He may have unraveled the secret of synchronicity. Will science prove him right?|306|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    Thank you for these comments Hurmanetar, I appreciate your thoughts and wish I had more time to address them in detail but unfortunately I do not have the time. I'll try to put this in a nutshell - to me what is important is the intention of the "speaker" (the source of the synchronicity - assuming that it has an intention and is not some kind of mechanical "reflex" in mind-matter). Not surprisingly, you mention the trickster, ambiguity in reality, deception etc. Now if I was something or someone behind reality and REALLY wanted to convey a message to you I wouldn't play games, I wouldn't use a language you don't understand (to go back to my example, German instead of English), I would not leave you wondering whether you are going crazy, whether it was all "just a coincidence", whether you read too much into things. The ambiguity around synchronicities is actually pretty infuriating for me :). I'm here precisely because I would like to go to the bottom of this (in the sense that at least I want to reach the point where I have a theory *I* can more or less believe in - I'm not here to convince others, especially now that I'm still groping in the dark...) You said that you don't mind ambiguity, and that's OK: you are obviously one of those people who enjoy the fact that we live in a mysterious universe and find it exciting and fun. I don't. To use a metaphor, again, I feel like I'm a non-smoker in a restaurant (this consensus reality) where the owner (God/the Universe/call it what you will) is a "smoker at heart" :) (loves mystery, ambiguity and playing games) so smokers (people like you, who like mystery, creativity and what not) are perfectly happy inhaling and being surrounded by smoke and don't mind creating some more, while I am forced to inhale this smoke whether I like it or not. OK, so I could leave - well, I will, one day, and that's why the idea of death doesn't bother me that much, but in the meantime I am protesting and hoping that the owner becomes aware of the unfairness of this and maybe creates a small smoke-free area (for myself and those who would like to get to the truth and stop being exposed to ambiguity, uncalled for humour and "trickery"). And even if s/he doesn't care, well at least I will have spoken my mind and not suffered the smoke quietly, thank you very much! :)
    More seriously: part of my job involves communication. But real communication, in which my purpose is making sure I am understood, and that means being sincere, straightforward, aware of people's needs and any comprehension difficulties they might have. I am communicating because I CARE. My intention is for people to UNDERSTAND me. So I go out of my way to make my message clear and unambiguous. I don't see this happening with synchronicities, so I don't understand a) how a lot people can feel that they know exactly what each of them is about 2) how most people automatically assume that synchs are "encouraging, positive signs" (from God etc) 3) what purpose synchs serve exactly, if not that of "the medium is the message", i.e.: "look at this, if something so weird can happen, it means that the universe does not function as you thought", so live your life accordingly. I got this message, believe me, but I have been experiencing synchronicities (huge ones and minor, trivial ones) on a daily basis for the past 3 years, not just when travelling - so I have to wonder why.
    Just one final question for today: you mentioned some interesting synchronicities (experienced by you and other people). What do you make of the fact that some of these synchs could somehow appear to be related to ethics/religion/"karma" (as in your own example, with the flat tires etc) while other appear to be utterly trivial (say, the German Finance minister making headlines in the UK by using the word "poison" just a couple of hours after I used that word in an example related to the German language in this Forum)? How do you reconcile a (supposedly) ethical God and the trickster (whose pranks can show pretty bad taste, a bit like making fun of mentally handicapped people - that's what we are, since he is in a position of power as compared to us living in ignorance)?
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Hurmanetar like this.
  2. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    I gotta take exception to that conclusion... I mean, I guess it all depend on what you consider evidence and what sources you consider credible. We may all love NASA, but they are proven disinformation agents (i.e. liars). Moreover, arguing against UFO moon bases seems a little like arguing hypoxia as a cause for NDEs in that the worldview of the arguer doesn't really allow for the possibility and are therefore left patching together scoffing to hold up beliefs.

    I kinda feel like you're trying to stretch a really good point (i.e. there's some relationship between precognition and these phenomena) too far.
     
    north and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  3. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    I'm reminded of Raymond Moody's point about it being "pre-scientific."
     
  4. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    That last part was actually an argument against remote viewing being strictly based on precognition, as posited by Eric, and more of it being an amalgamation of information acquired by "other means".

    I am actually open minded about UFOs, despite never seeing one personally, but am not sold on the logic of a permanent base being in the moon... If they can achieve interstellar travel without time dilation being a constraint, then a permanent base would be kind of redundant, if it is an issue and they can "cloak" (a recurrent feature in UFO accounts), then there are remote places on Earth in which your base would at least be protected by an atmosphere.

    But, my main point was actually that precognition can only be used to explain some subsets of these phenomena.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and hypermagda like this.
  5. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    as long as we can all agree on UFOs being "real" and alien contact being "real" and that the US gov seems to invest a tremendous amount of effort in misdirecting/misinforming... well, if we can agree on all that, then we can discuss moon bases.

    agreed. I'd go one step further... "may offer some clues toward better understanding some aspects of some subsets..."
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  6. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    How come? I am not arguing that its unscientific or unmeasurable. I am, however, not sure how to put that in better terms... Psychically inadept? Untrained?
    I guess that aliens could have a very bad real estate agent. But, for a ship capable of interstellar travel the moon is something like "the next block", and there are better houses in this one. It would make one insane sales pitch:

    "Buy the house by the quarry that is constantly bombarded by debris! Not the one with the protective roof by the sunny hills!"

    Surely they could monitor us without intervening from a more convenient locale. Not that I could try and understand alien logic, though.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel and hypermagda like this.
  7. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    Awesome!!
     
  8. Alan Amsberg

    Alan Amsberg New

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    I like your example of the room full of smoke. Very apt.

    I remember when I started down this long road - just trying to figure out UFOs. How hard could it be? Most likely they don't exist and, if they do, then hey presto the aliens are here (which I could deal with). But, here I am 8+ years later and the UFO mystery, for me, has only deepened. Deepened into absurdity with Mike Clelland's The Messengers book which is about "Owls, Synchronicity and the UFO Abductee". BTW, Mike doesn't really like the "abductee" word but he is stuck with it. You can also write in "experiencer" or "contactee" which are a bit easier to swallow.

    Anyway, here's a fun sync from Mike Clelland which I note was posted on the internet on the exact day I went psychotic - Oct 18, 2009 (an experience I, fortunately, have not repeated). Here's the sync: http://blog.synchrosecrets.com/?p=289

    Sorry it is so smoky in here.
     
  9. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I understand your frustration and to a certain extent share it, but I guess I have learned to live with it and enjoy it. :) I think if there were only one "speaker" (i.e. god with a personality and intentions), then we'd still have just as many questions. Why can an omnipotent god not communicate with exactitude all the time? If he could, then why doesn't he/she/it? Would he be morally obliged to help us if he could? If he can't, then he's not really omnipotent? Etc...

    I take the view that there are possibly many beings with many intentions at work including ourselves and we all have certain limitations (because no limits creates a meaningless story). We have purposefully gotten lost in a story or a maze for the purpose of amazement and trying to figure out how to get back out. That's my view at least.

    But what if you were limited in how you could interact? It seems imperative to me that every agent/actor has limits - at least to participate in this reality - because any agent/actor without limits would make this reality moot... its like playing a video game with all the cheat codes on... it gets dull very quickly.

    That is a great analogy :) I guess I've had no choice (at least in my present incarnation) so I got used to the smoke and now I'm a little addicted. :)

    Clear communication brings clarity, sanity, structure, progress towards a goal, etc. Nothing wrong with that and it is very much needed. All I'm saying is: what would the implications be if we did away with all ambiguity and all mystery and every role of the "trickster". Is such a reality even possible? And if we really think hard about it and all the implications, would we find our overall experience of that reality meaningful? Especially if ambiguity is fundamentally necessary for free choice?

    I understand the frustration. I would say if a synchronicity feels overwhelmingly like a communication or an encouragement, just take it (with a grain of salt of course). :)

    I think that there must be some sort of fundamental principle of balance in the universe. The yin and the yang. The creation of one thing also engenders its opposite. I think that it is possible we each have a "karmic" account though I don't know for sure. I also think it is possible that our debts can be wiped out and we can get off the wheel. I also think that on some level we must have free choice about all this and that we probably agreed to experience what we're experiencing; however, it is possible we got deceived into this agreement and are now trying to figure out how to get out of it. I really don't know for sure, but I think we can overcome the lack of answers by being authentic, loving, wise, and having the courage to never let our curiosity die. Being raised in Christianity there are a lot of nuggets of wisdom I still hold on to even though I think reality is more complex than the exoteric prevailing interpretations of Christianity. "The kingdom of heaven is within you" and "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you," and "with faith anything is possible."
     
  10. Eric Wargo

    Eric Wargo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    34
    It doesn't matter what you think of NASA or the possibility of moon bases, UFOs, etc. What makes you conclude that, because Ingo Swann says he remote viewed moon bases, he was accurate (let alone truthful), or that his interpretation of what he might have seen was correct? Neither you nor I have any proof of whether there really are alien bases on the moon, so it's an empirical question but one we just aren't in a position to answer. But being willing to trust any psychic, even one with a good track record, just on their word--"I saw X therefore X must exist" is not being rigorous. Ingo Swann was wrong on lots of his remote viewing sessions, as are all remote viewers. Deliberate exercise of psi (however we explain it) is subject to all kinds of vagaries and errors. (It's precisely those vagaries and characteristic errors that have led me to my particular argument about precognition, but that's a separate issue.)
     
  11. Alan Amsberg

    Alan Amsberg New

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Great. I am going to steal this.
     
    Hurmanetar and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  12. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    a review from the peanut gallery:

    Congrats to Alex and Eric Wargo for stimulating this excellent thread
     
    Eric Wargo likes this.
  13. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I think what you're saying is that meaningful connections exist...objectively? Like, let's say I've got Grandfather's Swiss watch in my hand that he picked off a dead Nazi officer in the war. The watch has a famous quote on it. This watch was used by both men for decades before being passed on to me. Every time a man looked at this watch with any kind of feelings, perhaps that ties an "objective" thread of meaning to that point in time and space in the story. And further, the concept of a "watch" makes this not just a collection of metal and quartz atoms, but the particular form and function of this object which is recognizable as a watch ties it together with all other watches. (This turns reductionism on its head and says that watches as a concept are real and objective like a platonic ideal which are then cast into various forms of watches - instead of materialist reductionism which says: it's not a watch, but just a collection of particles that have been fashioned into a useful form and by induction of similar forms we call it a watch.) The famous quote engraved on the watch has a thread of meaning tied to every other reproduction of this famous quote as well as to variations on the concept behind the famous quote. Let's say the watch is stopped on a certain time like 8:15. This creates another thread of objective meaning tied to the concept of the time of 8:15.

    Putting it all together, we have an informational object which is the collection of woven threads of meaning around every aspect of this watch and its long story.

    Since these threads of meaning are real and objective, they could be seen by a third party (like a psychic) and they could potentially draw in related meaningful events such that a synchronicity occurs. They could also be tied to deeply held feelings in the men who possessed the watch such that even after death, the disembodied consciousness of the former owner finds himself drawn to the watch.

    Now let's say I'm boarding a flight to Switzerland with the watch in my pocket, and I overhear someone behind me with a German accent repeat the famous quote on the watch while I was reading a news article about the nazis taking over the Ukrainian government and then the pilot, whose name is the same as my grandfather, announces that the flight will be delayed until 8:15. What a coincidence! Or maybe all this tangled web of meanings around the watch form an objective "informational object" which can be encountered and manifest itself into my reality in more than one way?
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  14. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    I enjoy your poetic posts. The picture, for me, is more pragmatic and in particular, tied to known information processing laws. Plato's forms don't fit the bill. Rather than unchanging forms, informational measurements are tied to probabilistic real-world occasions, with an eye to potential objects, events and processes. I do strongly agree with what you said about deep-emotions being an active generator of meaningful structures.

    Your physical watch is a structured object of engaged metal parts. The "watch" is also an informational object with a real-world connection to measured flow of time. The watch is designed to process standardized intervals that can communicate mutual information (time passage for the watch and the agent being virtually identical, hence mutual) to an agent who knows and understands its coded display. There are worldly consequences for an agent who can adjust to the timing of real events. (like avoiding being late, which is meaningful)

    Further, the watch's inscription can inspire a change in behavior, as a personal message, such that you as an agent can experience a creative solution. An emotional decision can connect to other meaningful content of informational objects of other people in your memory (or imagination). My worldview sees meanings being associated with the the formal data-set of information objects, just as physical objects have states of energy associated with material structures.

    Informational objects can persist in states that over-arch physical time and space. This fact does break-up reductionist ideas about determinism. I would suggest the idea of a physical singularity at the beginning of time has a proceeding state of real probability and potential for manifestation. The informational object of the big-banging exists before it manifests physically and echos as an informational object for all time.

    All of reality is mostly information - explicitly the past and the future consisting only of information. We can to some degree, measure the informational objects in both. We can only measure physical objects in the here and now.
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  15. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I have thoughts on your comments here, but first, how do you define information?
     
  16. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    In physical science there are two primary categories for the units of measure; those quantifying mass, size and orientation. And those quantifying force and potentials for forces.

    In information science there are two primary categories for the units of measure; those quantifying uncertainty in bits (Shannon Entropy) and those documenting potentially meaningful relations, such as linguistics, logic and organization.

    My method of analysis is to simplify the wicked complexity in the terms and fields of information study, by comparing physical objects to corresponding informational objects. We studied the atom, early on, by making 3 dimensional stick figures of particles and bonds to see the structure. I suggest that it helps to "visualize" informational objects as the software need to program simulations. In this way icons can be stuck together and arranged into patterns. Floridi (quoted in a prior post) connects informational objects with Object Oriented Programming (OOP). Floridi's entry in the SEP makes a brilliant case for the linguistics, logic and organization (meaning) side of information.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/
    A physical object, like a compound molecule, is understood as to structure, by its units of measure relating to the weight, dimensions and spatial orientation. Then its temperature, potential to react and inner bond strengths describe its state of energy. I suggest that it is helpful to see a "information object" in an analogous manner as having a structural aspect and an active aspect. The formal information of the object (in units of bits and bytes associated with its representation in reality) is like matter; and the meaning is like energy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  17. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I just wrote a page and a half in response to this, but deleted it.. The more specific I try to get the harder it is to communicate! Much easier to stay vague and poetic ;-)

    The gist of it was information is experience or "sensing" put into form - informed. Sensing or experiencing is the transformation of information into another form of information.

    I like the way you are looking at physical objects as the analog for informational objects which transcend the physical. I would add that I think physical objects are a subset of informational objects. A peach, for example, is an informational object that symbolizes certain experiences (fuzzy feel, peachy color, deliciousness, etc). The physical peach is actually "peachy experiences" cast into a peach form so it is "in-form-ation".

    As far as I know, we don't yet know how it works, but the mind has an ability to almost subconsciously follow out meaningful connections which I think would be akin to the informational object you're talking about. Say we're talking about peaches and that brings to mind the best homemade peach ice cream you ever had or maybe that time as a kid you got stung by a wasp under the peach tree. These are all nodes of your informational object on peaches. If we are embedded in a "mind" or if the external objective world and our internal subjective world are two sides of the same coin then perhaps instead of just bringing things up in ones' private imagination, exploring the web of informational nodes and objects can also manifest in the "objective" world as synchronicity?
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  18. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    In prior posts I have made an argument for a pragmatic view of how informational objects might be quantified in appropriate units of measure, as the science evolves. The TV version of precog, imagines signals from the future and I think your are arguing that this is not a practical approach with the science we have today. I do like your statement that "mining" information of personal importance is likely to be the same process, when "looking" into the past and into the future. I would label this as direct perception (J.J. Gibson) of affordances.

    You mention changes in physical states such as the electrochemical configurations in the nervous system changing from resemblance (isomorphism of some property?). Please help us understand what kind of activity at the physical level might cause this this linkage.

    Informational objects, such as numbers, can be universal and be persistent in all times and physical spaces. Without signals the structured information of a binary system causing balance can span physical space/time. A future informational state that changes a balance in social structure can collapse an informational object and this probability can be sensed. I just don't see how a strictly physical state, such as a brain-state, can have a measured effect from the future. Information as bits and as semantics both are influenced by context. Physical particles just don't behave outside of physics rules -- no matter the social environment they are in. What kind of mechanism do you see changing chemical potentials in an organism's bio-chem with future informational changes?
     
    Eric Wargo likes this.
  19. Eric Wargo

    Eric Wargo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    34
    I've outlined the proposed mechanism in a few recent articles, especially these two: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3441, http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3519 . In 2010, Seth Lloyd and colleagues proposed a method of time travel using quantum teleportation and post-selection, and then partly tested their hypothesis the following year. The method is the same as quantum teleportation already being studied for use in sending encrypted messages through space using entangled particles; the difference is that the entanglement is broken (within the confines of a quantum computer) and when one of the particles is entangled with a new particle, information associated with the new particle effectively transfers back in time to the other particle in the original pair.

    Quite apart from Lloyd's work, there are various teams of researchers hunting for quantum computing in the brain, most famously Hameroff and Penrose searching for consciousness in coherent behavior of entangled particles inside and between microtubules. I think the search for consciousness in a quantum framework is probably misguided, but the side benefit of the search is that they'll find something like Lloyd's "time travel" setup going on inside neuronal microstructures, effectively creating neurons that can respond (very slightly) to future stimulus -- probably a matter of microseconds. As far as I'm concerned, such neurons don't need to be coherent/entangled with each other, let alone entangled with other brains or objects in space. Stringing a number of "precognitive neurons" together would create circuits that tended (on aggregate) to fire milliseconds or even seconds in the advance of a stimulus. The exact mechanism is speculative, but it would explain not only psi anomalies but also the various timing shenanigans that Libet discovered in the late 1970s, not to mention "mirror neurons," etc. The hypothesis that precognitive neurons exist is based on a helping of "if it can happen in nature, life will find a way," but unlike the even more hand-wavey "consciousness fields" etc. and "resonance" theories that many people seem to prefer, it's at least testable. Microtubules, structures that seem able to keep particles sequestered a la quantum computers, seem like just the ticket for a kind of "cellular consciousness" (which I suspect is just cellular presentiment). Other structures have also been proposed as sites of quantum effects, including ion channels in synapses.

    The larger context for Lloyd's work and much of the most interesting stuff happening in QM these days is the insight of Yakir Aharonov back in the 1960s that "randomness" may not really exist; particles may behave unpredictably because of their future measurements (/interactions/entanglements), which we can't generally know about (except in a quantum computer where the output has been post-selected). Thus the future is an omnipresent influence on present physical behavior on a quantum scale; but because the future hasn't happened yet from our point of view, particle behavior is mostly opaque to us; thus it appears to us as if particles have a mind of their own, but they are simply obeying a kind of two-way causation.

    Seth Lloyd's work in quantum computing and Aharonov's work will pave the way for exploring future effects on the present/past not only in artificial but also biological systems (Paul Davies has already argued that post-selection explains the arising of life in the universe). "Post-selection" is the quantum computing parameter that prevents any retrocausal influence from being paradoxical; transferred to philosophy/metaphysics, it's just a statement of the truism that we live in a possible universe. Information can freely travel backward in time insofar as it doesn't interfere with its own being sent ... but there's nothing mysterious about it. It's just a form of informational Darwinism. But it creates very particular constraints on real-world precognition, and explains why psi, which seems like it ought to be a major superpower and reality hack, actually only operates 99% of the time unconsciously and associatively, discerned after the fact. The narrow parameters within which it can be consciously applied generally demand a lot of indirection and repetition (associative RV setups, for instance), and in the real world begin to look a lot like ritual magic. Basically, because of post-selection, psi operates on a very noisy channel.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
  20. This really seems to lead to either an infinite regression or an infinite amount of information dumped into the Present?

    I guess the way out of this is time loops, but that leads to the problem of who is setting up the loops before hand in "hyper time"?
     

Share This Page