May the Force be with you- A Paranormal Discussion.

"What happened? Some kind of mind control? I lost several minutes there and he did too, apparently."

No, it was the aliens. The aliens froze everyone, came in and strategically placed you two together, then snapped their fingers and everything resumed.

They then sat up on the roof and laughed while looking theough the windown and drinking Astro Suds.

What if our dreams are the reality and the waking life the dream? [face_shocked]

The problem with Quantum, from a theoretic standpoint, is how would you ever prove it?

You cannot test it. In fact, you cannot even attempt to proove it. Even if you did "proove it", how would you know you did?



A physicist once said it may not be important to even imagine if it can be proven or not, because you'd never know if what you proved was the "state of things".

Science likes to observe the observable. Anything outside that is left to speculation and fantasy.

TI would like to know how, if any, way exists to test validity of the Hologram Paradigm?
If you cannot test it, measure it, or define it, then it's not science.

I'm not saying it's not true. That is more a philosophical question. I'm just wondering if there is any evidence? Anything tangible to study?

 

Byrdnest,

No, I was quite coherent except for those moments I lost. And he was just as freaked out about it as I was. Being pagan, you should have some knowledge about the ability to manipulate natural forces eh? Want to try that again or shall I assume you believe most extraordinary events are the result of drinking beer?

Heh! That's it. All alien abductees, miracles and magical events are the result of drinking beer.

Beer, it's not just for football anymore.

 

The problem with Quantum, from a theoretic standpoint, is how would you ever prove it?

Shane, "objective reality" isn't provable either. That's the whole point that kicked off the hologram paradigm. So what is your complaint?

Things are only MEASURABLE if we decide some facts in advance of researching them! even Newton admitted you had to assume a few things, which might prove wrong, to build his theories.

It's all immeasurable to us. Traditional mechanical science may prove comforting to those who simply cannot deal with the truth, but it's like a superstition: their faith in it is not justified by anything logical.

 

"my thesis is about the fall of the dominant civilizations and what the next one will be. it will blow the lid off of conventional religious thought."

That sounds like a theory I've heard before.

 

Treecave
"to those who simply cannot deal with the truth, but it's like a superstition"

No, no. Science doesn't deal with TRUTH. Science deals with FACT.

Science doesn't say "Newton said there's gravity BECAUSE HE SAID SO!" It says Newton discovered and laid the groundwork that led to the LAW of gravity.

Why was it a law? Because it withstood criticism, testing, argument, measurement, etc. That's all a part of science.

You have a better idea of why the apple falls from the tree? Fine, let us hear it, and argue it, debate it, examine it, test it, scrutinize it.

Look, science doesn't demand you or I except it because it isn't about our own TRUTHS. It's about what is there, not the moral meaning we give it.

And why is this Holgram Paradigm such a big deal really? We are holograms? Okay well, I can one up that and say, we are not only holograms, but we are ENERGY with a consciousness.

We are made of the same material as stars, planets, and nebula.

Think about that one. That's why science is much more revolutionary than any truth ever, because it is outside truths.

It disposes and casts aside theories or what "this scientist" or "that scientist" thought all the time. It doesn't hold "accepted truths" sacred.

 

"ENERGY with a consciousness" I like that.

 

Greedo CMZ, we are made of "star-stuff" as Carl Sagan used to say.

That guy was a real gift to our society because he was a scientific-populist and there are never enough, if any, of those.

The hologram paradigm is more philosophical and deals with truths.

Remember the Stoics? They beleived largely the same thing as the hologram paradigm, 3,000 years ago.

Science is different. It demands more than what people say. It asks us "prove it".

 

Shane, I can't argue this with you any further - the links I provided already address everything you are arguing, and I don't see the point in bogging down the thread to go over it all in detail, when some of it's already been gone over. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. But the arguments you're making ARE addressed in those links.

The HP is pure physics. The fact that it coincides with philosophy does not change that it is physics.

How can particles that are totally separated from each other react to the same stimuli simultaneously (assuming you read the link)? Telepathy? Are they conscious? What would YOU argue?

As for gravity... yeah, it's a law, but what IS gravity? Just something the universe decided would happen when two objects get close enough to each other? Phsycists are looking into the possibility of "gravitons" and "biogravitons" - actual substantial particles that cause the law of gravity to work. So while Newton observed a law, and should be credited with doing so, I suspect Newton himself would be very intereseted in investigations into how the law is "enforced", so to speak.

I will provide some info on gravitons later, but I don't have time right now.

The point is, there is no such thing as fact. By observing the experiment, your consciousness impacts the outcome. See Wheeler, Schroedinger, etc. I am not philosophizing and making this stuff up. These are legit problems with classical mechanical science.

 

I'm not saying you made it up, of course not.

I'm saying the holgram paradigm is a philosophy. Philosophy is of the mind.

What I'm saying is that it's only science if it can be measured, tested, scrutinized, and debated.

And of course there is scientific fact. Ultimate truth is something people can not learn because we are not gods.

Of course the mechanistic, classical model universe has questions. That's the point of scientific method: tp fill in the gaps of knowledge, to throw old ideas out, but only through the same standards.

You don't say 2+2 = 4 and then change it to 2+2 = whatever you want.

But, you try to solve those dilemmas with other theories.

And the Law of Gravity is how it works and influences mass, not what "is gravity".

As for the Hologram Paradigm, it is largely speculation based on sound scientific experiments. The idea of a holographic universe is speculative, while the experiment it rests on was scientific. The two are not connected.

Another thing that is troubling is psuedo-science masquerading as science. Isn't it convenient how it so neatly allows for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, etc?
It "makes it easier" to explain their existence.
That is no accident and neither is discrediting western science while praising eastern science.

And the irony is, Bohm used a western-style observed experiment as the basis for his speculation. Then, he turns around and uses his specualtion to demolish the very foundation on which his specualtion is built!



Treecave
It's not "whether I choose to believe it or not". Science doesn't give me that choice. There are some sound ideas in the HP. But, the whole does not add up to a coherent theory.

I have belief in god, but that doesn't mean it's reality.

Truths are sometimes very, very wrong.

 

Bohm is hardly the only scientist to read on this topic. As I said earlier, several scientists came up with it at the same time.

What I'm saying is that it's only science if it can be measured, tested, scrutinized, and debated.

Then there is no science, because you cannot measure anything. To your own delusional satisfaction, sure, but you cannot prove there even IS an absolute, fixed reality that succumbs to laws and measurement in an orderly, never-changing fashion.

Your faith in an absolute reality is the same as your faith in god. You can't prove either.

You are indeed choosing not to believe the HP, just as you are choosing to believe the assumption of a fixed reality.


EDIT: Bohm did not seek to destroy anything. It had already been noted that there are particles you cannot observe without disturbing them so much that you ruin the experiment. Wheeler suggested, taking Schroedinger's Cat further, that it was the opening up the box and observing the cat that actually DETERMINED the outcome.

 

Of course Bohm wasn't. Did I say he was the only one? No, I said the idea of a holographic "unreal" universe was around 3,000 years ago as practiced by the stoic philosophers.

Treecave
"Then there is no science, because you cannot measure anything."

You must be joking, or do you just hate math?

Treecave
"To your own delusional satisfaction, sure, but you cannot prove there even IS an absolute, fixed reality that succumbs to laws and measurement in an orderly, never-changing fashion."

No, I cannot. Just as you cannot prove there is not. That's my whole point about "what's the big deal about the HP?" But, what can be proven is a set of standards and measurements that are used and accepted by scientists and their peers as "tools" they use to formulate, then test, theories.


Treecave
"Your faith in an absolute reality is the same as your faith in god. You can't prove either."

What are you talking about when you say absolute reality? What I'm talking about is a set of measurements, distances, matter, energy, etc.
Why would I want to prove my BELIEF in God? It's what I truly, absolutlely, believe regardless of what science says. It's what I beleive to be the TRUTH. That's philosophy. "Of the mind" like I said before.

Is gravity one of the four foundations of Physics?

Treecave
"You are indeed choosing not to believe the HP, just as you are choosing to believe the assumption of a fixed reality."

So, questioning the validity of what one purports to be a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is now unacceptable?

In fact, inquiry requires, demands, that theorists investigate ways to debunk their own thesis or others do so before it's more widely accepted. They don't just point to things that support their argument.
And where did I ever say I didn't beleive in the HP?

Treecave
"EDIT: It had already been noted that there are particles you cannot observe without disturbing them so much that you ruin the experiment. Wheeler suggested, taking Schroedinger's Cat further, that it was the opening up the box and observing the cat that actually DETERMINED the outcome."

Right, but we'll never know for certain under Quantum Theories paradox. That's one of the problems with it.
Observation is the key TC, they OBSERVED. The paradox with Quantum is it defines observation in itself as an influence, thus negating the POSSIBLE different nature of the observed object. Thus, under Quantum rules, we will never know how much, or even if, we are disturbing particles enough to change the outcome.

That's why it's still a theory.

HP is something entirely different.

Treecave
"Bohm did not seek to destroy anything."

I didn't say he had any ill-intent. I merely said it was no accident that many things in the paradigm are what they are for reasons more to do with Bohm's beliefs than with what he discovered through research. Notice too how he referred to it as a "paradigm", not a theory. This is for clear reasons: paradigms are a "new way of thinking".

Remember "of the mind"? HP is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

 

No, I cannot. Just as you cannot prove there is not. That's my whole point about "what's the big deal about the HP?" But, what can be proven is a set of standards and measurements that are used and accepted by scientists and their peers as "tools" they use to formulate, then test, theories.

Do you understand the paradox in what you're saying? What do you suppose you're measuring and testing? Absolute, fixed reality.

So you are telling me it is a FACT that you can measure something you can't prove exists.

What's the big deal about that?

 

What's the big deal?! It's called human endeavour TC. No other animal species has developed a means to study the universe using measurement and inquiry.

It is, like art, a human endeavour. And it's a great one at that.

You're talking about a absolute, fixed reality. What does this mean to you if you beleive in the HP?

It is there, and we've just begun to discover it.....using science, not philosophy.

 

No other animal species has developed a means to study the universe using measurement and inquiry.

PPOR. I'm not saying that to be nasty, but how do we know what you're asserting? Have you noticed that really dense people are usually too dense to realize how dense they are, and often come away thinking YOU are the dense one? How do we know that we aren't the stupidest things on earth, and every species from celery to dolphins is far more intelligent than we are? After all, we don't even know how to properly live in our own habitat - perhaps that means we're stupider than even a bacteria. Maybe the very fact that we NEED to measure things indicates how stupid we are. Maybe other creatures already know what we're seeking to quantify, because they are perceptive, and we are not.

I realize this may seem off-topic, but part of the point of this thread, I imagine, is to debunk assumptions.

Does gravity exist TC?

I don't have sufficient information to say yes or no. I only know that so far, everything I have perceived as being in the air, I have later perceived as having fallen down. To my perception, the world is also flat, because I have never witnessed it from space. So I don't think my perception is particularly helpful or meaningful here. Do you?

 

I just started reading The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. It's a bit dated (1992) but it is very interesting so far

Hey Qui...I just bought it yesterday...haven't started reading it yet but it looks so interesting.....

 

*cue Homer voice* Mmm . . . dolphins.

 

Greetings and Salutations,

Naccha: The book is fantastic! I've begun the second chapter.

Here's my input so far:

If you can prove something mathematically, YOU CAN PROVE IT!

Ever hear of Fournier's Transforms? He was a mathematician who came up with a form of calculus that mathematically proved how patterns of matter can be transformed to waves and back again into patterns of matter.
He proved this mathematically.

I believe this lead to television, by the way.

Performing experiments on the brain, we have discovered that the brain "uses" Fournier's Transforms in interpreting reality. AND in bodily functions and movement. These experiments proved that the brain works holographically. It merely interprets waves and frequencies and converts them to images in our mind.

Physicists have uses these "transforms" in understanding quanta.

Some believe that quanta exists like a quantum soup of waves and frequencies, and we are like King Midas...(he was the ledgendary King who never knew the smoothness of silk or the caress of soft touch because everything he touch turned to gold.) Likewise, humans may never be able to experience the true texture of quantum reality because everything we touch turns to matter.

The more we learn of the quantum state, the more holographic it becomes. THAT is "the big deal" with HP.

 

do you ever wonder why this is our reality? i mean did someone determine it and the rest just blindly followed?

 

Treecave
"I don't have sufficient information to say yes or no. I only know that so far, everything I have perceived as being in the air, I have later perceived as having fallen down. To my perception, the world is also flat, because I have never witnessed it from space. So I don't think my perception is particularly helpful or meaningful here. Do you?"

So, things fall down to the ground then? You're not off floating somewhere? Now, why is that? What keeps you on the ground? What keeps you from floating off?

And you're right, you're perception is not helpful. But, your inquiry, using the universal scientific method, might be.

What you THINK is irrelevant. What you FIND is not.


Qui-Rune So, god forgot to shut off the projector?

It may or may not be. My point is, the hologram paradigm is about changing the rules and not using math, which is the pure science, and instead using "feelings" and "perceptions".

You can list the scientists that developed Quantum Mechanics, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Fehymann, Hawking, and Schrodinger,etc., and they all agree that reality is what we OBSERVE.

That is my whole point about reality being not of individual character, but of a collective one. Scientists determine, through a formula or means of measurement they all agree to, what an object is doing. That is reality.

Our own, personal, view is perception.

What is "might of" or "could've" is probability, but until something is observed, it is not real.

That's why reality is the "space between" and is what can be measured and observed.

Science has given us a collective reality based on mathematical measurements, models, and experiments.

 

If you can prove something mathematically, YOU CAN PROVE IT!

Ummmmm....I'm totally a right brain artist...mathematics short circuit my brain I hope I can handle this

 

And you're right, you're perception is not helpful. But, your inquiry, using the universal scientific method, might be.

Perfect. I have asked you repeatedly how your science accounts for documented "breakings" of the laws of physics, and you refuse to answer. Did you read the info I provided on firewalkers? Does that disprove a law of physics, or indicate that there is something even deeper at work, to which the laws of physics may be subordinate?

You refuse to attempt to account for legitimate, documented events like firewalking with your science, AND insist on misconstruing a legitimate scientific approach that might lead to an accounting for these events. Don't you know the theory precedes the experiments and the math? That IS how science works. I'm betting the basic ideas of the HP are going to prove true, that's all - because it fits the reality I have seen.

Anyway, your smug insistence that you are right without offering any proof of how your science accounts for legit, documented paranormal feels like arguing with a fundie Christian, so I will drop this particular debate with you to you on these points. The last word is all yours.

And no, I'm not upset, nor do I dislike you.

 

Shane:

On the contrary...The HP utilizes mathematics quite extensively.

Hence my point in bringing up Fourniers Transforms, earlier.

TreeCave:

Take it easy, Rambo. The cold war is over...there's no more commies to kill on these shores.

 

or choppers.


The HP is really about pseudoscience masquerading as science developed by personalities, not serious scientists.

Treecave
"Perfect. I have asked you repeatedly how your science accounts for documented "breakings" of the laws of physics, and you refuse to answer."

What are you talking about? Mysticism?

"Did you read the info I provided on firewalkers? Does that disprove a law of physics, or indicate that there is something even deeper at work, to which the laws of physics may be subordinate?"

Firewalkers? See, I knew you'd bring Eastern philosophy into this. That's really why the HP appeals to you so much. It confirms your point of view, your perspective. But again, that's also why it's not science.

Okay, what's your hypothesis then? What is "deeper"? Physics deal with fundamental LAWS, sorry. They are found everywhere throughout the universe. That's why they are laws to begin with.

Treecave
"You refuse to attempt to account for legitimate, documented events like firewalking with your science, AND insist on misconstruing a legitimate scientific approach that might lead to an accounting for these events. Don't you know the theory precedes the experiments and the math? That IS how science works. I'm betting the basic ideas of the HP are going to prove true, that's all - because it fits the reality I have seen."

No one owns science TC. It isn't *MY* science. No, the HYPOTHESIS precedes the theory. There is a big difference. Einstein's hypothesis for special relativity forced him to disappear for five years to develop formulas and models for his THEORY.

You present a theory using models and formulas that can then be re-tested by others. A theory has a higher standard than a hypothesis.

HP is not a theory, but a quasi-hypothesis. There are no tests or evidence available for it to be a theory. It's still just a quasi-hypothesis.

Treecave
"Anyway, your smug insistence that you are right without offering any proof of how your science accounts for legit, documented paranormal feels like arguing with a fundie Christian, so I will drop this particular debate with you to you on these points. The last word is all yours."

Calm down. That is a common tactic of pseudoscience to turn it around on the skeptic to PROVE why something is NOT TRUE. Wrong.
It's not my responsibility to PROVE what someone else(Talbot, Bohr) has presented as physics. It is the responsibility of the person submitting his/her proposal to PROVE it through models and formulas. You said it yourself: It deals with pure physics. No, it deals with META-physics. Big difference.

Treecave
"And no, I'm not upset, nor do I dislike you."

Well gee, thanks for not hating me.....right now. But, just wait. Muwahahaa!

I say we agree to disagree on this for now and move on. Maybe we'll take it up again in the future.


Qui-Rune

On the contrary...The HP utilizes mathematics quite extensively.

Not just using math, but developing a unified theory using math and equations. That's what I'm talking about.
I have yet to see anything beyond hypotheticals. It even delves into pyschology and neurology, which is interesting as the idea itself is really nothing more than point of view. Those last two are really weak sciences.

I will say this: The subject of HP is interesting, but as a scientific theory there's not enough there.


BTW: What are your thoughts on how people can firewalk? Swallow fire?

 

The HP is really about pseudoscience masquerading as science developed by personalities, not serious scientists.

It is obvious you need to perform a bit more research on the subject.

There are two people who laid the foundations for the HP:

David Bohm, Ph.D. He was a physicist AND a direct pupil of Albert Einstein. I would say he was a "serious" scientist.

Karl Pribram, Ph.D. He was also a physicist who went on to study Neuorology. His research became the foundation for modern theory on brain fundamentals. I would say, "Yep...he's a serious scientist!"

Perhaps a bit more reading is in order. It really is fascinating. Many quantum physicists are perpetuating the theory.

As for Firewalking and Swallowing Fire...I look at it like passing your finger thru a candle flame...just a bit larger of a scale.
Be quick, before you get burnt and before you feel the pain.

 

Ummm....Qui-Rune, I know who started the HP. But, Bohm's work towards HP specifically is only hypothetical.

Oh yes, the old "reading is in order". Pullin' out that card eh?

And why don't you answer just what a neurologist is doing pushing a idea supposedly based on PHYSICS?!



He is a serious neurologist, but a serious quantum physicist?!

And what Quantum physicists are perpetuating the theory?

EDIT:

Here is the interesting thing about Bohm's hypo: He thought that the observations of the protons themselves may not be connected at all, but that might in fact be a part of the same whole, a underlying order. He thought that was what Quantum had uncovered.

The idea of reality and consciousness are merely a part of this underlying frequency or wavelength.

That part of Bohm's idea is right in luine with what modern science tells us about electrons and photons "strange attractions" or connections. We really don't know if we are witnessing two different connected electrons or not.

Electrons at times have also been shown to behave like waves, or at other times like particles.

What Quantum does is attempt to assign a degree of probability to the behaviour so that the electrons and other micor-particles can be studied.

Supercolliders demand such tightly-controlled environments because of the subtle changes that occur when observing them.

The funky thing is this: Some supercollider tests show tht electrons have reached a barrier put in by scientists and have BYPASSED it. Now, how? Wave? Particle? Not a particle. But a WAVE.
This is important because Einstein theorized that light was a part of a particle wave that "shot its atoms" out in groups, not in constant flows.

This was the beginning of contemporary quantum mechanics.

his is fascinating because a group of posters had a topic in the Episode 3 PSA about "Force-ghosts". We had a great debate about symbiosis, midichlorians, unifying versus living forces, etc.

Sounds slightly familiar.