent that we have brain-based or brain-influenced thoughts within linear time. Indeed, even to the extent that we have to use our vision to maneuver around, we move from visual cortex firing to visual cortex firing. We are stuck participating locally and causally within linear time. None of this sounds very timeless either! But, at the same time we're supposed to be non-local eternal beings and consciousness is fundamental.

    Doesn't this sound as goofy as what I described for the photon? I'd say it sounds even worse!

    I'm sorry, I didn’t really follow you on this point?

    I definitely think there is a good chance we're getting caught up on math, but I suspect I see this in different areas. For example, String Theory may very well be a big bag of mathematical tricks, imho. Quantum Field Theory seemed like this at first to me, but after studying it I've pulled back from that position some. I don't think Relativity is a mathematical trick. However, it seems more and more likely GR's domain of validity may be smaller than we imagined. Some physicists are hoping to find Lorentz Invariance (a violation of the symmetries of nature predicted by SR) so as to extend the Standard Model, but they keep coming up short despite vigorously looking for it.

    As far as QM and approximations. It's not that QM cannot exactly solve problems. QM can provide exact equations in many circumstances, it's just that we as humans don't know how to exactly solve them, so we have to resort to perturbative techniques, which are approximations. In other words, the approximations are introduced by us in many circumstances, not by the theory itself. However, as time goes by, we have learned how to solve some of these exactly, so you never know. We got a long ways to go, though!

    On the last point you made above, I was wondering what might physics start to look like as it encroached on the subjective/spiritual/"non-material" realms. It seems to me these things, by their nature, would be hard to pin down with math, perhaps one could even say they even "resist" being pinned down. If that's so, might we not start ending up with math/physics theories that can say almost anything, like String Theory. To model something that resists being mathematically pinned down, maybe we need theories that resist being pinned down. Only thing there is String Theory still feels awfully "materialistic" to me most of the times. However ...

    ... I have thought of analogies for String Theory and Idealism. In String Theory, the types of particles found in the Universe, which means the type of Universe, depends on the shape of the extra compactified spatial dimensions of the theory, and the shape of these depend on a mathematical object called a Calabi-Yau manifold. But, these manifolds come in at least 10^500 different varieties and String Theory provides absolutely no explanation why nature picked out the specific manifold it did and therefore the particular Universe we're in. Really, String Theory (tied to the multiverse theory) has the potential to "predict" up to 10^500 different types of Universes. Therefore, as far as why our single Universe would exist alone, String Theory seems to predict nothing since it predicts almost anything. However .... Segway to Idealism ....

    ... Bernardo often talked about their being a multitude of meta-minds, with each meta-mind having it's own storyline corresponding to it's own Universe where the storyline sort of plays out. This also has parallels with Indian thought and the multitude of Brahmans with each Brahman in charge of a separate instance of creation. But, the creative process is not something that can be pinned down, i.e. it's free will at it's finest. It should have an infinite set of choices in which to weave it's story. And, here we have in String Theory (tied to the multiverse theory) a veritable infinite number of Universes being predicted.

    Perhaps that is metaphor at best, or an extremely weak comparison even, I don't know, just know my mind can't help but make it some times. I'm not even really a fan of String Theory. But, what would physics start to look like if meta-minds exist, each weaving their own creative storyline taking place across multiple Universes?



    For me, the key one there is (2). I don't think it would have to change much of the physics we currently have as far as SR, GR, QFT. But, it would certainly change mind-sets and encourage different avenues to be explored (at least I would like to think!)

    I actually started developing my own theory for PK using only Relativity and QT, but it sort of stalled out (I should look at it again, though). Also, Russel Targ had a theory that extended the space-time metric of relativity to account for psi. So, I don't think our well-established physics (SR, GR, QT) have to change too much, they just need to be extended and probably include some new ideas.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,217
    It certainly feels a bit that way - I mean we are at one moment in time, and yet we seem to roam both past and potential future(s) in our heads!
    This was about how physics would change if photons only interfered in high vacuum.

    As I am sure you realise, I have become a bit cynical about science! I suspect that science could explain different possible situations - it isn't as careful as it appears to be. So if photons only interfered in a double slit experiments in high vacuum, it would say, Aha! that makes sense, photons scatter off air molecules, and lose coherence.

    As it is it says that photons undergo a kind of scattering off molecules that retains quantum coherence, so that you can do these experiments in air, and forget that the photon is repeatedly being absorbed, and re-emitted some time later!

    As a cynic, I suspect that physics would claim that either result was consistent with theory.

    My point about QM theory (and I suspect almost all deeper physical theory) is that we can only do approximate calculations of all but the most basic things. We can't compute the properties of a nitrogen atom exactly, never mind N2, never mind N2 meeting a photon. The process of approximation may itself involve elements of fudge!
    I don't know any String Theory - beyond the number of dimensions in which it is supposed to take place - but I get the impressions that the lack of new particles beyond the Higgs, is really worrying String Theorists (and probably those wanting a bigger LHC!).
    It is interesting that you feel at least some uncertainty about something which would be considered fairly foundational by mainstream physics! Myself, I feel pretty certain that (non-relativistic) QM is grounded in reality, because it explains such a rich collection of facts - such as the shapes of molecules and the energy levels of atoms. My impression is that QFT isn't grounded on such a wealth of results.
    [/QUOTE]
    I don't think Relativity is a mathematical trick. However, there are other interpretations, such a Lorentzian Relativity that keep the same equations but interpret them differnetly. I hope they fly a Michelson Moreley experiment in deep space sometime soon - maybe they would get a surprise!
    That is an interesting observation - perhaps the lack of dark matter candidates at the LHC is part of your reaction.

    I have had a go at GR maths once or twice, but it doesn't really stick. Once I realised that the maths was developed to study the physics of deformable media like rubber, I felt that it probably wasn't appropriate for space-time! Also, more concretely, Wolfgang Unzicker claims that Einstein had an alternative theory in 1909 that involved light with variable speed, and which was discarded in error because it was thought to give the wrong formula for the bending of light round a massive star.

    Also Ron Hatch claims that GR isn't really consistent with the GPS project:

    (LoneShaman supplied that link years ago - I dearly wish he would return to Skeptiko).
    I think I responded to that above.
    Although I wasn't talking about String Theory, I think I was talking about the possibility, that physics might end up with such flexible theories (too may parameters and similar devices) that it might just fit anything. 10^500 possibilities sounds like a enough to be going on with :) I mean, the danger with the mathematisation of physics, is that it opens so many possibilities that it can't fail!
    I do wonder if everyone might travel through time in a different way. Imagine by analogy travelling through time in a Many Worlds scenario. Everyone could have a different trajectory through it all, and yet never realise it! I don't mean a real Many Worlds interpretation of QM, I just mean that conceivably each consciousness traverses the numerable quantum transitions in a different way (so a tiny sunset of the 'worlds' in the MW scenario).
    Well TSQM (which I know is close to your heart) would explain precognition, I guess. However, I always feel that a physical theory - dominated by equations - can't really be the full explanation, because equations are mechanistic - even with some added randomness. Part of the problem seems to be that there are so many possible extensions to known reality - I sent you one that I found on the internet some time back!

    David
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016
  12. manjit

    manjit New

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    242
    Oh don't get me started!! I have a long winded story about my semi-obsession and interest in that case going back to when it occurred (first heard about it the day after(?) on GMTV morning TV here in the UK). I came to a half conclusion on what may have occurred.....and it is possible as I didn't read it in depth, but there's a recent thread (last year or two!) on abovetopsecret forum which I think lays out in depth the same conclusion I came to. As I came to the conclusions by myself and at a time when I wasn't listening to podcasts and forums talking about UFOs, I was pleasently surprised to see others had connected the dots similarly.

    In summary, there were definitely 2 events that occurred. First event was the sighting that lasted for several hours of a huge "craft" moving in a line across quite a large distance (and observed by the then governor of state, Glenn or Glynn Symington or whatever). Second event was the dropping of flares by military craft and it is this image which has become iconic of the whole event. There is very strong evidence these were flares as you can see them dropping behind the invisible mountain line using composite images. What has always made me think there was definitely something suspicious to the distinctly separate sighting event of a huge triangular craft is why would the military drop flares near a major city at that precise time when there is a huge sighting event covering a large here happening just half an hour (or whatever) before? It seems highly suggestive of a distraction or cover-up of some sort? However, in regards the sighting of the large triangular shape with glowing red/orange orbs, I still don't have a clue. It's worth noting the evidence provided by the young amateur astronomer, a child, who looked through his telescope and say several conventional light aircraft joined together by some artificial structure, and with glowing lights, in order to create the appearance of a large craft. It is also worth noting (telling?) how his evidence has been almost completely ignored by those groups of "experiencers" at the meetings they had. I've seen video of this child and his testimony.....I find it highly probable he his telling the truth as he experienced it. But the testimony of others, including the then governor, is also quite convincing that this was no conventional craft/s.

    I think the point of this story, and ufology in general, is the sense of awe and the mysterious it can bring into our lives. There will never be proof one way or the other.....it is this sense of mystery that gives us joy, and perhaps is the point of it all? There may be no real spaceships, but there may be something in the human experience that demands these phenonema which create awe, mystery and joy? What the source of those phenomena is, though, is anybodys guess...

    I say this because, I have to say, though being interested in UFOs in general since I was a very young kid, from about the age of 13 onwards I never really believed in the idea we were being visited by aliens in spaceships....what I now know is called "nuts and bolts ufos" or "eth". I found it quite ludicrous, actually. Then I read Passport to Magonia, which changed all that. Then (actually, I'm not sure of the timeline, but this was in a short space of time, a few years at most.......about 8 years ago now?) I completely went crazy for about 1 week (on holiday from work) and absolutely devoured hours upon hours of UFO documentaries, every day. I think I watched every single doc available online or to download, obscure or not, that week. I was absolutely obsessed with the mystery!

    And what was I left with after that mania subsided? What do I feel, in retrospect, I have gained or learnt from that? A sense of awe, mystery, exhilaration at the possibilities....joy! But, I have absolutely no idea what it is we're dealing with, whether it has a mundane or supra-mundane explanation, or a combination of all the above and more....no idea at all! I am almost left with the feeling that's the whole point of it....

    Told you not to get me started.......


    Haha...why not!? I call them dolphins. And dogs, cats, birds etc.....I think they're all more "advanced" than humans! :) No seriously, is that like a version of the crypto-terrestrial theory? Who knows, anything's possible......seriously!
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and EthanT like this.
  13. manjit

    manjit New

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    242
    Haha :D I could try and be all enigmatic & mysterious by responding to this question with "You will understand where this Roswell-wasn't-real meme started once you understand where this Roswell-was-real meme started", but that would be meaningless.

    Not sure what you mean by meme here actually. It's just the natural, organic personal conclusion I have come to about Roswell after watching numerous documentaries, dozens of podcasts and articles in books (not entire books dedicated to it though) and online over the past 30 odd years, and by applying thought to it?

    The Wilbert Smith memo? As I mentioned in my original post, I strongly feel Grant has a tendency to be over-credulous and to read things into facts that are not warranted by the raw data itself. Context is key to understand these kind of statements/memos.

    I very highly recommend - and I think a link has already been posted in this thread containing quotes from it - reading Jacques Vallee's 1000 page 2 volume diary of his life Forbidden Sciene. It contains within it reference to almost every major player in the UFO scene from the late 50s onwards, and contains an insight relayed with a keen intelligence, into the whole UFO scene and the various governments and agencies set-up to investigate them, on a personal & experiential level.
     
  14. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Here is an interesting interview where Edwin C May indicates that psi phenomenon seem to have a relationship to electromagnetic energies.
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  15. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,217
    Yes - though geomagnetic energies. I have never understood why these should be distinct from other electromagnetic effects - except that the frequencies are very low - any thoughts?

    David
     
  16. iPsoFacTo

    iPsoFacTo New

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    292
    All this seeming evidence throughout history tells us that there are unseen realms that can interact with our world. Part of that is the apparent fact that all our dear departed are always here with us. Now I don't know about you, but the thought that of one's dead family members are all standing around witnessing all the kinds of depraved sex antics we humans engage in, can certainly put one off the sport of wanking, just to name one, forever! :eek::D

    When I finally croak is my life review going to give me a play by play replay of how I treated my body as an amusement park?

    Am I going to be greeted by mom, dad, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousin, friends...all eye's rolling and with giant smirks on their faces?? =8-O
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016
    EthanT, malf and manjit like this.
  17. manjit

    manjit New

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2014
    Messages:
    242
    Hahaha, hilarious :D

    I wouldn't worry too much about it iPsoFacTo, they say you gain supernormal wisdom and knowledge once you get to "other side". I reckon there's a good chance they already know we're ALL a bunch of wankers down here....
     
    Judith, EthanT, Typoz and 1 other person like this.
  18. iPsoFacTo

    iPsoFacTo New

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    292
    I certainly hopes yer right! lol
     
  19. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,403
    Interesting questions, however I think there will be a shift in perspective such that most of the things with which we concern ourselves here are seen in a wholly new way, and the relative importance with which we weigh things here is completely re-arranged. Things we spend time worrying over may not matter at all, and the things which seem trivial, even passing unnoticed might rise to prominence. Well that's a kind of personal view, I can't justify it particularly.

    Except for one thing. Sometimes when first waking in the morning, before taking on the burdens of the day, I seem to be in touch with a deeper reality, and can even have 'conversations' with someone or something which is giving me support. Though just like waking from a dream, this soon fades, and I find I can no longer 'hear' any other - and so to breakfast and the day.

    On a related topic, just once, in a very relaxed state and with no disturbances from the outside world, I spent an entire afternoon in such a conversation. This is an inner conversation, largely wordless, though tending to crystallise around words as I mulled it over. I'll not go into further detail except to say it was both deeply reassuring and peppered with humour, almost anything I thought of as a problem received a smiling response which had me laughing out loud. This episode has not been repeated, it seemed some sort of window, almost a gift.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016
    K9!, EthanT, iPsoFacTo and 1 other person like this.
  20. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Ahh, I think I follow you now, but I guess no real comment to add. Not sure I agree, or disagree, in that I think I can imagine situations where things could be tricky, but at the same time I'm not quite as cynical, I guess

    Got ya, my general impression is that the approximations are made on a pretty solid basis. Again, I used to feel the same way, until after studying the details and started to think they seem quite reasonable. However, I share the same general feeling, in that I can't help but wonder if something isn't hiding in those approximations!!

    It's pretty worrisome that they haven't found the particles related to super symmetry, which is at the heart of String Theory. If we don't find any at the new energies the LHC will be running on this next phase, I think it will cross a line with a critical mass of folks who will start to say maybe we have to drop super symmetry. Guess we'll see how it really plays out soon enough

    Well, QFT makes all the same predictions as QM, as QM is at the heart of QFT, with QFT just being an "extension". QFT then goes on to make rather impressive, highly accurate predictions like the anomalous magnetic moment, which QM fails to do.

    Also, Relativity has quite an impressive array of predictions and facts that, arguably, have been tested as comprehensively as QM.

    Well, I think I mentioned on here already, my General Relativity instructor planted the seeds for this in me 20+ years ago. He didn't buy into space-time curvature. He was sure that a quantum view would eventually replace Einstein's view and provide a more comprehensive picture of gravity. Then, as a GR student, it's also fairly common to learn about alternative theories to GR and the whole PPN framework for testing between alternative theories vs. GR, etc. That's why the claims about Relativity being dogmatic never made much sense to me from my actual experience as a physics student. It wasn't my experience at all. Anyhow, later came observations, like the most recent ones that seem to challenge GR at cosmic scales. So, we'll see what happens. I suspect whatever happens will be different than what any of us might expect


    I don't really think TSQM can explain pre-cognition, it just makes reality seem more conducive to pre-cognition, etc. Also, I don't think it's any more right, or wrong, then regular QM. I don't know if you saw my post on the Newtonian View vs. Lagrangian View of Classical Mechanics. They're just different ways of approaching Classical Mechanics, or different "formulations", which together can provide an enhanced perspective on reality than either one would be be capable of alone. That's all I think TSQM is doing. In some ways, it's a bit more of a "global" approach, analogous to the Lagrangian view, and it enhances the perspective and insights on reality beyond what regular QM can give us alone, just like the Lagrangian view does for Classical Mechanics.

    Also, I totally agree about the potential limitations of mathematical predictions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2016

Share This Page