"I will take charge of my life. I will drift no more. I will still be true to science, but I will be true to my new light also. I will be a sceptic about everything but one thing, which does not admit of scepticism (once one has clearly seen it), namely that it does indeed matter to be as quickened a spirit as possible, and to live for the quickening of the spirit everywhere."
I don't break cover and advertise my strange thoughts all that often. (Really.) But, while you may think that the biggest problem I have is the lack of a comprehensive model, I still think that the biggest problem I have is replication. As in, if I am the only one who can see things in accordance with a 5-dimensional model, then I think the word for that is 'delusion'. ;)
As I said, I don't break cover often, but when I do, it's usually with someone with whom I have had enough conversation/interaction to be reasonably certain that they
1) are psychologically stable.
2) have enough integrity to look at new ideas and themselves openly and critically.
3) have an interest in things aren't explained by today's standards of materialist reductionism.
4) have found the right combination of searching and skeptical.
Then, if the conversation is headed in the right direction, a certain meme may get planted. ;)
Planted the meme again yesterday. I'm still 'best-guessing' at the conditions under which the meme will thrive, so there's no guarantee that it will take hold. Perhaps a 5-dimensional model simply doesn't represent enough of value to the average person, and therefore it will not be something that will ever be adopted on a large scale. The average person seems to be mostly content with his knowledge of a world governed by classical physics and a God who fills in the gaps. (sigh)
In the meantime, I continue to work on the model, simply because it's the most fascinating puzzle I've ever found.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Evolving Potential
"By our best enemies we do not want to be spared, nor by those either whom we love from the very heart. So let me tell you the truth!"
Plucked from the blogosphere - "You cannot 'choose which world to end up in'." (sigh)
(Pardon me while I get this out of my system.)
"Every new theory of physics must capture the successful predictions of the old theory it displaced..." We agree upon this point. Help the process, or get out of the way. I don't have a 'new theory of physics'; I have a set of observations, some research, and some ideas. I predict that I will not have a 'new theory of physics' anytime soon.
"You will never catch a glimpse of another world out of the corner of your eye." You missed the point entirely. We know that consciousness is incapable of capturing more than a single outcome state at a time. (We don't know why that is, nor do we know what needs to occur in order to replicate that state in something to which we wish to give consciousness.) But the fact that consciousness can only capture a single state does not preclude a model where the auxiliary mechanisms of consciousness (those 'higher' processes involved in reflection, imagining, and planning) have some role in the selection of future states of consciousness. (We'll save retrocausation for another time.)
If consciousness can be said to have/be a trajectory through the smeared state of options, then the mechanisms that determine that trajectory must be accounted for. This is what we're working on, using what is, in my opinion, the data that is most relevant at this point in the game. It's possible that the entire endeavor is misguided and will come to naught. But then, if I believed that, I probably would have given this up long ago. ;)
"Since the beginning, not one unusual thing has ever happened, in this or any other world. They are all lawful." Okay, this is nothing other than an exercise in logic.
Statement: All observable events/phenomena are lawful. (All X are Y.)
Logically-compatible statement: If it is an observed event/phenomena, then it must be lawful.
Logically-compatible statement: If it is NOT lawful, then it CANNOT be an observed event/phenomena.
So if we have an observed event/phenomena that appears to contradict the laws (X and NOT Y), then our original statement only holds true if we 1) dispute X, or 2) dispute NOT Y. Your garden-variety physicist will choose Option 1, claiming that the observation was a product of fraud, hallucination, or stupidity, because the laws say it can't happen. Some of them will even get 'insulting' about the whole thing.
Choosing Option 2 does not mean that you embrace the idea of a lawless universe. No, choosing Option 2 means that you question the completeness of the existing laws. The funny thing is, if theoretical physicists weren't questioning the completeness of the existing laws, they'd be out of jobs. So questioning the completeness of existing laws is just taboo for certain physicists in certain areas. ;)
There are pros and cons for each option. Option 1 lets you lead a comfortable life with perhaps only a few anomalous experiences. Even these will cease to bother you once you've had a few drinks. After all, they violate the laws, so they didn't really happen. Option 2 is usually reserved for those who can't take Option 1 because of the overwhelming cognitive dissonance that would result. (Seriously, most people will take the easy road. If they look like they are taking the hard road, it's probably because they were drop-kicked onto it.) Interestingly enough, the thrill of discovery is only available by choosing Option 2. The drawback to Option 2 is that we do not have an unlimited capacity to question the constructs that we depend on to define and predict our existence. Choosing to suspend the dominant paradigm in one area may decrease the likelihood that you are able/willing to suspend it in other areas.
Either way, it's your choice. If you prefer Option 1, then nothing I'm doing should interest you. But if you are willing to consider Option 2, then you may have potential. ;)
BTW, props for quoting Egan, but I've got a better one...
"And the truth is, I'm glad to fail: defiantly, blasphemously, self-righteously fucking joyful - as if my failure implied some kind of reprieve for all the discredited 'reasonable' explanations that I thought I'd stopped clinging to long ago." (In other words... Thank god I have Option 1! Option 2 is just too damn hard!)
Plucked from the blogosphere - "You cannot 'choose which world to end up in'." (sigh)
(Pardon me while I get this out of my system.)
"Every new theory of physics must capture the successful predictions of the old theory it displaced..." We agree upon this point. Help the process, or get out of the way. I don't have a 'new theory of physics'; I have a set of observations, some research, and some ideas. I predict that I will not have a 'new theory of physics' anytime soon.
"You will never catch a glimpse of another world out of the corner of your eye." You missed the point entirely. We know that consciousness is incapable of capturing more than a single outcome state at a time. (We don't know why that is, nor do we know what needs to occur in order to replicate that state in something to which we wish to give consciousness.) But the fact that consciousness can only capture a single state does not preclude a model where the auxiliary mechanisms of consciousness (those 'higher' processes involved in reflection, imagining, and planning) have some role in the selection of future states of consciousness. (We'll save retrocausation for another time.)
If consciousness can be said to have/be a trajectory through the smeared state of options, then the mechanisms that determine that trajectory must be accounted for. This is what we're working on, using what is, in my opinion, the data that is most relevant at this point in the game. It's possible that the entire endeavor is misguided and will come to naught. But then, if I believed that, I probably would have given this up long ago. ;)
"Since the beginning, not one unusual thing has ever happened, in this or any other world. They are all lawful." Okay, this is nothing other than an exercise in logic.
Statement: All observable events/phenomena are lawful. (All X are Y.)
Logically-compatible statement: If it is an observed event/phenomena, then it must be lawful.
Logically-compatible statement: If it is NOT lawful, then it CANNOT be an observed event/phenomena.
So if we have an observed event/phenomena that appears to contradict the laws (X and NOT Y), then our original statement only holds true if we 1) dispute X, or 2) dispute NOT Y. Your garden-variety physicist will choose Option 1, claiming that the observation was a product of fraud, hallucination, or stupidity, because the laws say it can't happen. Some of them will even get 'insulting' about the whole thing.
Choosing Option 2 does not mean that you embrace the idea of a lawless universe. No, choosing Option 2 means that you question the completeness of the existing laws. The funny thing is, if theoretical physicists weren't questioning the completeness of the existing laws, they'd be out of jobs. So questioning the completeness of existing laws is just taboo for certain physicists in certain areas. ;)
There are pros and cons for each option. Option 1 lets you lead a comfortable life with perhaps only a few anomalous experiences. Even these will cease to bother you once you've had a few drinks. After all, they violate the laws, so they didn't really happen. Option 2 is usually reserved for those who can't take Option 1 because of the overwhelming cognitive dissonance that would result. (Seriously, most people will take the easy road. If they look like they are taking the hard road, it's probably because they were drop-kicked onto it.) Interestingly enough, the thrill of discovery is only available by choosing Option 2. The drawback to Option 2 is that we do not have an unlimited capacity to question the constructs that we depend on to define and predict our existence. Choosing to suspend the dominant paradigm in one area may decrease the likelihood that you are able/willing to suspend it in other areas.
Either way, it's your choice. If you prefer Option 1, then nothing I'm doing should interest you. But if you are willing to consider Option 2, then you may have potential. ;)
BTW, props for quoting Egan, but I've got a better one...
"And the truth is, I'm glad to fail: defiantly, blasphemously, self-righteously fucking joyful - as if my failure implied some kind of reprieve for all the discredited 'reasonable' explanations that I thought I'd stopped clinging to long ago." (In other words... Thank god I have Option 1! Option 2 is just too damn hard!)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Escaping From Time
"The other inmates stand in a long straight line, flanked by guards, and I am dragged past them. I do not respect them, because they will not run - will not try to escape."
I like to entertain strange physics ideas all the time. (Seriously, I'm the unruly inmate that the physicist 'guards' don't like. ;)
Since my physics education has been fairly piecemeal, the pieces occasionally get put together in interesting ways. For example, the EPR paradox came up the other day. Having time on the brain, it occurred to me to wonder why the EPR paradox is even a paradox at all...
A and B are entangled (which means weirdly connected in an I-am-you and you-are-me kind of way) particles departing in opposite directions from the same source. When A is measured, B can always be found in the corresponding/complementary state, even though A has no local-causes way to communicate its state to B. (As if B would just obligingly accept such information and agree to be found in the corresponding state when its turn came to be measured.) Physicists are perplexed because they cannot explain how A and B can be connected in such a way as to allow them to 'know' which state the other is in. And certainly not how they could 'know' without the transmission of such information occurring at a faster-than-light speed. Yet A and B are always perfectly in sync.
This situation is perplexing when viewed with time moving in a single direction, but the confusion evaporates (for me, at least) when temporal symmetry is restored. I can see very well how B 'knows' what state A will be in if I visual time flowing backwards from the point of measurement to the point where A and B were created together, as well as forward. Time, or something that underlies it, would be flowing in both directions at once.
Whatever is carried/retained as time moves subjectively forward can presumably be carried/retained as time moves subjectively backward. I'm not going to go into speculation about what that might be because, frankly, I don't know how to do that with standard physics constructs. (Physicists 'guards' are welcome to jump in with helpful explanations as to why this can't be so, or throw up their hands in despair at the uber-obvious piece of the picture that I am probably missing. I got briefly sidetracked by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that seems to reflect something a little bit different.)
This explanation for the EPR paradox makes sense to me because I think that we can access information that appears to be from our subjective future. (As in, the information correlates more heavily with what we experience in the subjective future than it does with what we experience in the subjective past. Think precognition.) This involves significantly rethinking our definition of, and relationship with, time, which is always a fun exercise. ;)
[Fair warning: I'm coming after entropy too. Just because I can. Just because it's fun.]
I like to entertain strange physics ideas all the time. (Seriously, I'm the unruly inmate that the physicist 'guards' don't like. ;)
Since my physics education has been fairly piecemeal, the pieces occasionally get put together in interesting ways. For example, the EPR paradox came up the other day. Having time on the brain, it occurred to me to wonder why the EPR paradox is even a paradox at all...
A and B are entangled (which means weirdly connected in an I-am-you and you-are-me kind of way) particles departing in opposite directions from the same source. When A is measured, B can always be found in the corresponding/complementary state, even though A has no local-causes way to communicate its state to B. (As if B would just obligingly accept such information and agree to be found in the corresponding state when its turn came to be measured.) Physicists are perplexed because they cannot explain how A and B can be connected in such a way as to allow them to 'know' which state the other is in. And certainly not how they could 'know' without the transmission of such information occurring at a faster-than-light speed. Yet A and B are always perfectly in sync.
This situation is perplexing when viewed with time moving in a single direction, but the confusion evaporates (for me, at least) when temporal symmetry is restored. I can see very well how B 'knows' what state A will be in if I visual time flowing backwards from the point of measurement to the point where A and B were created together, as well as forward. Time, or something that underlies it, would be flowing in both directions at once.
Whatever is carried/retained as time moves subjectively forward can presumably be carried/retained as time moves subjectively backward. I'm not going to go into speculation about what that might be because, frankly, I don't know how to do that with standard physics constructs. (Physicists 'guards' are welcome to jump in with helpful explanations as to why this can't be so, or throw up their hands in despair at the uber-obvious piece of the picture that I am probably missing. I got briefly sidetracked by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that seems to reflect something a little bit different.)
This explanation for the EPR paradox makes sense to me because I think that we can access information that appears to be from our subjective future. (As in, the information correlates more heavily with what we experience in the subjective future than it does with what we experience in the subjective past. Think precognition.) This involves significantly rethinking our definition of, and relationship with, time, which is always a fun exercise. ;)
[Fair warning: I'm coming after entropy too. Just because I can. Just because it's fun.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
