I Need Some Idea's: Pros and Cons Welcomed

[AlphaNumeric]

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]

To seriously consider this proposition, one would first have to show that an electrochemical model of the brain could not work.

 

[Enmos]

What makes up identity ?
Do we all have the same identity, or does this universal consciousness already harbor countless indentities we tap into ?

 

[Reiku]

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...

 

[Reiku]

Therefore, this makes it a protoscience, rather than a psuedoscience, i believe.

 

[Reiku]

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.

 

[Reiku]

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.

 

[Reiku]

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]

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?

 

[Reiku]

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]

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.

 

[Reiku]

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.

 

[Reiku]

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]

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?

 

[Reiku]

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?

 

[Enmos]

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 ?

 

[Reiku]

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.

 

[Enmos]

I don't agree with anything of the above.
What do you have against the conventional theories ?

 

[draqon]

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.

 

[Enmos]

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..