The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187394 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Don: please provide one example where whatever system you are proposing has actually produced a more accurate prediction than the system you decry. Then, at least, as selfstyled scientists, we will have to consider that there is merit in your system. That's how Galileo, Newton, Planck, Einstein, Pasteur, Jenner, Lavoisier, maybe even Darwin.... got into the history books.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... an attempt to argue that no amount of empirical evidence, no number of successful predictions a theory makes, no functional utility, is ever sufficient to establish that something is more likely than not to be a "cause" of another thing - all knowledge is an irrational choice. (When all else fails, drag out Hume. )
I love the counterpoint between Hume who said causation is just the experience of constant conjunction of events (just custom and habit); and Kant who said that without causation we would not experience constant conjunction...

Kant wins on statistical grounds  ;) (although their arguments were deeper than that, and not really so directly opposed).

Quote
Bizarrely, Beauregard's own experiments are the best evidence that he's wrong. They are exactly what you'd expect to find if consciousness was a product of the brain, and not a receiver or transmitter of it.
Quite; the problem seems to be that if you start out with a dualist mindset, it's very hard to see things otherwise, e.g. that the mind is the physical activity of the brain, and so it's no surprise that such activity can have physical effects.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 15:10:47 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


P.S . : Oh , yeah , oeps : I see i might have made a serious mistake .I am not sure Carter used that entanglement argument i talked about,
Now.........................that's very refreshing DonQ. There may be some hope for you yet. I'll give you credit for that sir, anyone that can admit to error has some genuine honesty hiding somewhere within.

Bravo my man,......................Bravo

Error is human , you know .There is nothing fancy , glorifying  or honorable about admitting it when it happens.

Well, see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book :

"If you do not get schwindlig [dizzy] sometimes when you think about these
things then you have not really understood it [quantum theory]."
Niels Bohr

One of the most surprising discoveries of modern physics is that objects aren’t as separate as they may seem. When you drill down into the core of even the most solid-looking material, separateness dissolves. All that remains, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, are relationships extending curiously throughout space and time. These connections were predicted by quantum theory and were called “spooky action at a distance” by Albert Einstein. One of the founders of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, dubbed this peculiarity entanglement, and said “I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.”
The deeper reality suggested by the existence of entanglement is so unlike the world of everyday experience that until recently, many physicists believed it was interesting only for abstract theoretical reasons. They accepted that the microscopic world of elementary particles could become curiously entangled, but those entangled states were assumed to be fleeting and have no practical consequences for the world as we experience it. That view is rapidly changing.
Scientists are now finding that there are ways in which the effects of microscopic entanglements “scale up” into our macroscopic world. Entangled connections between carefully prepared atomic-sized objects can persist over many miles.
There are theoretical descriptions showing how tasks can be accomplished by entangled groups without the members of the group communicating with each other in any conventional way. Some scientists suggest that the remarkable degree of coherence displayed in living systems might depend in some fundamental way on quantum effects like entanglement. Others suggest that conscious awareness is caused or related in some important way to entangled particles in the brain. Some even propose that the entire universe is a single, self-entangled object.
If these speculations are correct, then what would human experience be like in such an interconnected universe? Would we occasionally have numinous feelings of connectedness with loved ones, even at a distance? Would such experiences evoke a feeling of awe that there’s more to reality than common sense implies? Could “entangled minds” be involved when you hear the telephone ring and somehow know—instantly—who’s calling? If we did have such experiences, could they be due to real information that somehow
bypassed the usual sensory channels? Or are such reports better understood as coincidences or delusions?
These are the types of questions explored in this book. We’ll find that there’s substantial experimental evidence for a few types of genuine psi phenomena.
And we’ll learn why, until very recently, science has largely ignored these
interesting effects. For centuries, scientists assumed that everything can be explained by mechanisms analogous to clockworks. Then, to everyone’s
surprise, over the course of the twentieth century we learned that this
commonsense assumption is wrong. When the fabric of reality is examined very closely, nothing resembling clockworks can be found. Instead, reality is woven from strange, “holistic” threads that aren’t located precisely in space or time. Tug on a dangling loose end from this fabric of reality, and the whole cloth twitches, instantly, throughout all space and time.
Science is at the very earliest stages of understanding entanglement, and there is much yet to learn. But what we’ve seen so far provides a new way of thinking about psi. No longer are psi experiences regarded as rare human talents, divine gifts, or “powers” that magically transcend ordinary physical boundaries.
Instead, psi becomes an unavoidable consequence of living in an
interconnected, entangled physical reality. Psi is reframed from a bizarre
anomaly that doesn’t fit into the normal world—and hence is labeled paranormal —into a natural phenomenon of physics.
The idea of the universe as an interconnected whole is not new; for millennia it’s been one of the core assumptions underlying Eastern philosophies.
What is new is that Western science is slowly beginning to realize that some elements of that ancient lore might have been correct. Of course, adopting a new ontology is not to be taken lightly. When it comes to serious topics like one’s view of
reality, it’s sensible to adopt the conservative maxim, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
So we’re obliged to carefully examine the evidence and see if psi is real or not.
If the conclusion is positive, then previous assumptions about the relationship between mind and matter are wrong and we’ll need to come up with alternatives.
As we explore the concept of psi as “entangled minds,” we’ll consider examples of psi experiences in life and lab, we’ll take a survey of the origins of psi research, we’ll explore the outcomes of thousands of controlled laboratory tests, and we’ll debunk some skeptical myths. Then we’ll explore the fabric of reality as revealed by modern physics and see why it’s becoming increasingly relevant to understanding why and how psi exists. At the end, we’ll find that the nineteenth century English poet Francis Thompson may have said it best:
All things by immortal power,
Near and Far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star



 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde :

You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :


PHENOMENA QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODELS OF MIND CAN EXPLAIN :

Does a dualistic, nonmaterialistic model of mind-brain interaction account for the observed facts better than a materialistic model? The answer is clearly yes: such a model can account for several phenomena that remain utterly inexplicable by materialism. These would include:
-The placebo effect
-Cognitive behavioral therapy
-Psychic abilities, also known as psi
-The NDE
The placebo effect is well known in medicine. It refers to the healing effect created by a sick person’s belief that a powerful remedy has been applied when the improvement could not have been the physical result of the remedy. It should not be confused with the body’s natural healing process, as it depends specifically on the patient’s mental belief that a specific remedy will work. Neuroscientist Mario Beauregard describes the well-known effectiveness of placebos:
Since the 1970’s, a proposed new drug’s effectiveness is routinely tested in controlled studies against placebos, not because placebos are useless but precisely because they are so useful.
Placebos usually help a percentage of patients enrolled in the control group of a study, perhaps 35 to 45 percent. Thus, in recent decades, if a drug’s effect is statistically significant, which means that it is at least 5 percent better than a placebo, it can be licensed for use.
In 2005, New Scientist, hardly known for its support of nonmaterialist neural theory, listed “ Things That Don’t Make Sense,” and the placebo effect was number one on the list. Of course, the placebo effect “doesn’t make sense” if you assume that the mind either does not exist or is powerless.
A nonmaterialist approach to the mind has also been instrumental in developing treatments for various psychiatric disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is based on the assumption that directed, willed mental effort can reorganize a disordered brain and has been used to treat obsessivecompulsive disorder and various phobias. Jeffrey Schwartz, a nonmaterialist neuropsychiatrist at the University of California, Los Angeles, routinely treats obsessive-compulsive disorder as a case of an intact mind troubled by a malfunctioning brain. Schwartz has developed a treatment designed to help patients realize that faulty brain messages cause the problem and to help the patients actually rewire their brains to bypass the problem. PET scans of the patients’ brains before and after treatment showed that the patients really had changed their brains. Schwartz writes, “The time has come for science to confront the serious implications of the fact that directed, willed mental activity can clearly and systematically alter brain function.
Reports of demonstrated psychic abilities are a persistent embarrassment to materialism.
Considered as a scientific hypothesis, materialism makes a bold and admirable prediction: psychic abilities such as telepathy simply do not exist. If they are shown to exist, then materialism is clearly refuted. But psychic abilities—or psi as they are called—have been demonstrated again and again under the most rigorously controlled experimental conditions.*28 However, as I have shown in my previous book, Parapsychology and the Skeptics, the materialists have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to dismiss, explain away, and even suppress the data.
 In any other field of inquiry, the collective evidence would have been considered extremely compelling decades ago. However, parapsychology is not like any other field of inquiry. The data of parapsychology challenge deeply held worldviews, worldviews that are concerned not only with science but also with religious and philosophical issues. As such, the data arouse strong passions and, for many, a strong desire to dismiss them.
Refusing to accept data that proves a scientific theory false turns the theory into an ideology, a belief held as an article of faith; in other words, a belief that simply must be true, because it is considered so important. Concerning this point, Beauregard writes:
Materialists have conducted a running war against psi research for decades, because any evidence of psi’s validity, no matter how minor, is fatal to their ideological system. Recently, for example, self-professed skeptics have attacked atheist neuroscience grad student Sam Harris for having proposed, in his book titled The End of Faith (2004), that psi research has validity. Harris is only following the evidence. But in doing so, he is clearly violating an important tenet of materialism: materialist ideology trumps evidence.
The NDE, in which people have reported clear memories of conscious experience at times when their brains did not seem to be functioning, also strongly challenges materialism. As you read through this book, you may come to realize that many of the arguments challenging a transcendental interpretation of these experiences are motivated by an a priori commitment to a materialist worldview.


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book
Yeah, that's typical Radin guff alright. Invoking the counter-intuitive strangeness of quantum theory in support of ideas (e.g. psi) that contradict quantum theory. He's been publicly corrected many time over the years, but still promotes the same errors, judiciously scattering 'if's and 'maybe's around to claim plausible deniability. It's a living...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde :

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :


Modern Science versus Classical Science :

"A serious problem has arisen. Most of the fundamental assumptions underlying classical science have been severely challenged in recent years. As the old assumptions dissolve because of advancements in many disciplines, new assumptions are carrying us toward a conception of the world that is entirely compatible with psi. Few scientists have paid attention to this dramatic shift in scientific fundamentals, and the general public has heard almost nothing about it. . . . Thus, the persistent controversy over psi can be traced back to the founding assumptions of modern science."
DEAN RADIN, THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE

Many of the skeptical arguments are based on the assumptions that current scientific theories are complete and that they are in conflict with the existence of psi.
The former is laughable to anyone familiar with the history of science. Until about one hundred years ago, Newtonian physics was assumed to be correct and complete, and was based upon the metaphysical assumptions of localism, determinism, the assumption that an observer did not affect a system being observed, and on an absolute view of space and time. Then two new theories replaced Newtonian physics.
Quantum mechanics did so by abandoning the first three assumptions while retaining the fourth, and Einstein’s theory of relativity did so by abandoning the fourth while retaining the first three. Because relativity retained most of the assumptions of classical physics while introducing a new conception of space and time, it is considered to be the crowning achievement of classical physics.
The predictions of quantum mechanics differ from those of Newtonian physics primarily but not entirely at the level of the molecule and below. Relativity differs from Newtonian physics most noticeably on the scale of the very large and the very fast—it is a theory of space, time, and gravity, so most of its predictions are corroborated by astronomical observations. Yet the theories are inconsistent: relativity breaks down at the atomic level, and quantum mechanics cannot accommodate relativity’s assumptions regarding space and time. Each theory is incomplete and limited.
It is thought that the reason the theories conflict is because each retained and abandoned different assumptions from Newtonian physics. Some or all of these assumptions must be either wrong or incomplete, and if a unified theory of physics is someday developed, then quantum mechanics and relativity will both be considered special cases of the unified theory.
Let us now examine the assumptions of classical science, assumptions that seem to be in conflict with the existence of psi.
Determinism—the idea that the future states of isolated systems can be predicted precisely (at least in principle) from current states.
Observer independence—the assumption that the act of observing a system or particle does not alter the behavior or characteristics of the system or particle.
Localism—the assumption that everything interacts only with its closest neighbors and that, therefore, there is no action at a distance.
Reductionism—the idea that complex systems can be explained as the sum of their parts.
Upward causation exclusively—related to the idea of reductionism, this idea asserts that causation only flows upward, from the simpler to the more complex.
Materialism—the idea that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the fundamental particles and the four forces of physics.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :
<snip book extract>

What about it? what are the salient points you'd like me to address?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
... see what Dean radin says about entaglement in his "Entangled Minds ..." book
Yeah, that's typical Radin guff alright. Invoking the counter-intuitive strangeness of quantum theory in support of ideas (e.g. psi) that contradict quantum theory. He's been publicly corrected many time over the years, but still promotes the same errors, judiciously scattering 'if's and 'maybe's around to claim plausible deniability. It's a living...

What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ? 

Well, I have been posting some relevant quotes from one or two of Carter's books to respond to your raised issues and arguments .
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function .
Thanks , appreciate indeed . Cheers.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
dlorde :

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :
OK. What's your point?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
You said earlier , and i quote :
Quote
"Psi phenomena don't exist. Placebo/nocebo effects are the autonomic nervous system at work." .
End quote .

Well , see what Carter had to say about that :
<snip book extract>

What about it? what are the salient points you'd like me to address?

Well, Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
Try to make time to read those excerpts , if you can at least .
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
Do , please , tell me what's exactly wrong about Carter's arguments then .
I don't know nearly enough of QM , so , i would be interested in what you have to  say on the subject .

Thanks .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ?
He's claiming the support of quantum mechanics for things, such as psi, that quantum mechanics doesn't support - and has ruled out.   

Quote
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function.
That's (bolded) quite enough on its own.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde :

See also the following regarding psi phenomena and science :
OK. What's your point?

That Caroll posted video of yours here above says that QM closes the door to the existence of any psi phenomena ,NDE , ....

Carter's book says the exact opposite .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443015#msg443015 date=1414170157]
What's exactly wrong about that particular above displayed Radin's excerpt regarding entanglement ?
He's claiming the support of quantum mechanics for things, such as psi, that quantum mechanics doesn't support - and has ruled out. 


Radin's and Carter's books say the exact oppposite .

Quote
Quote
I request from you to try to pinpoint exactly what you think is wrong about Carter's arguments mainly , since almost all non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory : the conscious collapse of the wave function.
That's (bolded) quite enough on its own.

Carter's books prove the opposite of what Caroll 's video says .
Are all those scientists from whose work Carter  supported his claims are all worng ? Seriously , come on .

Classical physics also thought that no significant natural laws were left to be discovered , and that only the deatils remained to be filled in .

Caroll says almost the same regarding QM : that no significant detectable force remains to be discovered , just minor ones that are not relevant .

Well, see how  a minor "anomaly " toppled classical physics through the work of Max Planck.

« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:11:52 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

"The Dreaded Interaction Problem" :

Critics of dualism often question how two fundamentally different properties such as mind and matter could possibly interact (materialist philosopher William Lycan calls this the “dreaded” interaction problem).
 How can something nonspatial, with no mass, location, or physical dimensions, possibly influence spatially bound matter? As K. R. Rao writes:
The main problem with such dualism is the problem of interaction. How does unextended mind interact with the extended body? Any kind of causal interaction between them, which is presumed by most dualist theories, comes into conflict with the physical theory that the universe is a closed system and that every physical event is linked with an antecedent physical event. This assumption preempts any possibility that a mental act can cause a physical event.
Of course, we know now that the universe is not a closed system and that the collapse of the wave function—a physical event—is linked with an antecedent mental event. The objection Rao describes is of course based on classical physics.
By asking “How does unextended mind interact with the extended body?” Rao is making the implicit assumption that phenomena that exist as cause and effect must have something in common in order to exist as cause and effect. So is this a logical necessity or is it rather an empirical truth, a fact about nature? As philosopher and historian David Hume pointed out long ago, we form our idea of causation from observations of constant correlation; and since anything in principle could correlate with anything else, only observation can establish what causes what. Parapsychologist John Beloff considers the issue logically:
If an event A never occurred without being preceded by some other event B, we would surely want to say that the second event was a necessary condition or cause of the first event, whether or not the two had anything else in common. As for such a principle being an empirical truth, how could it be since there are here only two known independent substances, i.e. mind and matter, as candidates on which to base a generalization? To argue that they cannot interact because they are independent is to beg the question… .
 It says something about the desperation of those who want to dismiss radical dualism that such phony arguments should repeatedly be invoked by highly reputable philosophers who should know better.
Popper also rejects completely the idea that only like can act upon like, describing this as resting on obsolete notions of physics. For an example of unlikes acting on one another, we have interaction between the four known and very different forces, and between forces and physical bodies. Popper considers the issue empirically:
In the present state of physics we are faced, not with a plurality of substances, but with a plurality of different kinds of forces, and thus with a pluralism of different interacting explanatory principles.
Perhaps the clearest physical example against the thesis that only like things can act upon each other is this: In modern physics, the action of bodies upon bodies is mediated by fields —by gravitational and electrical fields. Thus like does not act upon like, but bodies act first upon fields, which they modify, and then the modified field acts upon another body.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
dlorde :

You also said earlier , and i quote :

Quote
"ETA - oh wait, I see you quote Carter as suggesting an energyless and instantaneous transfer of information via quantum non-locality. Sadly that too is 'not even wrong'. Whatever the mechanism, information transfer requires state change; state change requires energy. Quantum mechanics and general relativity tell us that information transfer can not exceed the speed of light, i.e. cannot be instantaneous; and quantum entanglement is actually an example of that.

If Carter really made that argument, he's gone seriously off the rails in trying to use quantum mechanics to break the laws of quantum mechanics..."
  End Quote.

I will let Carter respond to that in his own words in a moment .
After that , i will quote Carter's actual arguments on the subject whose content i have distorted yesterday ...
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:23:01 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
It's simply false. There are no psi phenomena to account for, just magical and wishful thinking coupled with the capacity of the human brain for self-deception; As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Further than that, the electromagnetic force can't play a role in any putative psi effects, and quantum field theory rules out any novel fields, particles, or forces relevant to human scale interactions. For full details, see my earlier post to cheryl in this thread, #139 - particularly the video link.

Quote
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
We want to hear your arguments, not arguments you don't understand or remember from someone else.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Here You go : Carter says on the subject :


LOCALISM :

All interactions in classical physics are explicitly local. Interactions between a body at location A and another body at location B must be mediated by a force field that traverses the distance between A and B at a speed not exceeding that of light. Body A causes a change in the force field, and this change in the field is propagated at or below light speed to body B. For instance, the gravitational field of the sun exerts an influence on Earth: if the sun were to be pulled out of its orbit, the orbit of Earth would be affected about eight minutes later.
Localism implies that any information exchange must be mediated by a signal, and relativity implies that no such signal can travel faster than the speed of light. But experiments in quantum mechanics strongly suggest that we can in fact have instantaneous action at a distance, with no signal required to transmit information.
This is one example of such an experiment. Suppose a pair of electrons is split off from an atom.
Quantum theory tells us that when the spin of the electrons is measured along a chosen axis, they will be found to spin in opposite directions.
This does not mean that they started off spinning in opposite directions: direction of spin is a dynamic property, and according to quantum theory, dynamic properties do not exist with any definite value until they are measured. The electrons are in a state of opposite direction of spin, but both are without any particular direction of spin until the spin of one is measured.
Let the electrons travel light years apart and measure the spin of one.
 If it is found to be clockwise, then according to quantum theory the other electron is instantaneously determined to spin in the opposite direction, despite the lack of any force or signal linking them. The observation of the spin of one of the electrons instantaneously collapses the wave functions of both electrons to actual, opposite spins.
 If the spin of the second is measured before there is any time for a signal from the first to reach it, it will be found to spin in the opposite direction. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and rejected this on the grounds that there could be no harmony without some signal passing between the distant particles, a signal that in this case would have to travel faster than the speed of light, which his theory of relativity did not allow.
For years David Bohm and other physicists tried to determine whether the adjustment was truly instantaneous.
 These experiments are difficult to do with sufficient accuracy, but a series of early experiments, with two exceptions in the early 1970s, supported nonlocality. With progress in technology, more sophisticated experiments have become possible, usually using photons instead of electrons and measuring polarization (the direction of vibration of the electric field, which is totally polarized when it vibrates in only one direction) instead of spin.
 In the 1980s, a French team headed by Alain Aspect of the Institut d’ Optique Theorique et Appliquéadded to Bohm’s experiment an ultrafast switch to eliminate the possibility of any light-speed signal between the paired photons and found the nonlocal prediction of quantum mechanics to hold.
Einstein said that if quantum mechanics was correct, then the world would be crazy. Einstein was right—the world is crazy."

PHYSICIST DANIEL GREENBERGER

Several points about nonlocality are worth noting. First of all, non-locality does not seem to violate special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light signals, as no signals are sent.
The four known forces of nature are thought to operate with the exchange of particles, all of which obey the cosmic speed limit.
 In the cases discussed above, a change in the state at location A (due to measurement) instantaneously causes a change at location B, regardless of distance or barriers. Since no signal is sent through space, the quantum connection is immediate and is unaffected by barriers and distance.
Another important point is that nonlocality appears to have been established by arithmetic and experiment, and is thus a fact about the universe, independent of quantum mechanical theory.
This means that any theory that eventually supersedes quantum mechanics will have to incorporate nonlocality.
 Finally, it is worth noting that the quantum connection differs from ordinary forces in that it is very discriminating.
Ordinary forces reach out and affect every particle of a certain kind in the immediate vicinity. For instance, gravity affects all particles, electromagnetism all charged particles.
In contrast, the quantum connection only affects those systems that have interacted with each other since they were last measured (such systems are called “phase-entangled”).

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443020#msg443020 date=1414171634]
... Carter says , for example , through the work of many prominent scientists ...that QM has been opening the door to the existence of psi phenomena ....that QM can account for psi phenomena ...
It's simply false. There are no psi phenomena to account for, just magical and wishful thinking coupled with the capacity of the human brain for self-deception; As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Carter has also refuted both the physiological and psychological explanations of psi phenomena, Place/ nocebo effects , NDE ...

Clearly , many prominent scientists have also been saying that QM has been accounting for psi-phenomena , not ruling them out thus .

Quote
Further than that, the electromagnetic force can't play a role in any putative psi effects, and quantum field theory rules out any novel fields, particles, or forces relevant to human scale interactions. For full details, see my earlier post to cheryl in this thread, #139 - particularly the video link.

Well, i replied to that : Caroll in that video was just thinking in relation to QM like classical physicists used to do in relation to the classical Newtonian physics ,as i said above  , untill Max Planck came and toppled Classical physics ,as you know .

Quote
Quote
I am afraid i would be just distorting Carter's arguments ,since i have read him quite some time ago , that's why i have been quoting him extensively on the subject .
We want to hear your arguments, not arguments you don't understand or remember from someone else.
[/quote]

Well, read what Carter had to say on the subject .

I will give you some time to read all the above and a bit more .

I will not be active in this forum during the next days ,so .
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 18:39:13 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"Implications For Physics and Consciousness " : Schmidt's Experiments and more :


The REG devices pioneered by Schmidt are driven by purely random events at the quantum level.
 So the subjects in these experiments are not really shifting matter around, but rather shifting probabilities of events in desired directions.
 As we have seen, the role that consciousness plays in quantum mechanics is one of the burning issues in modern physics. And as we will see, one of Schmidt’s experiments may be able to settle this controversy.
If the observer can affect the outcome of the collapse, it should be possible to design an experiment to test at which point the wave function collapses.
The following paragraphs explain the variation of Schmidt’s standard experiment that is directly relevant to the choice between the von Neumann and Copenhagen interpretations.
First of all, Schmidt recorded signals (0’s and 1’s) from a binary REG simultaneously on two cassette tapes, without anyone listening to the signals or otherwise knowing the output of the REG.
One tape was kept in a secure location, the other was given to a subject with instructions to produce more 0’s or 1’s, usually distinguished as clicks in the left or right speaker of stereophonic headphones.
Results from these time-displaced PK experiments indicated that PK still operated and that the two records still agreed after the PK effort.
Some theorists have speculated that the PK effort reached back in time to when the random eventswere generated, but of course there is another possibility, one more consistent with the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics. As Schmidt, Robert Morris, and Lou Rudolph point out:
Perhaps events are not physically real until there has been an observation. From this viewpoint, the PK effort would not have to reach into the past because nature had not yet decided on the outcome before the PK subject, the first observer, saw the result.
 Then, the PK effort should no longer succeed if we have some other observer look at the prerecorded data previous to the PK subject’s attempt.
[An] experiment to study this situation … has, indeed, reported a blocking of the PK effect by a previous observation.”
It appears that von Neumann, Wigner, and the others were right: prior to observation, even measuring instruments interacting with a quantum system must exist in an indefinite state.
Could Schmidt’s results be the result of fraud? Well, Schmidt has even used this time-independencefeature of PK to design a fraud-proof experiment involving skeptics. Essentially, it works like this:
one of the unobserved tapes is sent to an outside observer and the other is sent to a subject.
The outside observer decides whether she wants to see more 0’s or 1’s, and this decision is communicated to the subject, who then listens to the tape and attempts to exert an influence in the desired direction.
The observer then examines her copy of the tape and counts the number of 0’s and 1’s to see if the experiment was a success.
Obviously, there can be no possibility of fraud on the part of subject or experimenter, unless of course the skeptics are also in on the trick! Schmidt, Morris, and Rudolph performed this experiment: Morris is an active parapsychology researcher and Rudolph is a communications engineer, and both were skeptical with regard to PK effects on prerecorded events.
But the experiment was a success, with odds against chance of one hundred to one.
Quantum mechanics brings mind back into nature and eliminates the causal closure of the physical.
Conscious observation seems required to collapse the wave function; the choice of what type of observation to make determines what form a part of reality will take (wave or particle), and according to the experiments of Schmidt and others, conscious intent may bias in a desired direction the otherwise random collapse of the wave function.
The von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, supported now by the experiments of Schmidt and others, may bring to mind the idealism of Bishop Berkeley, who thought that ordinary objects such as trees and furniture did not exist unless observed. But this interpretation does not deny that an external reality exists independent of anyone observing it. Properties of quantum phenomena are divided into static and dynamic properties, with the former, such as mass and charge, having definite and constant values for any observation.
It is the dynamic properties, those that do not have constant values—such as position, momentum, and direction of spin—that are thought to exist as potentialities that become actualities only when observed.
But as Squires points out, this raises a very strange question:
The assumption we are considering appears even more weird when we realize that throughout much of the universe, and indeed throughout all of it in early times, there were presumably no conscious observers… .
 Even worse are the problems we meet if we accept the modern ideas on the early universe in which quantum decays (of the ‘vacuum,’ but this need not trouble us here) were necessary in order to obtain the conditions in which conscious observers could exist.
 Who, or what, did the observations necessary to create the observers?13
Squires enters the realm of theology with great trepidation and considers what seems to be the only possibility under this interpretation—that conscious observations can be made by minds outside of the physical universe.
This of course is one of the traditional roles of God, or of the gods.
Whether expressed in theological terms or not, the suggestion that conscious minds are in some way connected and that they might even be connected to a form of universal, collective consciousness appears to be a possible solution to the problem of quantum theory. It is not easy to see what it might mean, as we understand so little about consciousness.
That there are “connections” of some sort between conscious minds and physical matter is surely implied by the fact that conscious decisions have effects on matter. Thus there are links between conscious minds that go through the medium of physical systems. Whether there are others, that exploit the nonphysical and presumably non-localised nature of consciousness, it is not possible to say.
Some people might wish to mention here the “evidence” for telepathy and similar extra-sensory effects.
Squires concludes his discussion on the role of consciousness in physics with this remark:
It is remarkable that such ideas should arise from a study of the behavior of the most elementary of systems.
That such systems point to a world beyond themselves is a fact that will be loved by all who believe that there are truths of which we know little, that there are mysteries seen only by mystics, and that there are phenomena inexplicable within our normal view of what is possible.
There is no harm in this—physics indeed points to the unknown. The emphasis, however, must be on the unknown, on the mystery, on the truths dimly glimpsed, on things inexpressible except in the language of poetry, or religion, or metaphor.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Is The Universe Causally Closed ? :


Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle: (On the famous double slit experiment ) :

Quantum mechanics is the most battle-tested theory in science. Not a single violation of its predictions has ever been demonstrated, no matter how preposterous the predictions might seem.
However, anyone concerned with what the theory means faces a philosophical enigma: the socalled measurement problem, or the problem of observation … before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes.
After you look it was in a single box. It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box. Before your observation only probability existed.
 But it was not the probability that an actual object existed in a particular place (as in the classical shell game)—it was just the probability of a future observation of such an object, which does not include the assumption that the object existed there prior to its observation.
This hard-to-accept observer-created reality is the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.
Up until the moment of measurement, certain properties of quantum phenomena, such as location, momentum, and direction of spin, simply exist as a collection of probabilities, known as the wave function, or state vector.
The wave function can be thought of as the probability distribution of all possible states, such as, for instance, the probability distribution of all possible locations for an electron.*
But this is not the probability that the electron is actually at certain locations, instead, it is the probability that the electron will be found at certain locations.
 The electron does not have a definite location until it is observed.
Upon measurement, this collection of all possible locations “collapses” to a single value—the location of the particle that is actually observed.
Physicist Nick Herbert expresses it this way:
The quantum physicist treats the atom as a wave of oscillating possibilities as long as it is not observed.
But whenever it is looked at, the atom stops vibrating and objectifies one of its many possibilities.
 Whenever someone chooses to look at it, the atom ceases its fuzzy dance and seems to “freeze” into a tiny object with definite attributes, only to dissolve once more into a quivering pool of possibilities as soon as the observer withdraws his attention from it. The apparent observer-induced change in an atom’s mode of existence is called the collapse of the wave function.
Measurements thus play a more positive role in quantum mechanics than in classical physics, because here they are not merely observations of something already present but actually help produce it.
According to one interpretation of quantum mechanics popular among many theorists, it is the existence of consciousness that introduces intrinsic probability into the quantum world.
This interpretation owes its origin to mathematician John von Neumann, one of the most important intellectual figures of the twentieth century.
 In addition to his contributions to pure mathematics, von Neumann also invented game theory, which models economic and social behavior as rational games, and made fundamental contributions to the development of the early computers. In the 1930s, von Neumann turned his restless mind to the task of expressing the newly developed theories of quantum mechanics in rigorous mathematical form, and the result was his classic book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. In it he tackled the measurement problem head on and rejected the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which was becoming the orthodox position among physicists.
 Although it is somewhat vague, the central tenets of the Copenhagen interpretation seem to be (1) that all we have access to are the results of observations, and so it is simply pointless to ask questions about the quantum reality behind those observations, and (2) that although observation is necessary for establishing the reality of quantum phenomena, no form of consciousness, human or otherwise, is necessary for making an observation. Rather, an observer is anything that makes a record of an event, and so it is at the level of macroscopic measuring instruments (such as Geiger counters) that the actual values of quantum phenomena are randomly set from a range of statistical possibilities.
Von Neumann objected to the Copenhagen interpretation practice of dividing the world in two parts: indefinite quantum entities on the one side, and measuring instruments that obey the laws of classical mechanics on the other.
 He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter for example, in a room isolated from the rest of the world but in contact with a quantum system, such as an atom simultaneously in two boxes.
 The Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is found in one box, but to remain unfired if it is found in the other. This Geiger counter is a physical instrument, hence subject to the rules of quantum mechanics.
Therefore, it should be expected to enter into a superposition state along with the atom, a state in which it is simultaneously fired and unfired.
Should the Geiger counter be in contact with a device that records whether the counter has fired, then logically, it too should enter a superposition state that records both situations as existing simultaneously.
 Should an observer walk into the room and examine the recording device, this logic can be continued up the “von Neumann chain” from the recording device, to photons, to the eyes and brain of the observer, which are also physical instruments that we have no reason to suppose are exempt from the rules of quantum mechanics.
The only peculiar link in the von Neumann chain is the process by which electrical signals in the brain of the observer become a conscious experience.
Von Neumann argued that the entire physical world is quantum mechanical, so the process that collapses the wave functions into actual facts cannot be a physical process; instead, the intervention of something from outside of physics is required. Something nonphysical, not subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, must account for the collapse of the wave function: the only nonphysical entity in the observation process that von Neumann could think of was the consciousness of the observer.
 He reluctantly concluded that this outside entity had to be consciousness and that prior to observation, even measuring instruments interacting with a quantum system must exist in an indefinite state.
Von Neumann extended the Copenhagen interpretation by requiring the measurement process to take place in a mind.
He was reluctantly driven to this conclusion by his relentless logic: the only process in the von Neumann chain that is not merely the motion of molecules is the consciousness of the observer.
His arguments were developed more completely by his illustrious followers, most notably Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Wigner. Wigner, who went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics, wrote, “When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again; it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
The box-pair experiment also bears on the role of consciousness and free will. After all, you can choose to look in one of the boxes or to do an interference experiment, and you will get different “realities,” one being particle-like, the other wavelike. But your choice of which experiment to do is not determined, even statistically, by anything in the physical theory. Nothing in quantum mechanics says you must choose one experiment rather than the other. If you deny that consciousness collapses the wave function, then this means atoms prior to observation existed as either particle or wave.
Somehow you chose to only look in those boxes that contained particle atoms and you chose to only do an interference experiment with wave-form atoms. This would also deny free will, because then your illusion of choice is determined by a conspiracy of the physical universe with the state of your brain and your perceived choice.
 This replaces the deterministic universe with one that is deterministic and conspiratorial.
This is how von Neumann, Wigner, and others brought mind back into nature and made a strong case against the causal closure of the physical. As we will see, the case gets even stronger.
At this point, it should be stressed that this is only one interpretation of the facts of quantum mechanics: in addition to the Copenhagen interpretation, there are several other speculations about
what is really happening when quantum possibilities settle down into one actuality. Most attempt to rescue the determinism and observer independence of classical physics.
For instance, the hidden variable theory holds that the indeterminacy of quantum physics is an illusion due to our ignorance: if we knew more about the system in question—that is, if we knew the value of some “hidden variables”—then the indeterminacy would vanish. However, there are several reasons why the general community of quantum physicists never held the hidden-variable theory in high regard.
One reason, according to quantum physicist Euan Squires, is that the hidden variable theory is “extremely complicated and messy. We know the answers from quantum theory and then we construct a hidden-variable, deterministic theory specifically to give these answers. The resulting theory appears contrived and unnatural.”
Squires points out that the hidden variable theory never gained widespread acceptance because “the elegance, simplicity and economy of quantum theory contrasted sharply with the contrived nature of a hidden-variable theory which gave no new predictions in return for its increased complexity; the whole hidden-variable enterprise was easily dismissed as arising from a desire, in the minds of those too conservative to accept change, to return to the determinism of classical physics.”
 Another reason the general community of quantum physicists consider the hidden variable theory highly implausible is that it explains away indeterminacy by postulating the existence of an ad hoc quantum force that, unlike any of the other four forces in nature, behaves in a manner completely unaffected by distance.
The many worlds hypothesis is perhaps the strangest of all. It is the only one that denies the existence of nonlocality, but it does so by postulating that all possible values of a measured property exist simultaneously in coexisting universes. When a measurement is made, we are told, the universe we are in splits into multiple universes, with one of the possible results in each of them. For instance, if a measurement may yield two possible results, then at the instant of measurement the entire universe splits in two, with each possible result realized in each universe. If a measurement may yield a continuum of possible states—such as the position of an electron—then the instant such a measurement occurs, it is proposed that the universe splits into an infinite number of universes! Since
it is further assumed that these parallel universes cannot interact with each other, this hypothesis is completely untestable. Entities are being multiplied with incredible profusion.
William of Occam must be spinning in his grave.
In the opinion of many physicists, the last two interpretations are simply desperate, last-ditch attempts to rescue the classical assumptions of determinism and observer independence that have been abandoned by quantum mechanics.
 For instance, one interpretation salvages determinism from classical physics by postulating hidden variables and the other by speculating that everything that can happen does in fact happen in an infinite number of constantly splitting parallel universes, regardless of the way things may appear to any particular version of our constantly splitting selves.
At any rate, these four interpretations are all consistent with the observed facts. They are attempts to describe what reality is really like between observations, to account for the seemingly bizarre behavior of matter predicted so accurately by the theory of quantum physics.
They are not usually considered to be scientific theories about the nature of reality, but rather metaphysical theories, as within quantum mechanics there does not currently seem to be any obvious experiment that one could perform in order to choose between them.
Physicist J. C. Polkinghorne sums up the metaphysical confusion many quantum theorists feel when he writes:
It is a curious tale.
 All over the world measurements are continually being made on quantum mechanical systems. The theory triumphantly predicts, within its probabilistic limits, what their outcomes will be.
 It is all a great success. Yet we do not understand what is going on.
Does the fixity on a particular occasion set in as a purely mental act of knowledge? At a transition from small to large physical systems? At the interface of matter and mind that we call consciousness?
In one of the many subsequent worlds into which the universe has divided itself?
Perhaps one interpretation is simpler or more logically consistent, or perhaps one of the interpretations is more aesthetically pleasing than the others. These considerations may provide philosophical reasons for preferring one over the others, but such reasons can hardly be considered decisive.
However, a fascinating set of experiments performed by physicist Helmut Schmidt and others appears to show that conscious intent can affect the behavior of otherwise purely random quantum phenomena.
 Could an experiment be designed to test the von Neumann interpretation?
Consciousness is central to the von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 According to this interpretation, some properties of quantum phenomena do not exist in any definite state except through the intervention of a conscious mind, at which point the wave function of possibilities collapses into a single state.
The usual form of this interpretation allows the observer to collapse the wave function to a unique outcome but not to have any effect on what outcome actually occurs:
 the actual outcome is assumed to be randomly chosen by nature from the range of values provided by the wave function.
But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Clearly :
This famous and simple double slit experiment shows clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function "

 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Don, several times David Cooper has attempted to convince you that the only aspect of consciousness that isn't entirely explained is feeling and qualia. And you appear to accept that argument in the moment but then several conversations later drift back into including under your heading of consciousness every sort of mental activity that ever occurs - memory, recognition, language, attention, problem solving and learning, beliefs, perception, creativity, and so on. Not just our experience of events involving these processes, or feelings associated with them, but anything that be can be classified as "mental." All of the above processes, along with everything else, like personality traits and volition, emotion, feeling, qualia,  are in your view all carried out "somewhere else" by some other means, than the particles and forces described by Carroll. Like Stapp, you seem to take the position that none of that requires any explanation at all - it just "is." Then you look for some means like entanglement to shoe horn in a connection between your non local consciousness and the biological robot on earth, still without explaining anything about how those mental processes of non-local consciousness work. I fail to see the explanatory benefit of doing that, which is why I think that it is, deep down, a religiously motivated argument.

As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/05/29/visualizing-entanglement-in-real-time/

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/quantum/
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Don, several times David Cooper has attempted to convince you that the only aspect of consciousness that isn't entirely explained is feeling and qualia. And you appear to accept that argument in the moment but then several conversations later drift back into including under your heading of consciousness every sort of mental activity that ever occurs - memory, recognition, language, attention, problem solving and learning, beliefs, perception, creativity, and so on. Not just our experience of events involving these processes, or feelings associated with them, but anything that be can be classified as "mental." All of the above processes, along with everything else, like personality traits and volition, emotion, feeling, qualia,  are in your view all carried out "somewhere else" by some other means, than the particles and forces described by Carroll. Like Stapp, you seem to take the position that none of that requires any explanation at all - it just "is." Then you look for some means like entanglement to shoe horn in a connection between your non local consciousness and the biological robot on earth, still without explaining anything about how those mental processes of non-local consciousness work. I fail to see the explanatory benefit of doing that, which is why I think that it is, deep down, a religiously motivated argument.

As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/05/29/visualizing-entanglement-in-real-time/

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/quantum/

Caroll thinks about the standard model of quantum field theory  a bit  like what classical physicists thought about classical Newtonian physics , in the sense that all significant natural laws or forces  were already discovered , and that only minor insignificant forces or details remain to be filled in ,untill Max Planck appeared in the picture .

I suspect the same might happen to Caroll's standard model of quantum field theory .

For the rest , see above .
See also that famous double slit experiment where it is shown clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function .
Carter says , through the work of many prominent scientists , that consciousness does collapse the wave function instantly thus and without any transfer of energy ,without violating any laws of QM , not to mention the fact that QM has shown that the universe is not causally closed ...unlike what classical Newtonian physics says on the subject .
The above displayed link in relation to that famous double slit experiment shows that : see the excerpts of Carter on the subject here above .

No time for the rest , sorry . Thanks .
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 19:31:11 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Carter's books prove the opposite of what Caroll 's video says .
They don't 'prove' anything, they make speculative assertions. But this is the problem with the argument from authority - it eventually comes down to my authority's better then your authority. On which point, when it comes to quantum physics, I tend to rate the views of Sean Carroll, leading theoretical physicist and CERN collaborator, more highly than those of Chris Carter, author.

This is why we try to encourage you to have and argue your own opinions.

I'm happy to argue any of the relevant points Sean makes in his video (his presentation is better and more entertaining). If you can identify anything at all in that video that you disagree with, and explain why you disagree with it, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. If there's something you don't understand, just ask - who knows, I might be missing some fundamental flaw in Carroll's argument.

Quote
Are all those scientists from whose work Carter  supported his claims are all worng ? Seriously , come on .
They very probably are. There are a great number of scientists, and not all of them are right about everything. On the other hand, Carter may be mistaken about the applicability of their work to his theories.

Quote
Caroll says almost the same regarding QM : that no significant detectable force remains to be discovered , just minor ones that are not relevant .

Well, see how  a minor "anomaly " toppled classical physics through the work of Max Planck.
That's right, the interaction space of energies and frequencies relevant to biological systems has been thoroughly explored, both empirically and theoretically - by a theory that extends its accuracy far beyond that limited interaction space.

And yes, it's possible, even likely, that the theory is wrong, in the same way that classical mechanics is wrong, by being an approximation that's valid within a limited scope of applicability - in the limit, other physical models may more appropriate; but just as Newtonian physics is a sufficiently good approximation to rely on in everyday life, and even to send spacecraft round the solar system, so quantum field theory is a good enough approximation to fully account for human-scale interactions. It's predictions for that whole range of scales and energies, and far beyond, have been verified by experiment. When classical physics was discovered to be 'wrong', inertia didn't go away, mass still needed to be accelerated, and angular momentum was still conserved. Likewise, if QFT is found to be inaccurate in the limit, there still won't be any new particles, fields, or forces relevant to human scales. As was said - the experimental ground has been thoroughly raked over; if there was anything else that could interact with relevant effect at these scales, it would have been found, many times over.

If you want to throw out quantum field theory, go right ahead - but don't then try to use quantum theory to support psi or any other magical woo. And once you've disposed of it, introduce me to the theory that explains all the same stuff and also includes the paranormal or supernatural - because if you can find such a theory, you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.

But for now, if you can provide just one instance of a well controlled and blinded study that has produced unequivocal results that have been published and replicated, and which support your claims here, and we'll have something worth discussing.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Here You go : Carter says on the subject :
...
Several points about nonlocality are worth noting. First of all, non-locality does not seem to violate special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light signals, as no signals are sent.
Cool - supports what I said previously, and contradicts Radin's pseudoscience.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums