Ex-Stargate Head Ed May Unyielding Re Materialism, Slams Dean Radin |341|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 28, 2017.

  1. NateC

    NateC Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    I strongly agree. Mostly, I think, because the current physics paradigm (and I include Relativity here with its lightspeed communication barrier) seems to have set itself staunchly against psi, and that seems like a losing horse.

    I remember reading Hawkings A Brief History of Time and discussing the speed of light as an absolute speed limit with my mother, who had had an NDE, and she was just like 'well, I don't care what physics says - I know what I saw. Up there, we can travel at the speed of thought, and that's infinitely fast.'

    So I've always been skeptical of even Relativity, or at least the way it's often used as the foundation of a hardcore physicalist argument. 'Nothing, but nothing, can ever travel faster than light, therefore even if there were a God, it would take billions of years for your thoughts to reach Him and you'd be dead before He answered'.

    Do we have a discussion area for Relativity? I'm trying to get my head around at least SR, and unfortunately I'm more familiar with the arguments against it than the mainstream physical view. Each time I crack open a textbook my mind just glazes over; I can't grasp how two observers can observe each other moving slower than the other and that this is not an illusory, just-observed effect but is also somehow physically 'real' or consistent. Eg, I read Herbert Dingle's 'Science at the Crossroads' at a young age and it warped my brain; and I've read a lot on the various Twin and Clock Paradoxes since. I try to check the mainstream rebuttals but they all seem to be completely missing the point that Dingle made.

    I understand, vaguely, I think, the difference between the three kinds of time dilation: observer-dependent relative-velocity-dependant dilation, non-observer-dependent round-trip dilation of an objectively accelerated vs less-unaccelerated observer (as calculated in a shared 'world frame', rather than either observer's frame, eg, something like Earth Centred Inertial for GPS), and GR's non-observer-dependent gravitational time dilation (eg time in orbit moves objectively slower than time on Earth's surface).

    I don't have a problem with the two objective, non-observer-dependant time dilations. But I'd like to try to understand what it is that I'm missing in the mainstream view of SR, particularly that first observer-dependent, reciprocal, unaccelerated straight-line time dilation that was the basis of Einstein's 1905 paper. Just can't get my head around (nor could Dingle, who taught Relativity until this problem struck him) how two physical, really-existing values A and B can be simultaneously less than, greater than, and equal to each other, and that this still somehow all comes out okay (?) in the end. How can you build a consistent geometry on an axiom that says lines are both equal and not equal (depending on the observer)? Is there any physical content to such a theory? Woudn't it at the very least require spacetime to be not 'a' single shared geometry but 'an entire multiverse of different geometries', with each observer in a different universe? So the fact that we've ended up with a String Theory multiverse with no predictive value doesn't surprise me; the seed of the multiverse catastrophe was there in 1905. I were going to rewrite physics, I'd start with teasing out what that paradox implies for any theories built on it.

    Regards, Nate
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
    Nelson and Obiwan like this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,012
    Nelson,

    I would definitely remove QM from that list - I feel that ordinary (i.e. non-relativistic) QM is pretty well tested on the scale of atoms and molecules.

    I do wonder about SR and GR, though EthanT, who knows a lot more physics than me, seems happier with them too.

    I got excited with the idea of the Electric Universe, for a while, but their explanation of why the sun shines, seems muddled. I mean, the sun can't just be an anode - it would charge up at great speed - and if it is an element of a circuit, it isn't obvious where the current enters and exits (maybe through the poles?). I did contact Wal Thornhill, and he confirmed my calculation of the speed at which the sun would charge up, but didn't really explain what was going on any clearer.

    Nevertheless, the fact that electric forces are so much stronger than gravitational ones, and both follow the inverse square law, it does suggest that electric forces must play a bigger role than is currently supposed.

    David
     
    Alex, Nelson and Stephen Wright like this.
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,012
    I certainly sympathise, but the twins in the twin paradox are not equivalent, whatever inertial frame you use to observe them. This is because the one that jets off in the rocket, and eventually returns to the earth has undergone a lot of acceleration, which his brother hasn't.

    I hate the idea of GR - that the coordinate system itself warps! It is worth remembering that that form of tensor analysis was created to facilitate the study of the physics of deformable materials. So if you fix the coordinate system to a lump of rubber (say), each bit of the rubber keeps the same coordinate as the stuff is squashed, but the coordinate system warps! Using that in the context of free space just feels wrong to me.

    David
     
  4. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

    The Physical World as a Virtual Reality
    Brian Whitworth
    Massey University, Albany, Auckland, New Zealand
    ...
    This paper
    applies computer knowledge to physics, and proposes virtual reality theory as a real hypothesis
    about the knowable world. This approach could open up new ideas, as virtual objects need no
    inherent properties or locations beyond those embodied in the calculations that create them. A
    virtual reality theory could reconcile the contradiction between relativity and quantum theory, as
    the former could be how information processing creates space-time, and the latter how it creates
    energy, matter and charge.
    ...
    Maximum processing rate. The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a
    screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it. In general, a virtual
    world’s maximum event rate is fixed by the allocated processing capacity. In our world, the
    fixed maximum that comes to mind is the speed of light. That there is an absolute maximum
    speed could reflect a maximum information processing rate (see next section).

    ...
    Processing load effects. On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow
    down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual.
    Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive
    body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve”
    and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light
    speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects
    could then arise from local processing overloads.
    The same paper also makes sense of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics in terms of a computer simulation and explains how relativity and quantum mechanics can both be correct.
     
  5. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552

    Do you think the universe might have exploitable bugs like in The Matrix?
     
  6. The program is running in consciousness including your consciousness. You can use the api any time you want. It isn't a bug.

    Personally, I don't like to do that though because the unintended consequences are hard to predict.

     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
    Brian_the_bard likes this.
  7. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    Good point. I hesitated as I added QM to the list, because as far as I understand it what they've reported in the lab experiments is real, but the theories to explain it are typically way off.

    Impressive about your calculations and Thornhill agreeing with you. Wow, some high powered people on this forum. :)

    I can't comment that much about the physics side of things (just a layman's interest), but re mythology, I also didn't get a lot of what Thornhill et al. were getting at with the planets, cosmic thunderbolts and the myths. I don't think it was explained enough in their "Thunderbolts of the Gods" video. But then hearing the interview with Seriah from wheredidtheroadgo and the persistent questions Seriah asked, it came together so well.

    So I hope you'll persist with questioning Thornhill, it'd be great to get this out.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
  8. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    What a wonderful anecdote! It reminds me what pseudo-skeptics complain about regarding NDEs, that those who've experienced them don't come back with any testable knowledge; but at least in many cases they really do!

    At least I'd take the word of a NDEer over a theoretical physicist any day. :)
     
    David Bailey likes this.
  9. iPsoFacTo

    iPsoFacTo New

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    292
    Much of what you guys are writing is so over my head right now without me having to study a whole bunch of stuff, lol

    So dumb question.... doesn't non locality break the rule of this whole 'psi/nde/whatever' phenomena having to obey speed of light limit or
    the square of the distance thing to how fast it can propagate?

    Isn't non locality the buggaboo in the the whole limit information can spread? Isn't part of materialism's argument is that
    everything must propagate by a field or objects being in contact in order to pass energy like a bucket brigade, down the line, to
    finally affect some distant object?

    Has there been an explanation for non locality besides it being proven experimentally?
     
    Nelson and Hurmanetar like this.
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,012
    One of the things about QM is that it explains why atoms and molecules have distinct properties. Think of the old concept of an atom as being like a solar system - with electrons instead of planets, and the nucleus instead of the sun. Obviously the properties of that solar system atom would be infinitely deformable - put a bit more energy into an electron here, take a bit out there..... if you place yourself back into pre-QM science, that must be one of the great mysteries - how do things have well defined values. QM answers that because the wave function of an atom or molecule is a standing wave, and just like an organ pipe, the wave can only have particular shapes.

    There were other mysteries for pre-QM science, but I like that one best.
    LOL - well not that impressive. They (seem to be) describing the sun as getting energy from an intergalactic electric current that flows into the sun over a potential difference of 10 million volts. That lets you calculate the charge that would arrive at the sun per second to produce its observed output energy. So if you think of the sun as a spherical capacitor, it is possible to work out the rate it would discharge in this way. I don't suppose the calculation was exact - because for example what number do you put it for the radius of the sun (given that its atmosphere extends out indefinitely) but the answer came out as just 260 seconds!

    David
     
    Nelson, Obiwan and Baccarat like this.
  11. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    726
    Are you talking about the Thornhill from the Electric Universe?
     
  12. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    I just have opinions about this. And I don't have the background to say anything definitive. "It from bit" and the idea of a Participatory Universe have a lot to do with the modern outlook. These ideas came from the pen (or keyboard) of John Wheeler. The first idea, in my own words, is that before a physical event happens there is/are informational configuration(s) that caused it. Wheeler can be seen as a one of the founding fathers of Digital Physics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics My stance is with Sayre and Floridi, whom get mentioned in the article.

    Wheeler's universe has as a natural part of itself - observing agents. Living things observe the interactions of their environment and it can be seen holistically as a single system. Mind is not an artificial aspect, but is intrinsic to nature.

    The universe has matter and energy AND it has in addition both semantic information and it has formal/technical information. Each of these 4 abstractions have units of measure that apply in a discrete manner to each. In the case of formal (Shannnon) information it's bits, complexity and sequence. There are bits being transformed and communicated, with or without living things. Semantic information takes mind for there to be localized understanding of real environments. Logic helps us parse meaning and context. Symbols are semantic information, and require agents to understand them.

    I lump believers of the Matrix, the Singularity, and quantum consciousness into a category of wishful thinking, similar to mutliversers and Physicalists, such as D. Lewis and J. Searle. The pragmatic views of C. S. Peirce and William James are more my cup of tea. That information objects and processes proceed the manifestation of physical objects and events is pragmatic to me. So is the observation that living things observe reality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    Nelson and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,012
    Yes.

    David
     
  14. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    lol, still sounds impressive to me! :p
     
  15. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    That was an interesting read and ingenious the way it interweaves computer mechanics with relativity. But IMO this is just more ingenious but massively flawed theorizing. After all, the following is an assumption:

    According to Thornhill et al. it is an incorrect assumption, because galaxies stay together, and galaxies are millions of light years across. If they were only held together by a force moving no faster than the speed of light, then they wouldn't hold such a neat spiral form.
     
  16. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    My "go-to" physicist, Wal Thornhill, describes nonlocality as meaningless language, that is used to cover up gaping holes in the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.

    As far as I understand it, the following is correct: experiments show instantaneous "communication" (changes in charge) between subatomic particles, regardless of their position in the universe. However, what is incorrect is this: the arbitrary and incorrect idea of Einstein that there is a speed limit of communication in the universe, and (2) the unbelievable lengths theoretical physicists will go to make the experimental data from quantum experiments fit in with what Einstein said it should be.

    In other words, there is physics dealing with experimental data, and there is a pile of insane theoretical physics that is dumped over the top.
     
    iPsoFacTo and Stephen Wright like this.
  17. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,012
    I have pulled that paper down to read on my Kindle. I like the idea that time would slow down near a large concentration of mass because of processing delays - but note that that must mean that the processing is parallel - if it were all done by one super fast serial processor you wouldn't get an effect like that.

    As you say, presumably we are talking about processing - otherwise the concept doesn't actually solve anything - you just have another layer to physical reality, and there is still no explanation of the Hard Problem!

    David
     
  18. Right. The paper only goes so far. The next step is to understand that the simulation is running in consciousness.
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/occasionally-i-post-something-to.html#misc_universe_sim_god
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  19. Nelson

    Nelson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    141
    I'd say the next step is to look for the assumptions stated as facts. A case in point: at the 1:20 mark in the video: "At the beginning, the Big Bang [...] The fact remains: our universe, space-time, began to exist"...

    Actually, the Big Bang is just a story. The Red Shift isn't proof of an expanding universe. Compare:
     
  20. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    I agree about some of modern analysis. Still physicists deserve all due credit for the design of experiments (DOE) and diligent taking of measurements!

    The mathematical physicists, like Einstein can be confused about what their math may yield as narratives - but can still be just as much explorers of reality. The world-view of informational realism accepts information objects (such as math objects) as being part of our environments. They are real as much as the motion of particles or planets they describe. The speed of light is a measurement, which is an empirical observation. Einstein worked it into an math object and therefore created a tool to understand reality. Communication is a physical act in terms of empirical measurement of a signal.

    I think you put communication via entanglement in quotes, and if one thinks everything that is real is a particle - then it is a paradox! However, if some (if not most) communication is from structured information, then entanglement was a sure-fire discovery as soon as we looked. It is my idea (please someone correct me or add the real story) that Einstein helped the discovery of entanglement with his EPR paper. Rather than not accepting entanglement, his math predicted it. He just thought it couldn't be true, because of locality in the metaphysics of Physicalism. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/EPR/
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    Nelson likes this.

Share This Page