View Full Version : I Need Some Idea's: Pros and Cons Welcomed
Bending Space in the Brain
My Proposal
‘’If the vacuum can store memory, and the vacuum is warped by gravity, then perhaps gravity warping the vacuum is the mechanism of consciousness?’’
BASED upon these conditions of modern science:
1) The brain is a material system, and we know that matter bends spacetime
2) That not only do the physical statistical averages bend the spacetime, but they also interact with each other through gravitational coupling.
3) We also know that at least 1% of the spatial-material construct of the brain is essentially matter. If consciousness comes from matter, there is a lot more spacetime as well for it to come out of.
If the brain is material, and it bends the spacetime (which is a cornerstone principle anyway), and interact with [possible] information stored in the vacuum, the gravitational coupling between, lets say, a proton and a neutron, could they exchange the information they have essentially:
1) Pulled out of the vacuum through gravitational distortions,
2) Or either received the information through the gravitational influence of a proton, and then transmit the information to the neutron through their gravitational coupling?(a)
(a) – Of course, the processes are much more complicated. The transfer of energy, never mind information, CAN ONLY be transferred by angular momentum, in a time of v<t<r<c. So ‘’spin’’, whatever it really is, is certainly involved in this small set of idea I have thought about.
(There's a third latter postulate:)
or
3) Pulled out of the vacuum through gravitational distortions in mediation with an observer in real time.
Vacuum stores memory ?? Reference ?
Even IF vacuum stores memory, matter stores memory as well.
I don't think there's a need for a new theory, current understanding seems to work pretty well :shrug:
Sure, i'll give a reference or two.
And yes, matter and vacuum should both store memory. i NEVER said it didn't/
Now who is man enough to admit shoving this in psuedoscience?
I am soon going to give scientific research into these postulates. No time is ever give here to get a fuckin point across.
That should be a new rule i think.
For example. Not only was i going to give references, i was even going to provide math which 'could' help understanding this mechanism...
References:
Pribram Model of Consciousness: A holographic Model of The Brain
''The electromagnetic field resonates from the observer, and information we know and obtain is stored somehow in the vacuum, as Dr. Robert Neil Boyd has been modeling within the last few years.''
Mind of God, Dr Fred Alan Wolf, PDF,
Can be found on his web page. He implicitely stated to me in a conversation:
Me: ''I was reading work by Robert Boyd, (not very well-accepted as
a source i do believe - - but i like some of his musings), was explaining there was evidence to suggest that memory might be stored in vacuum... how do you reflect on this?''
Must be indicating that the vacuum has a potentia of stored memory, and can be proven by quantum mechanics.
Another Reference
R. Penrose, Shadows of the Mind
''he states that there is a strong possibility gravity influences the conscious mind.''
.......... now.............
Dr. Robert Neil Boyd says this phenomenon best. The mind or ‘’self’’ is not located to any particular physicality... i disagree. I do believe matter is consistant as a reference to self, so this must be wrong, however, he does say:
‘’ Eminent neurophysiologist Karl Pribram proved that the memory of the human being is not localized in the brain at all. His experiments proved that the memory is distributed in space, not necessarily contiguous with the physical form, in a holograph-like manner. This means that there exist multitudinous copies of any memory object in the volume of the hologram.
The Pribram model of memory is like a hologram. When you cut a small piece out of a hologram and shine the proper light on it, a complete copy of the original hologram, albeit smaller, is observed. This understanding was completely at odds with the then prevailing views of consciousness, which had the view that memories resided at particular and exclusive locations within the physical brain. Due to this mistaken view, many experimenters subsequently made many attempts to disprove Pribram's results by means of cutting out various parts of the brains of laboratory rats which had been trained to run through mazes, thinking that if they cut out the correct part of the rat's brain, that it would lose its ability to negotiate the maze. Such results would support the old notions of localized memory. Attempts to disprove Pribram’s hypothesis by the method of cutting out and removing various brain segments all failed.
Later, some researchers did things like take the rats’ brains completely out and turn them sideways, upside-down, backwards, and all manner of directions. The rats which were treated in these barbaric manners never lost their ability to negotiate the maze. Later on, out of sheer frustration that Pribram's expressions might be right, one research team went so far as to remove the brain from a rat and put it through a blender. Then they poured the resulting liquidic slurry back into the poor rat's skull. When the rat awoke from the anesthetic, it effortlessly ran the maze, and otherwise went on about its business. These researchers thereby turned about to support the Bohm-Pribram holographic model of memory.
The results of Pribram indicate that the memory of the human being is a hologram-like system, which does not reside in the same volume as the brain. Pribram’s clinically derived results support Bohm’s notion of the universe as a hologram. Then we want to know, where is the medium in which this hologram can reside? Such a medium is described by Gariaev, Poponin, et.al. , in terms of solitons in a system of loosely coupled subquantum particles. What we see now, is the possibility of a hierarchical system of hologram-like solitons which reside in a medium of loosely coupled subquantum particles. This takes us back full circle to expressions regarding the “tattvas” and “bhutatmas” of the Vedic system.
In further support of these holographic notions, we have Andrej Detela’s descriptions of the “biofield”, an energetic description based on instrumentations of the complex electromagnetic structures found in the vicinity of biological forms. Detela says, in part,
“It is assumed that the biofield is a three-dimensional web woven of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Lines of these fields are like tiny threads in a three-dimensional textile. These electromagnetic fields display very complex internal organization.
We find a peculiar variety of chiral solutions to Maxwell equations, which do not dissipate energy and lead to stable field structures. This is the so-called informational basis of the biofield. The simplest structures of these kind are toroidal knots.
When electric charge with very light mass enters the informational biofield, non-linear phenomena take place. These non-linear phenomena are based upon bifurcations in internal electric currents and upon resonance effects between currents and fields. We find an evolution of the field structure. This evolution is a syntropic process, oriented in time. There are several obvious conditions for syntropic behavior, and one of them is [found to be a quantum coherence in the states of electric charge.’’
Which is almost identical to how i see consciousness... a holodraphic, electromagnetically influenced sub-system.
Fred Alan Wolf: I don't know his work. I am currently working a model
which uses this idea. If you wish to read my paper on this subject you can
download it from my website list of downloadable papers--it is the one with
the mind of God in the title.
...... and .......
Gravity is said by Hawking to unravel quantum effects that may seem, quite bizarre; therego, gravity, may very well have something to do with the pheomena of consciousness, just not so much in the sense of directly relating microtubular and gravitational influences, as proposed by Penrose.
AlphaNumeric
06-07-08, 01:55 PM
i was even going to provide math which 'could' help understanding this mechanism...No, you weren't. You were going to post remedial maths a 10 year old would see through and claim that because you can put the letters E and p into equations you think it's valid.
References:
Pribram Model of Consciousness: A holographic Model of The Brain
''The electromagnetic field resonates from the observer, and information we know and obtain is stored somehow in the vacuum, as Dr. Robert Neil Boyd has been modeling within the last few years.''
Mind of God, Dr Fred Alan Wolf, PDF,
Can be found on his web page. He implicitely stated to me in a conversation:
Me: ''I was reading work by Robert Boyd, (not very well-accepted as
a source i do believe - - but i like some of his musings), was explaining there was evidence to suggest that memory might be stored in vacuum... how do you reflect on this?''
Must be indicating that the vacuum has a potentia of stored memory, and can be proven by quantum mechanics.
Another Reference
R. Penrose, Shadows of the Mind
So they just think it is the case for some obscure reason. They don't know..
''he states that there is a strong possibility gravity influences the conscious mind.''
Sure, in the same way gravity influences a brick.
.......... now.............
Dr. Robert Neil Boyd says this phenomenon best. The mind or ‘’self’’ is not located to any particular physicality... i disagree. I do believe matter is consistant as a reference to self, so this must be wrong, however, he does say:
Huh.. contradictions ? I don't understand, please clarify.
‘’ Eminent neurophysiologist Karl Pribram proved that the memory of the human being is not localized in the brain at all. His experiments proved that the memory is distributed in space, not necessarily contiguous with the physical form, in a holograph-like manner. This means that there exist multitudinous copies of any memory object in the volume of the hologram.
You mean neuropsychologist..
The Pribram model of memory is like a hologram. When you cut a small piece out of a hologram and shine the proper light on it, a complete copy of the original hologram, albeit smaller, is observed. This understanding was completely at odds with the then prevailing views of consciousness, which had the view that memories resided at particular and exclusive locations within the physical brain. Due to this mistaken view, many experimenters subsequently made many attempts to disprove Pribram's results by means of cutting out various parts of the brains of laboratory rats which had been trained to run through mazes, thinking that if they cut out the correct part of the rat's brain, that it would lose its ability to negotiate the maze. Such results would support the old notions of localized memory. Attempts to disprove Pribram’s hypothesis by the method of cutting out and removing various brain segments all failed.
Later, some researchers did things like take the rats’ brains completely out and turn them sideways, upside-down, backwards, and all manner of directions. The rats which were treated in these barbaric manners never lost their ability to negotiate the maze. Later on, out of sheer frustration that Pribram's expressions might be right, one research team went so far as to remove the brain from a rat and put it through a blender. Then they poured the resulting liquidic slurry back into the poor rat's skull. When the rat awoke from the anesthetic, it effortlessly ran the maze, and otherwise went on about its business. These researchers thereby turned about to support the Bohm-Pribram holographic model of memory.
OK.. WTF !?
Never mind.. :eek:
The results of Pribram indicate that the memory of the human being is a hologram-like system, which does not reside in the same volume as the brain. Pribram’s clinically derived results support Bohm’s notion of the universe as a hologram. Then we want to know, where is the medium in which this hologram can reside? Such a medium is described by Gariaev, Poponin, et.al. , in terms of solitons in a system of loosely coupled subquantum particles. What we see now, is the possibility of a hierarchical system of hologram-like solitons which reside in a medium of loosely coupled subquantum particles. This takes us back full circle to expressions regarding the “tattvas” and “bhutatmas” of the Vedic system.
In further support of these holographic notions, we have Andrej Detela’s descriptions of the “biofield”, an energetic description based on instrumentations of the complex electromagnetic structures found in the vicinity of biological forms. Detela says, in part,
“It is assumed that the biofield is a three-dimensional web woven of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Lines of these fields are like tiny threads in a three-dimensional textile. These electromagnetic fields display very complex internal organization.
We find a peculiar variety of chiral solutions to Maxwell equations, which do not dissipate energy and lead to stable field structures. This is the so-called informational basis of the biofield. The simplest structures of these kind are toroidal knots.
When electric charge with very light mass enters the informational biofield, non-linear phenomena take place. These non-linear phenomena are based upon bifurcations in internal electric currents and upon resonance effects between currents and fields. We find an evolution of the field structure. This evolution is a syntropic process, oriented in time. There are several obvious conditions for syntropic behavior, and one of them is [found to be a quantum coherence in the states of electric charge.’’
Which is almost identical to how i see consciousness... a holodraphic, electromagnetically influenced sub-system.
Fred Alan Wolf: I don't know his work. I am currently working a model
which uses this idea. If you wish to read my paper on this subject you can
download it from my website list of downloadable papers--it is the one with
the mind of God in the title.
...... and .......
Gravity is said by Hawking to unravel quantum effects that may seem, quite bizarre; therego, gravity, may very well have something to do with the pheomena of consciousness, just not so much in the sense of directly relating microtubular and gravitational influences, as proposed by Penrose.
Blablabla... :crazy:
Why are you being so unkind? Have i said something to you in a bad way?
Why are you being so unkind? Have i said something to you in a bad way?
I'm sorry, it was primarily directed at the article and, I admit, indirectly at you (I didn't bother to read anything after the brain mush incident).
Do you seriously believe that the rats even woke up ? Come on..
invert_nexus
06-07-08, 02:08 PM
Depends on what they mean by 'brain'. Rats can survive removal of the neocortex. I forget where I read this though, so can't provide a reference. Nor can I say how their faculties fared after the procedure.
I can't imagine that they were too happy afterwards or too functional.
Later, some researchers did things like take the rats’ brains completely out and turn them sideways, upside-down, backwards, and all manner of directions. The rats which were treated in these barbaric manners never lost their ability to negotiate the maze. Later on, out of sheer frustration that Pribram's expressions might be right, one research team went so far as to remove the brain from a rat and put it through a blender. Then they poured the resulting liquidic slurry back into the poor rat's skull. When the rat awoke from the anesthetic, it effortlessly ran the maze, and otherwise went on about its business. These researchers thereby turned about to support the Bohm-Pribram holographic model of memory.
Reiku,
this is completely laughable. Why should I take anything else this quack says seriously ?
Depends on what they mean by 'brain'. Rats can survive removal of the neocortex. I forget where I read this though, so can't provide a reference. Nor can I say how their faculties fared after the procedure.
I can't imagine that they were too happy afterwards or too functional.
Brain = brain. If they removed only a part of the brain, the article should have stated it.
Besides, they were obviously referring to the whole brain when they were describing how they put in the brain in backwards and sideways.
invert_nexus
06-07-08, 02:19 PM
The reason that I wonder if the problem isn't one of confusion over how much of the brain is being removed etc is because of this:
Due to this mistaken view, many experimenters subsequently made many attempts to disprove Pribram's results by means of cutting out various parts of the brains of laboratory rats which had been trained to run through mazes, thinking that if they cut out the correct part of the rat's brain, that it would lose its ability to negotiate the maze.
It's true that later it says that they take the brain completely out, but that's ridiculous. So, I wonder if there isn't a misunderstanding somewhere down the line.
Of course, just the fact that the claim (even if mistaken) is made that brains are completely removed and replaced (in whatever fashion) does pretty much destroy any credibility of the source.
The reason that I wonder if the problem isn't one of confusion over how much of the brain is being removed etc is because of this:
It's true that later it says that they take the brain completely out, but that's ridiculous. So, I wonder if there isn't a misunderstanding somewhere down the line.
Of course, just the fact that the claim (even if mistaken) is made that brains are completely removed and replaced (in whatever fashion) does pretty much destroy any credibility of the source.
Thank you.
Depends on what they mean by 'brain'. Rats can survive removal of the neocortex. I forget where I read this though, so can't provide a reference. Nor can I say how their faculties fared after the procedure.
I can't imagine that they were too happy afterwards or too functional.
Perhaps our past incongruities have been, to say the least, apologetic, from my behalf in total
It seems to me, that the removal of the neocortex would be proportional to the disection of the pre-frontal vortex, and since it is known a rat can still remember how to move through a path in spacetime, then it offers evidence that perhaps some memory of visual cortex analomalies are being offered as some kind of storage:
:: I speculate that this storage is in mediation more strongly with real space, than what it is in real time, for reasons of mathematical and metaphysical ideas.
P.S. You are essentially saying though, to some part, you agree with these proposals?
I'm sorry, it was primarily directed at the article and, I admit, indirectly at you (I didn't bother to read anything after the brain mush incident).
Do you seriously believe that the rats even woke up ? Come on..Basing this study on mere paragraphs of proposals, isn't scientific, or sane. That's your mistake my friend.
invert_nexus
06-07-08, 02:41 PM
P.S. You are essentially saying though, to some part, you agree with these proposals?
No.
What you're writing is gibberish. I'm merely stating the fact that rats have had their neocortex removed and survived. I found this quite astonishing to learn and thought that it would be somewhat pertinent.
However, what you've posted is nonsense.
CptBork
06-07-08, 02:49 PM
If Albert Einstein had published a paper in which he claimed to have removed rats' brains, put them through a meat grinder, poured the slurry back in and had the rats regain consciousness, he would have become the laughingstock of the century, all past glories aside. Any team of researchers making a claim like that is immediately discredited.
When you take something and mash its brains up, that something dies. Pouring the slurry back in ain't gonna do crap. I'd write something like that for an issue of MAD Magazine, 'cuz it would make a hilarious joke, but to try and submit a claim like that for scientific publication... truly, WTF doesn't do it justice.
If there was a mistake, it wasn't mine. Only mine to the respect i qouted what he says. This was not my own words, and that is where you lot of got this misunderstanding from. I personally state the memory is stored in the vacuum, and somehow transferred through matter into the self-reflective psyche we call consciousness.
Answer me. Is that psuedoscientific?
Why are you all lynching me through what he said? Why not contact him for yourself, and ask him for references, for i have none.
But my theory holds, because it doesn't require the complete removal of the rats brain.
Your theory is based on a model thought up by some quack.
You have provided no evidence for your assertion that vacuum can store data, let alone that the brain can access and manipulate it.
You people gotta understand that there is no such as true vacuum...there are some atoms in it though extremely diffused.
In addition to ever-presence of radiation all over space as well as neutrinos and other quantum "massless" particles
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/neutrino_wg_010618.html
You people gotta understand that there is no such as true vacuum...there are some atoms in it though extremely diffused.
In addition to ever-presence of radiation all over space as well as neutrinos and other quantum "massless" particles
What about the space between the atoms ?
And Draq is right, since is physicists consider time as ethereal, and relativity makes time, spacetime, then space is also ethereal, and if consciousness is ethereal, then these three things can essentially be the same.
It was even speculated by Dirac, and Shiuji Inomata that consciousness seeps out of the Dirac Sea, a negative subspace.
In this universe everything interacts with everything else...the interaction intensity varies in logarithmic magnitudes. So a brain that has neurons and electrons flowing through them is still affected by the quantum particles flowing through space, Earth, and us.
What about the space between the atoms ?
Well, its a quantum physical fact, there is no such thing as ''empty space.''
So rethink that one.
What about the space between the atoms ?
what about it? :bugeye: You see...even though that space "exists", its dimensions constantly change as said by Heindebergh uncertaintity principle for electrons...same thing happens with atoms...yes there are vast space in between...but next moment that vast space is filled and the next moment it is empty
In this universe everything interacts with everything else...the interaction intensity varies in logarithmic magnitudes. So a brain that has neurons and electrons flowing through them is still affected by the quantum particles flowing through space, Earth, and us.
Sage words.
Relativity states that everything is frozen in time, and meaning that if we took all these frames and alined in a numerological from Alpha Point to Omega Point, then in a quantum sense, all actions, and all physical events, happen relative reference with zero-distance.
And Draq is right, since is physicists consider time as ethereal, and relativity makes time, spacetime, then space is also ethereal, and if consciousness is ethereal, then these three things can essentially be the same.
It was even speculated by Dirac, and Shiuji Inomata that consciousness seeps out of the Dirac Sea, a negative subspace.
Why do you assume that consciousness is some sort of universal attribute of the universe, such as light and space ?
Do you think the brain has evolved to tap into this mysterious universal power we call consciousness ?
Well, its a quantum physical fact, there is no such thing as ''empty space.''
So rethink that one.
You do understand you are contradicting your own theory here, right ?
If there is no vacuum, how can the brain access and manipulate data stored in vacuums ?
Time is relevant thought, through the observer, which was a point i was making in the physics thread.
Enmos this isnt science to be proven. Its faith to give to, not proof.
CptBork
06-07-08, 03:41 PM
If there was a mistake, it wasn't mine. Only mine to the respect i qouted what he says. This was not my own words, and that is where you lot of got this misunderstanding from. I personally state the memory is stored in the vacuum, and somehow transferred through matter into the self-reflective psyche we call consciousness.
Answer me. Is that psuedoscientific?
It's pseudoscientific because we don't have a reliable way to test it. What do you propose we do? Kill someone, mash their brain up, then miraculously somehow revive them to see if they still have all their memories? That certainly won't work, but it's a good way to tie up the court system with murder charges ;)
Why do you assume that consciousness is some sort of universal attribute of the universe, such as light and space ?
Do you think the brain has evolved to tap into this mysterious universal power we call consciousness ?
Good questions.
1) ''Why do you assume that consciousness is some sort of universal attribute of the universe, such as light and space ?''
>When a photon moves nowhere through spacetime, at around, 186,850 miles per sec, and doesn't even reach earth, but still nontheless, may [[pass]] a leaf of a tree. If light doesn't really move anywhere, or even past the tree, or a position of combined definate trajectory, then how can it be a constant at all?
cont/. In fact, the tree cannot be used EVER AT ALL as a real time reference, because the photon, which experiences no existence at all from its frame of reference (since it is a zero-time particle), how can it ever possibly have some kind of constancy about it
>Not only that, the 'Conscious-Collapse Model' comes alive, and only when a homosapian observes this zero-time particle pass the leaf of a tree, does it in fact to some respect of an Observer-Effect, give it an aritrarily small value decrease in the wave function, and essentially reduce variables in the state value.
*Threrefore, consciousness, the one conscious mind of universal Mind of God, has a constant value (whatever it may be), plays a role in the triad nature of the three ethereal constants of spacetime and consciousness.(1)(2)
(1) Mind is not only a material phenomena, but also one that resides as an ethereal complex minkowski spacetime reflection
(2)Time is probably the most ethereal to that of space, since we can observe a space. Time is something quite subliminal. In fact, momenta of physical objects may not be complimentary to time itself.
It's pseudoscientific because we don't have a reliable way to test it. What do you propose we do? Kill someone, mash their brain up, then miraculously somehow revive them to see if they still have all their memories? That certainly won't work, but it's a good way to tie up the court system with murder charges ;)
Oh... there is a way to test it.
Not only are there ways to test this, but i am working on a mathmetical design to unify the lot together.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81769
AlphaNumeric
06-07-08, 07:31 PM
Why are you all lynching me through what he said? Why not contact him for yourself, and ask him for references, for i have none.
But my theory holds, because it doesn't require the complete removal of the rats brain.If someone goes around praising BS, he gets a lynching. You praise a lot of BS. Yours and Wolfs.
It was even speculated by Dirac, and Shiuji Inomata that consciousness seeps out of the Dirac Sea, a negative subspace.This isn't Star Trek. "A negative subspace" is ill defined nonsense.
Not only are there ways to test this, but i am working on a mathmetical design to unify the lot together.You don't even know calculus and you said you can blend a rat's brain and not kill it. How stupid do you think we are?
spidergoat
06-07-08, 07:48 PM
To seriously consider this proposition, one would first have to show that an electrochemical model of the brain could not work.
What makes up identity ?
Do we all have the same identity, or does this universal consciousness already harbor countless indentities we tap into ?
It's pseudoscientific because we don't have a reliable way to test it. What do you propose we do? Kill someone, mash their brain up, then miraculously somehow revive them to see if they still have all their memories? That certainly won't work, but it's a good way to tie up the court system with murder charges ;)
No, not at all.
I am not an experimentalist, however, i believe that experiments can be sought through the holographic principle (which by the way enmos, wasn't thought up by a quack), and by careful analysis of disecting pivotal functions of the brain, can we identify proof that the vacuum is not only physical, full of information and energy (as we already know), THAT this information could be like a gigantic vacuum of stored memory.
It was already knownn by Einstien, that everything was somehow predetermined, from conclusions of relativity, without the complication of QM... however, this must also mean that anything we come to do, say or write, is in fact written into somewhere... so why not the vacuum, unto which everything really exists in through self-containing cosmological rules... Einstein once said:
'Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end,
by forces over which we have no control. It is determined
for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, veget-
ables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune,
intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.'
Albert Einstein.
Is everything determined by some unseen force?
Well, let us consider for a moment free-will and choice. Is there such a thing as free-will or random choice? We would think so wouldn't we? I mean, whenever i decide to make a cup of coffee or spark a cigarette, are they not my own choices? If they aren't, it certainly doesn't feel like i am 'dancing to some pipers tune', as Einstein once put it. No, it feels like i am dancing to my own...
Whenever i wake up... is that not random? Whenever i feel or act on the spur of the moment... is that not certainly random? Whenever a single drop of rain falls on my head, out of the countless droplets from the sky... again, is that not random? If we closed our eyes and manically punched buttons on the phone... is that not random?
All these things, these seemingly sudden acts seem quite random; but that may not be all there is to it. We are taught that anything observable everyday, that is macroevents, like the cat walking by my window, is made up of tiny particles and we never really think twice about it. Somehow, the Macroevent is a single statistic, made up of many other statistics - but these countless Microsystems are normally never taken into account. Thus, if i see that cat walking by, i would normally think that it was in control of what it was doing; i wouldn't think that every movement is determined for it some how by the coherence of its molecular structure.
But, and here is the rub, what controls the atoms and molecules? Who assigns these probabilities so that the cat can have mobility? Likewise, who assigns the probability to any make-up of life and reality, the mobile and immobile? Do atoms randomly join because a suitable partner comes along, or is there importance about the particles and their positions and their locations, even though out of it can only arise uncertainty for ourselves?
Perhaps. We plod through life, and we are aware of some extraordinary things. There are certain laws that function matter at the macro-level and that do not hold when down at the micro-level. These laws have about them the categoristic natures of being, determinable. Some, fair enough, determinable at the expense of another - but, determinable nonetheless. And it is out of this determinism - this, apparent function that has written all over it the universal law that interests me. After all, if a piece of matter, for instance curves space, then there is a rule there, written, determined that allows it to do so, isn't there?
However, the antipathy of all of this is that we are not sure whether or not that reality is determined by some higher field of force that whenever anything is done, is completely known by some God or simply written into space and time like a genetic code. Yet - here is the very argument. What is this force that permeates existence, allowing the rain to fall, the bees to hum, and the inevitable drive within all of life? Again, why do we even choose to do the things that we ever will do in one life time?
If existence is all determined somehow, where is this knowledge coming from? A rather interesting theory has come from astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. He believes that it might be possible that in something like 100 tosses of a coin, there might be a hidden message encoded within the results. This information, according to Hoyle, is in fact coming from the future. Now, if this is true, is that how anything comes about with its seemingly ordered existences in the present? Hoyle believes so. He attributes this flow of knowledge from superintelligence in the future. We are, i admit supposed to take this seriously by physics - but it is not easy for the non-scientist sometimes. If information is coming from the future, seems to indicate that a future exists now, but to explain to people that the future exists right now is very hard for anyone to grasp.
Indeed, if everything is written out before us, then it is possible that we can understand a grand unification of physics… Of course, this depends on whether the universe will allow us to unify it.
If everything is determined - with every outcome written somewhere before it transpires, then we should realize that all biological life, including ourselves are born with a certain amount of heartbeats, therefore, we should all try and make the most out of life...
Therefore, this makes it a protoscience, rather than a psuedoscience, i believe.
What makes up identity ?
Do we all have the same identity, or does this universal consciousness already harbor countless indentities we tap into ?
The other way round friend. We don't tap into the single consciousness, but this realm taps into us through the mediation of matter and spacetime.
If someone goes around praising BS, he gets a lynching. You praise a lot of BS. Yours and Wolfs.
This isn't Star Trek. "A negative subspace" is ill defined nonsense.
You don't even know calculus and you said you can blend a rat's brain and not kill it. How stupid do you think we are?
A negative subspace is a subspacetime realm which is negatively relative to us. The notion of such realms are not of Star Trek. I take it you where ignorant to put a bit of thought into subspacetime tunnels, such as wormholes? They are, by definition, subspacetime relative to the dimension in question.
And by the way, that is a lie. I never said you could blend a brains rat. That was Dr Boyd. How stupid do i think you are? Actually, i think you are highly intelligent, just highly inconsistant with your thoughts simultaneously.
And Wolf is more of a scientist you will ever be, and has a famous well-respected reputation you shall never have.
Good questions.
1) ''Why do you assume that consciousness is some sort of universal attribute of the universe, such as light and space ?''
>When a photon moves nowhere through spacetime, at around, 186,850 miles per sec, and doesn't even reach earth, but still nontheless, may [[pass]] a leaf of a tree. If light doesn't really move anywhere, or even past the tree, or a position of combined definate trajectory, then how can it be a constant at all?
cont/. In fact, the tree cannot be used EVER AT ALL as a real time reference, because the photon, which experiences no existence at all from its frame of reference (since it is a zero-time particle), how can it ever possibly have some kind of constancy about it
>Not only that, the 'Conscious-Collapse Model' comes alive, and only when a homosapian observes this zero-time particle pass the leaf of a tree, does it in fact to some respect of an Observer-Effect, give it an aritrarily small value decrease in the wave function, and essentially reduce variables in the state value.
*Threrefore, consciousness, the one conscious mind of universal Mind of God, has a constant value (whatever it may be), plays a role in the triad nature of the three ethereal constants of spacetime and consciousness.(1)(2)
(1) Mind is not only a material phenomena, but also one that resides as an ethereal complex minkowski spacetime reflection
(2)Time is probably the most ethereal to that of space, since we can observe a space. Time is something quite subliminal. In fact, momenta of physical objects may not be complimentary to time itself.
In fact, i am going to make a really really bold proposal. I hold that the following is in fact an evidence that relativity is flawed as treating the speed of a photon constant without a conscious observer to measure it as an actual constant:
''>When a photon moves nowhere through spacetime, at around, 186,850 miles per sec, and doesn't even reach earth, but still nontheless, may [[pass]] a leaf of a tree. If light doesn't really move anywhere, or even past the tree, or a position of combined definate trajectory, then how can it be a constant at all?
cont/. In fact, the tree cannot be used EVER AT ALL as a real time reference, because the photon, which experiences no existence at all from its frame of reference (since it is a zero-time particle), how can it ever possibly have some kind of constancy about it?''
AlphaNumeric
06-08-08, 01:18 PM
A negative subspace is a subspacetime realm which is negatively relative to us. The notion of such realms are not of Star Trek.Still muddling the terminology there.
A subspace to a mathematician or a physicist working over some kind of space-time construct is a region of the manifold which is being consider which is defined by some equation f(x)=0.
For instance, t=0 defines the notion of 'now' in Newtonian physics. In just 3d geometry something like x+y+z=0 defines a plane. Since it goes through the origin it is a vector subspace in the strictest sense (a vector space must include the 0 vector).
Subspaces are regions of a manifold/space-time, they have no notion of motion because such things are defined by vectors in the system. So saying "a negative subspace" and then implying it automatically has a predefined notion of direction simply from that is ill defined. It's like saying "The Earth's surface is a left subspace" simply because I can move to the left in it. The Earth's surface is a space, but defining a collection of points doesn't define any kind of motion through them.
And I mentioned Star Trek because you obviously weren't using the terms as a mainstream physicist would.
I take it you where ignorant to put a bit of thought into subspacetime tunnels, such as wormholes? Actually, wormholes are not predefined to be anything like that. A wormhole could carry you through just space, not time. Or through time and not space. Or both. In any direction. There are papers which address the issue of determining what kind of wormhole a tiny worm hole might be from the effects it has on particles.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3395
They are, by definition, subspacetime relative to the dimension in question. Really? What definition are you working with? Be specific.
I'd say that a worm hole is a region of space-time where the local spacial topology goes like S^{1} \times \mathbb{R}^{2}. For instance, the region around a Schwarzchild blackhole's event horizon can take this form in certain situations. I can provide the derivation if needed. However, due to the extreme space-time warping, it's not possible to give a straight forward equivalence to the worm hole's notion of space and time directions to those of flat space-time. Certainly they aren't defined to be 'negative subspaces'.
But I'm sure you'll clarify things when you give the precise, unambigious definition of 'worm hole' you're working with, given your extensive knowledge of relativity ;)
And Wolf is more of a scientist you will ever be, and has a famous well-respected reputation you shall never have I don't expect to become a famous physicist. I'll be happy if I can make a little contribution to the world of physics via my PhD. If I end up continuing in research, so be it. If I remain unknown outside of my small field, so be it. Actually I don't want fame, I'm not that kind of person.
But I'm more of a scientist than you'll ever be. Heck, even my sister is and she did economics at university! At least she knows calculus.
Now what was that definition of 'wormhole' you have?
Still muddling the terminology there.
A subspace to a mathematician or a physicist working over some kind of space-time construct is a region of the manifold which is being consider which is defined by some equation f(x)=0.
For instance, t=0 defines the notion of 'now' in Newtonian physics. In just 3d geometry something like x+y+z=0 defines a plane. Since it goes through the origin it is a vector subspace in the strictest sense (a vector space must include the 0 vector).
Subspaces are regions of a manifold/space-time, they have no notion of motion because such things are defined by vectors in the system. So saying "a negative subspace" and then implying it automatically has a predefined notion of direction simply from that is ill defined. It's like saying "The Earth's surface is a left subspace" simply because I can move to the left in it. The Earth's surface is a space, but defining a collection of points doesn't define any kind of motion through them.
And I mentioned Star Trek because you obviously weren't using the terms as a mainstream physicist would.
First, i will not delve into equations that lead to differential values. Secondly, of course to some respect the subspacetime is different, because it isn't the mathematical kind or physical kind you are referring to. If you had read my work, Penrose, Wolf, Goswami, among other scientists, consider this specific realm i talk about very seriously.
''Actually, wormholes are not predefined to be anything like that. A wormhole could carry you through just space, not time. Or through time and not space. Or both. In any direction. There are papers which address the issue of determining what kind of wormhole a tiny worm hole might be from the effects it has on particles. ''
I disagree. The wormhole is a tunnel which by definition, and hence the name, tunnels under spacetime, despite the conditions you refer to. If it travels ''under'' the fabric, in which you end up somehere, then this is sub relative to the spacetime we experience.
''Really? What definition are you working with? Be specific. ''
Just did.
''I'd say that a worm hole is a region of space-time where the local spacial topology goes like . For instance, the region around a Schwarzchild blackhole's event horizon can take this form in certain situations. I can provide the derivation if needed. However, due to the extreme space-time warping, it's not possible to give a straight forward equivalence to the worm hole's notion of space and time directions to those of flat space-time. Certainly they aren't defined to be 'negative subspaces'.
But I'm sure you'll clarify things when you give the precise, unambigious definition of 'worm hole' you're working with, given your extensive knowledge of relativity ''
How wonderful. Actually, i don't know what you mean by intense gravitation, but if you mean, we cannot make sense of them, i think you forget they make sense as solutions to global causual violation of pathological solutions in general relativity.
''I don't expect to become a famous physicist. I'll be happy if I can make a little contribution to the world of physics via my PhD. If I end up continuing in research, so be it. If I remain unknown outside of my small field, so be it. Actually I don't want fame, I'm not that kind of person.
But I'm more of a scientist than you'll ever be. Heck, even my sister is and she did economics at university! At least she knows calculus.
Now what was that definition of 'wormhole' you have?''
You don't want fame? Very admirable, actually... anyway...
I share the same sentiment as you. I want to leave a mark in this, world, just a little signature. So why try and crush my way there? Surely, you cannot know where you will end up, as much as i cannot tell if todays sunny climate will rain?
But claiming:
''But I'm more of a scientist than you'll ever be. ''
Is overconfidence to the power of quintillion. That is,
Overconfidence ^{1,000,000,000,000,000,000}
AlphaNumeric
06-08-08, 03:10 PM
First, i will not delve into equations that lead to differential values. Secondly, of course to some respect the subspacetime is different, because it isn't the mathematical kind or physical kind you are referring to. If you had read my work, Penrose, Wolf, Goswami, among other scientists, consider this specific realm i talk about very seriously.You won't delve into the equations because you don't know any of the maths in this area. The mathematical work of people like Penrose is formidable. You don't even know vector calculus, never mind differential geometry orcomplexified manifolds (ie those of twistors, as invented by Penrose).
You're comparing your 'work' with that of Penrose etc. You don't talk about anything on a level with their work. You're not even able to use basic words like 'subspace' and 'metric' properly.
Just because you can post such words doesn't mean the people who also use such words would consider your 'work' viable. How many people post pet theories of physics on PhysOrg? Many of them are incompatible. They cannot all be right, they wouldn't all be considered to be doing viable work by real physicists just because they can use words like "quantum" and "field" in a post.
I disagree. The wormhole is a tunnel which by definition, and hence the name, tunnels under spacetime, despite the conditions you refer to. If it travels ''under'' the fabric, in which you end up somehere, then this is sub relative to the spacetime we experience.Whose definition are you using? Post a source.
A wormhole isn't going 'under' space-time, that would imply it leaves the 4 dimensional space-time manifold. Wrong. The Schwarzchild wormhole I mentioned before is still part of the 'fabric' of space-time, it's just that the space-time looks like S^{1} \times \mathbb{R}^{2}. Obviously you didn't understand the notation. A cylinder would have the topology of S^{1} \times \mathbb{R}, a circle times a line element. A wormhole has an extra dimension to that but non-the-less is still part of the 4d 'fabric' of space-time. To depart from it would require extra dimensions. This is the kind of thing ideas about world branes and 'the bulk' talk about in string theory. Worm holes do not need extra dimensions.
Just did.Your 'definition' is hardly precise, entirely qualitative and you don't demonstrate any physicist uses it.
i think you forget they make sense as solutions to global causual violation of pathological solutions in general relativity.You're parroting results of other people which you don't understand.
''But I'm more of a scientist than you'll ever be. ''
Is overconfidence to the power of quintillion.You claim that people like Penrose would consider your work viable. You make claims about proving quantum mechanics cannot model the brain or that there can only be two universes or that there must be something before the big bang.
You claim to know things you don't, to have done things you haven't and to be competant at things you aren't. You think you'll get a Phd in physics as if it's a fore-gone conclusion. You think your BS is valid physics. You think the tiny smattering of maths you put in your posts is 'plenty'. It's not.
I've had enough time and interaction with you to know what you're capable of in the world of theoretical physics. And it's a lot less than the average physics student. And so I felt absolutely zero doubt when I said I'll be more of a physicist than you will. No doubt at all. If the last 8 months of your 'learning' is anything to go by, you'll not even pass A levels in the sciences.
Well, if you leave me alone, and stop flaming, i will even introduce the equations i was originally going to provide in this thread, concerning gravitational warps on the mind...
And no, i don't compare my work. I use the concepts their models require, as i like them. Penrose's idea of gravitational build-up in microtubules was fantastic, but it didn't approve of general respect of the public, despite it's momentus ideas.
That is all i have to say for now. I must go. I will return later.
Oh, and i passed the A-level sciences minus biology and chemistry. Why do you think i was accepted into college in the first place? What, because the pigs where flying past the window?
Grow up.
AlphaNumeric
06-08-08, 04:11 PM
Well, if you leave me alone, and stop flaming, i will even introduce the equations i was originally going to provide in this thread, concerning gravitational warps on the mind...Either you'll never provide them, using my posts as an excuse or you'll post BS.
Care to prove me wrong?
Oh, and i passed the A-level sciences minus biology and chemistry. Why do you think i was accepted into college in the first place? What, because the pigs where flying past the window?
Grow up.So now you're in university? I keep asking you to specifically clarify what you're doing in educaiton at the moment and you never do. So going on what you've said in previous threads you have a degree in psychology. Is this true? You have done 'A-level sciences minus biology and chemistry', which to me is just physics. If more than physics, what? What are you doing in college? By college do you mean you are currently working towards a BSc or BA or MPhys or what? If you specifically said what you're doing maybe I'll stop having to make assumptions?
Either you'll never provide them, using my posts as an excuse or you'll post BS.
Care to prove me wrong?
So now you're in university? I keep asking you to specifically clarify what you're doing in educaiton at the moment and you never do. So going on what you've said in previous threads you have a degree in psychology. Is this true? You have done 'A-level sciences minus biology and chemistry', which to me is just physics. If more than physics, what? What are you doing in college? By college do you mean you are currently working towards a BSc or BA or MPhys or what? If you specifically said what you're doing maybe I'll stop having to make assumptions?
Well, its in the other thread, on geometrical theories, because i found out, not long ago that the equations are actually related wuite strongly to the spacetime theory i introduce to the public, so find it there.
Alphumeric...
I am not in university. When did university have the same class or definition as a college?
You blame me for mistaking simple math, but you can't even understand basic language...
... anyway...
I am studying Chemistry, Biology and Physics, happy now? It will progress to a National Diploma, in which afterwards, i intend to move to Glasgow and take courses in psychophysics, perhaps take lessons from a prominent scientist in the field. These are my plans anyway.
I have a degree in pyschology, from college. Am i using the wrong terminology? Degree, i mean?
And yeh, just physics. In college, we are working on, right now, just looking through the past five months of work: Stuff like vector calculus, Newtonian Gravity, Anatomy of Particles and Atoms, radiation, oh and one i really enjoyed... Electricity at rest and non-rest... Right now, we are working on Light as Waves. As you will know, each of these things are full of different investigations, so we are talking a lot of work.
Will this now clarify our problems, or are we going to continue Flame Wars: Attack of the Quantum Menace?
The other way round friend. We don't tap into the single consciousness, but this realm taps into us through the mediation of matter and spacetime.
So this realm (consciousness) IS conscious itself ? lol ;)
And why does this consciousness only tap into certain animals ?
Why mammals and not insects ?
If it's not the brain that taps into this realm, but the other way around.. what is so special about the brain that this realm needs to tap into ?
Why doesn't it tap into massive boulders ?
Well, yes, and no. Dr. Wolf beleives it is beyond the mind. I think there is more of the imaginal realm being consciousness itself in a potential form of information, initiatively stored within the vacuum itself, and matter and energy.
Good question... why us, being the universal mind?
Maybe for three reasons.
Biofields could answer for it. But i once believed in a biofield that had a four particles mediating some kind of mechanism of consciousness. I no longer believe this, however, i am prone to believe in electromagnetic biofields, but that cannot answer the question.
Or perhaps that cosciousness is uniquely defined by the wave function, over all other animals... (we use similar wave graphs to predict for instance, the most probable universe... Hawking devised a graph which explained that the universe we exist in, is in fact the most probable, giving importance back to the observer), so in a sense, the imaginal realm may have risen to our functions, because the other ecosystems are lesser... if that makes any sense.
Or thirdly, that everything, from the insect, to the human, share this one imaginal realm, and only the correct information that squares in reference to our experience, is what keeps these things from being mangled and discoordinated.
I tend for the latter.
The brain however, not only taps into this realm, but the realm taps into mind as well, the so called ''back reaction'' theory, just like how matter bends space, and space tells matter how to move.
It cannot tap into boulders however, or any inanimate object, unless it is being observed, and this will be recorded as an information in the imaginal realm.
I don't agree with anything of the above.
What do you have against the conventional theories ?
I don't agree with anything of the above.
What do you have against the conventional theories ?
Reiku needs to outshow himself with the Einstein IQ, conventional theories are limiting him...so he just hops over them.
Reiku needs to outshow himself with the Einstein IQ, conventional theories are limiting him...so he just hops over them.
Perhaps.
I want to see him prove conventional theories wrong.
I think he can't.
I think he just likes these 'fancy' theories better..
I don't agree with anything of the above.
What do you have against the conventional theories ?
I do not believe that mind can simply be made of matter alone. Even though the particles acting in my brain, operate rather simply next to the complex projection of consciousness itself, is reason alone to suggest more things are at work here. I mean, statistically, conciousness is so very highly improbable, never mind the improbable statistics of having this universe to live in. One slight quantum change, and we would not have existed.
So what do i have against the conventional theory?
Nothing. I just think it is incomplete, and requires extra functions that could allow us to investigate the phenom of psyche.
Reiku needs to outshow himself with the Einstein IQ, conventional theories are limiting him...so he just hops over them.
I don't like the idea so much of IQ... Even Einstein said imagination was more important than knowledge, but draq, suffice to say, i see a lot of parts of physics confused, and i myself am confused by them.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.