Is the past just as maliable as the future?

[MD]

Multiverse theories have not been proven, and still only lie within the realm of theoretical physics and are highly debated. If I walk through the woods, and I discover a tree that appears to have been violently torn apart and it has scorch marks throughout, it is damaged. And just because I may forget about it does not mean the damage will heal, or the tree will go away. It will still be there, just as damaged if not more damaged from decay, for the next person to stumble upon it.
And there are no leading, testable, or credible theories of physics that revolve around someone someone needing to be around to observe it. Largely because it does not fit in with any scientific knowledge. If perception was key the Titanic truly would have been unsinkable, and we would not have any knowledge of the dinosaurs as their fossils were not observed by any cognitively aware beings for millions of years.

I think the copenhagen interpretation stated that the tree is superposed in many states and it is the act of something which decoheres all the states into one. I specifically stated three possibilities: observation, consciousness and the environment. If the environment decoheres something that would require one of the superposed particles to be decohered by another particle. The whole consciousness collapses wave forms has some evidence behind it but is highly speculative yes. However you are assuming that only humans have consciousness, which is not true whatsoever. If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe then it may cause decoherence without needing human beings.

First, he is a biocentrist and not a physicist. And the future cannot effect anything, as it is not hear yet. And if the past could be altered, we would not have any sort of stability in the present, as even a slightly altered past could have tremendous effects on the present.
And how could you possibly set up such a study as the future has not happened for us to have any knowledge of it (and precognition is outside of the laws of physics), and we do not have any links to the past except for what is left behind. And why is such a finding, if it was valid, not found on nearly every news source archive and not found to be featured on TV shows like Nova? But rather you will not hear any credible physicist even mention anything that even remotely comes close to the ideas of quantum mysticism.

He may be a biocentrist but he bases his theory on QM. QM is known to defy causality and locality. I'm talking more about retrocausality. Didn't Feynman and Wheeler employ retrocausality for their Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Would you label them as non credible scientists?

I suppose saying an object on solid-mass may work for a definition. But indeed the universe existed before anyone could observe it, or else there would be nothing as there would have been nothing to allow for any living organisms to arise and perceive the world around them. If it took perception to create the universe, then how did anything ever come to be as there would be nothing to observe which means nothing to create.
An example would be cholesterol. If everything required observation, then eating saturated fats would not clog our blood vessels because no one knew or saw this until Da Vinci. But because things happen without direct knowledge of or observation of, he was able to make the observation of clogged blood vessels while he would be dissecting bodies he exhumed to study them.

I don't understand your point about perception. Perceptions create our version of the universe. The universe exists but it is only through our perceptions that we can see what it exists as. If we were to see the universe without our perceptions it would simply be static.

 

[savagewind]

I believe what is done is done. But is it possible for the mind to prevail upon the mind of someone in the past to change it's course and NOT do what it would do which effected the now or even to do something that changed the course humanity was on? I wonder about that sometimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He may be a biocentrist but he bases his theory on QM. QM is known to defy causality and non locality. I'm talking more about retrocausality. Didn't Feynman and Wheeler employ retrocausality for their Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory?

His brand of quantum mechanics is that of quantum mysticism, which is labeled as a misrepresentation of quantum mechanics at best, and many times it is nothing more than pseudoscience. Things like "What the bleep do we know" and "The Secret" are not real science, are gross misrepresentations of data, interviews, and what actually happens, and you will find no credible physicist discussing them as a source of valid data.
Also quantum mechanics is still a part of physics, thus making what a biocentrist says on the subject less credible than what a physicist says on the subject.

I believe what is done is done. But is it possible for the mind to prevail upon the mind of someone in the past to change it's course and NOT do what it would do which effected the now or even to do something that changed the course humanity was on? I wonder about that sometimes.

Such a thing just simply is not possible.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/mystic.pdf

 

[savagewind]

Such a thing just simply is not possible.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/mystic.pdf
[/QUOTE]


The notion of a holistic universe, with everything instantaneously
connected to everything else, occurs in a number of interpretations of
quantum mechanics. In one class of interpretations, still-undetected subquantum forces operate on particles to determine their microscopic
motion.
2
Theory and experiment strongly assert that these forces, if they
exist, necessarily must act instantaneously over any distance. But neither
theory nor experiment require that such sub-quantum forces exist. Their
existence is pure speculation.

Why are they still speculating on it if it has been disproved?

 

[MD]

His brand of quantum mechanics is that of quantum mysticism, which is labeled as a misrepresentation of quantum mechanics at best, and many times it is nothing more than pseudoscience. Things like "What the bleep do we know" and "The Secret" are not real science, are gross misrepresentations of data, interviews, and what actually happens, and you will find no credible physicist discussing them as a source of valid data.
Also quantum mechanics is still a part of physics, thus making what a biocentrist says on the subject less credible than what a physicist says on the subject.

I was talking about retrocausality and instead focus on things I haven't even mentioned. Are you saying that Cramer, Stapp, Feynman and Wheeler are non reputable physicists?

 

[MD]

Why are they still speculating on it if it has been disproved?

Because noone has a good understanding on QM, some people like to claim that they do but they don't.

 

[savagewind]

Because noone has a good understanding on QM, some people like to claim that they do but they don't.

Power does not have to be understood before it is effective. In your own mind have you proved it not true?

I have not proved it. I imagine it is possible. You believe it is not possible. How so please?