The Supernatural - Science?

[Polymath257]

Defy is my key word. A known phenomena that absolutely can not be explained in standard physical terms.

Dark matter is an unknown, so i cant classify it. Dark matter could be weakly interacting with normal matter. I wouldnt classify it.

I have never come across anything supernatural. Perhaps inflation or quantum entanglement might defy physical explanation; a known physical cause.

I dont believe in magic

Interesting that entanglement is being treated quite well by the *scientific* theory of quantum mechanics. Given that QM is a physical theory (which is why it is a topic is physics), this seems like the *least* supernatural thing.

 

[osgart]

Interesting that entanglement is being treated quite well by the *scientific* theory of quantum mechanics. Given that QM is a physical theory (which is why it is a topic is physics), this seems like the *least* supernatural thing.

So how do you explain physically the non local relationship between particles where the distance isnt even a factor?

Perhaps you can exploit and use the phenomenon you can so accurately measure, but can you explain it physically in sensible terms?

I hear the attitude among many scientists is to shut up and calculate. That sounds more like manipulation then explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

So how do you explain physically the non local relationship between particles where the distance isnt even a factor?

Perhaps you can exploit and use the phenomenon you can so accurately measure, but can you explain it physically in sensible terms?

I hear the attitude among many scientists is to shut up and calculate. That sounds more like manipulation then explanation.

What does it mean to explain something? We have a mathematical description that allows us to predict the results of observations, allowing us to develop technology based on those calculations.

No, quantum mechanics isn't the same as classical mechanics. The concepts are different. The nature of particles is different. The physics is different. But, yes, entanglement, its meaning, and how it affects correlations between distant objects is a part of the quantum description of the universe. And, at the mathematical level, it isn't even that difficult to work with.

Ultimately, the joint wavefunction of particles describes in detail how the properties of the particles are correlated.

But, if you only consider classical descriptions to be 'sensible', then you won't ever understand what QM is saying. The sensibilities of modern physics are different than those from 200 years ago. What it means to be 'physical' has shifted as our understanding grows also. But QM is science. It is, in fact, the best scientific theory we have ever had. It is often counter-intuitive, but it is internally consistent and actually works in practice. And, with practice, it isn't even that difficult to change intuitions and find it has its own sense and logic.

 

[osgart]

What does it mean to explain something? We have a mathematical description that allows us to predict the results of observations, allowing us to develop technology based on those calculations.

No, quantum mechanics isn't the same as classical mechanics. The concepts are different. The nature of particles is different. The physics is different. But, yes, entanglement, its meaning, and how it affects correlations between distant objects is a part of the quantum description of the universe. And, at the mathematical level, it isn't even that difficult to work with.

Ultimately, the joint wavefunction of particles describes in detail how the properties of the particles are correlated.

But, if you only consider classical descriptions to be 'sensible', then you won't ever understand what QM is saying. The sensibilities of modern physics are different than those from 200 years ago. What it means to be 'physical' has shifted as our understanding grows also. But QM is science. It is, in fact, the best scientific theory we have ever had. It is often counter-intuitive, but it is internally consistent and actually works in practice. And, with practice, it isn't even that difficult to change intuitions and find it has its own sense and logic.

So the joint wavefunction defines the particle relationship?

Do you mean like in the same way one glove is related to another of a pair?

What is a joint wavefunction?

Perhaps you are manipulating effects with mathematical tricks, without understanding the causes of those phenomena?

 

[nPeace]

Kaku is the last person on earth i would think would subscribe to cosmic consciousness. But if someone is going to postulate that cosmic consciousness is real, what next?, eternal life. A creator perhaps!

The flying spaghetti monsters keep flying across the table.

Which flying spaghetti monster is correct, and of course, how would you test it?

I myself think math is a manipulative science. I dont think math is the whole logic on things. If numbers show anything its just one aspect of the whole picture. Perhaps we live in a just so world, where numbers are so precisely accurate, that the math world touches upon the physical world. In other places maybe the math goes awry, because numbers dont reflect anything consistently observable, and maybe numbers are too one dimensional.
The mathematical world is a sure place til you hit the real world.
Anyways i got a B in pre calc, what would i know.

Some things do make you wonder though; life exists just so in an otherwise hostile existence. Given two options: 1) that we are uniquely made 2) we just happen to be with no guiding principle but the laws of physics. I am not willing to throw option 1 off the table so easily.

Think of a video game, where man finds himself on a world, where he has no clue of where he is from, or where he is going - no history, no future... But he must find out... And time is running out. Fast!

Hey! This game sound exciting, doesn't it?
The character is not left completely helpless. There are clues... of course... each leading to different destinies. Of course,
What's the fun of a game if you can't lose? So the path chosen, matters.

Some chose to follow a path where the clues are from ancient writings. Count me in. They are considered stupid... by the ones who chose other paths. Oh Okay.

Others chose a path they consider the true path, the right path, the only path, that will lead them to.......... the Theory of Everything (TOE). To some they are considered... cuckoo.

The journey has begun.

I think each player will make the decisions they think will help them beat the game. After all no one likes to lose. Right?
So I think sincere people - scientists, religious fanat... I mean religious people - are trying what they think works. I don't know if there are any non-science, non-religious people, but some people do like to watch others play first, before they jump into it, so everyone is a character in this game.

Me. I think the clues from the ancients are spot on. They outline and plot a path that seem clear as day, and each step forward the light seem to get brighter and brighter.
The scientists say the same thing, but there seems to me to be a lot of human directed clues - as though the player is laying down the clues, as they advance.

For example, in this video 'Quantum Physics Explained' - randomness is not really random - it's human-directed.
It seems to me, the patterns created are speculated and then produced by human direction. Randomness does not work by human intervention.
So it quite easy to get a speculated view to work, which is what I have seen in most science today.

Speaking of which...
When did consciousness arise? With sentient being? Was the universe here before sentient beings, or did it only exist with the evolution of the brain? Or does consciousness exist outside the brain - in some pocket of the universe?

Or did consciousness exist before the universe - outside the universe, and in what I think scientists are playing Dodge Ball with - Causality.

 

[nPeace]

So the joint wavefunction defines the particle relationship?

Do you mean like in the same way one glove is related to another of a pair?

What is a joint wavefunction?

Perhaps you are manipulating effects with mathematical tricks, without understanding the causes of those phenomena?

Everything in reverse huh? We make gloves to fit hands right? Not the other way around. Right?

 

[Polymath257]

So the joint wavefunction defines the particle relationship?

Yes.

Do you mean like in the same way one glove is related to another of a pair?

What is a joint wavefunction?

I'll attempt to do a simplified account. For every result of a measurement you can obtain, there is a function that describes a particle that gives that result when that measurement is made. That function is called the eigenfunction for that type of measurement and that value of the measurement. When dealing with eigenfunctions, there is no quantum indeterminacy.

Actual particle wave functions are sums of these eigenfunctions. This is called a superposition. When this happens, and an observation is made, more than one possible value for the measurement is possible and we can compute the probabilities of each possible measurement by the mix of eigenfunctions in the sum. This is known as quantum indeterminacy: there is more than one possible value for the measurement and only the probability of each value can be found.

When you have two particles, the eigenfunctions for the pair are products of the eigenfunctions of the individual particles and say that the measurement for one particle will be one particular value and the measurement for the second will be some (other) particular value. Again, being a eigenfunction means there is no indeterminacy.

But, we can have sums of those joint eigenfunctions. This introduces indeterminacy but also says that any particular measurement will give correlated measurements in the two particles. This is entanglement.

Perhaps you are manipulating effects with mathematical tricks, without understanding the causes of those phenomena?

Well, causality itself is brought into question in QM. The vast majority of quantum level events are not 'caused' in the classical sense. In many cases, only the probabilities of results can be found. The indeterminacy is inherent in the description.

Now, for entangled particles, when a measurement comes out one way for one of the pair, it will come out the correlated way because of the specific eigenfunction for that first particle. This correlation is formed when the particles first interact (or are formed) and is maintained even after they separate. This is why the measurements even when far away will remain correlated. There is no signal going between entangled particles: the correlation was there from the start. But which of the indeterminate entangled eigenfunctions is the result of any one measurement is completely random.

 

[osgart]

Yes.



I'll attempt to do a simplified account. For every result of a measurement you can obtain, there is a function that describes a particle that gives that result when that measurement is made. That function is called the eigenfunction for that type of measurement and that value of the measurement. When dealing with eigenfunctions, there is no quantum indeterminacy.

Actual particle wave functions are sums of these eigenfunctions. This is called a superposition. When this happens, and an observation is made, more than one possible value for the measurement is possible and we can compute the probabilities of each possible measurement by the mix of eigenfunctions in the sum. This is known as quantum indeterminacy: there is more than one possible value for the measurement and only the probability of each value can be found.

When you have two particles, the eigenfunctions for the pair are products of the eigenfunctions of the individual particles and say that the measurement for one particle will be one particular value and the measurement for the second will be some (other) particular value. Again, being a eigenfunction means there is no indeterminacy.

But, we can have sums of those joint eigenfunctions. This introduces indeterminacy but also says that any particular measurement will give correlated measurements in the two particles. This is entanglement.



Well, causality itself is brought into question in QM. The vast majority of quantum level events are not 'caused' in the classical sense. In many cases, only the probabilities of results can be found. The indeterminacy is inherent in the description.

Now, for entangled particles, when a measurement comes out one way for one of the pair, it will come out the correlated way because of the specific eigenfunction for that first particle. This correlation is formed when the particles first interact (or are formed) and is maintained even after they separate. This is why the measurements even when far away will remain correlated. There is no signal going between entangled particles: the correlation was there from the start. But which of the indeterminate entangled eigenfunctions is the result of any one measurement is completely random.

So how the correlation is maintained would be the mystery to me. The act of measuring one, will tell the others position.

So if the eigenfunction was a song its merely playing the tune simultaneously, though totally separated by great distances? And when you measure your just catching the song on a particular note?

Or perhaps it could mean that the distance of space is meaningless in the relationship?

Somehow the consistency of relation maintains itself in both places wheras nothing need be transmitted; the particles are just obeying their prior relation. Yet one is measured and the other serves up a particular result as if there is a communication going on at the time of measurement.

You are influencing the outcome with the measurement. The song should break off instead, but the relationship is astonishingly maintained.

There must be a memory and a communication in the result because it happens to be in sync 100% of the time. Its like you are stopping the song to find the particle's position, and on the other side of the universe the song also stops and produces the particular position that you know it will be.

 

[osgart]

Think of a video game, where man finds himself on a world, where he has no clue of where he is from, or where he is going - no history, no future... But he must find out... And time is running out. Fast!

Hey! This game sound exciting, doesn't it?
The character is not left completely helpless. There are clues... of course... each leading to different destinies. Of course,
What's the fun of a game if you can't lose? So the path chosen, matters.

Some chose to follow a path where the clues are from ancient writings. Count me in. They are considered stupid... by the ones who chose other paths. Oh Okay.

Others chose a path they consider the true path, the right path, the only path, that will lead them to.......... the Theory of Everything (TOE). To some they are considered... cuckoo.

The journey has begun.

I think each player will make the decisions they think will help them beat the game. After all no one likes to lose. Right?
So I think sincere people - scientists, religious fanat... I mean religious people - are trying what they think works. I don't know if there are any non-science, non-religious people, but some people do like to watch others play first, before they jump into it, so everyone is a character in this game.

Me. I think the clues from the ancients are spot on. They outline and plot a path that seem clear as day, and each step forward the light seem to get brighter and brighter.
The scientists say the same thing, but there seems to me to be a lot of human directed clues - as though the player is laying down the clues, as they advance.

For example, in this video 'Quantum Physics Explained' - randomness is not really random - it's human-directed.
It seems to me, the patterns created are speculated and then produced by human direction. Randomness does not work by human intervention.
So it quite easy to get a speculated view to work, which is what I have seen in most science today.

Speaking of which...
When did consciousness arise? With sentient being? Was the universe here before sentient beings, or did it only exist with the evolution of the brain? Or does consciousness exist outside the brain - in some pocket of the universe?

Or did consciousness exist before the universe - outside the universe, and in what I think scientists are playing Dodge Ball with - Causality.

Consciousness is the invisible elephant in the room i suppose. Just find the brain correlates and call it a problem solved.

Its hard to follow, i personally dont see how consciousness is computational. The language of science often escapes me.

I would say they could explain the brain in terms of its physical functioning. But to read a thought, or to interpret a heartfelt emotion requires an added dimension that goes totally off the board.

 

[nPeace]

Consciousness is the invisible elephant in the room i suppose. Just find the brain correlates and call it a problem solved.

Its hard to follow, i personally dont see how consciousness is computational. The language of science often escapes me.

Yes. So more problems with these theories.
I think it's a problem with 19th-20th century science.
I don't trust much so-called knowledge in the world today. Revelation 12:9

I'm still looking at Einstein's nightmare - Quantum Mechanics, and trying to understand it overall - for the purpose of knowledge... of course.

 

[Polymath257]

Consciousness is the invisible elephant in the room i suppose. Just find the brain correlates and call it a problem solved.

Its hard to follow, i personally dont see how consciousness is computational. The language of science often escapes me.

I would say they could explain the brain in terms of its physical functioning. But to read a thought, or to interpret a heartfelt emotion requires an added dimension that goes totally off the board.

The remarkable thing is that we are starting to be able to read thoughts from detailed brain scans. We can distinguish between different emotions from brain scans. Of the two, emotions are far easier, partly because they tend to be less specific.

There are also the advances made in artificial limbs for those with severe paralysis. We can now integrate some types of limbs into our *brain* functioning. so they are, in essence, reading our thoughts.

 

[nPeace]

Consciousness is the invisible elephant in the room i suppose. Just find the brain correlates and call it a problem solved.

Its hard to follow, i personally dont see how consciousness is computational. The language of science often escapes me.

I would say they could explain the brain in terms of its physical functioning. But to read a thought, or to interpret a heartfelt emotion requires an added dimension that goes totally off the board.

Directing the outcome/results.