Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:22 pm

dazdude wrote:
So are you saying what we do with airplane is bad science too? It sure is accurate (i.e. it reflects REALITY)
Ray


well that's not what several phd scientist are claiming (May & Utts & Puthoff).


Only those scientists whose opinion is in line with yours. What about the other scientists who disagree? Why do you leave them out?

Do you really believe that with a controversial subject like PSi that looking at three years of work /results out of 24 and from only one source and not ALL sources is good science and a proper and complete evaluation?
Can you , hand on heart really say that you believe this is the best way to have done this and that you see nothing wrong here?


I'm sorry. But before I answer any questions of yours, I am afraid you will have to answer the questions I put to you in my last post. That is only fair, you know. I tend to find that people who cannot offer solid proof of something they claim are the ones who like to leave questions asked of them laying on the side of the road. Sort of as intellectual litter...something you were no longer interested in so *toss*, out the window it goes as you drive on down the road of your beliefs.

I guarantee you that I will not answer your questions above until you answer mine. And I can prove it too! ;)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:50 am

Ryan, quoting heavily from Paul Davies, has interjected an interesting area where physics meets philosophy: the anthropic zone.

Davies argument is invalid for the test invoked by David Deutsch, since information requires representation, a 'metaphysical' quantum world cannot compute; thus it may be possible to someday demonstrate that the multiverse of parallel quantum worlds exist by building a quantum computer that can outperform all of the matter in the visible universe.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby ryguy » Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:49 am

Gary wrote:thus it may be possible to someday demonstrate that the multiverse of parallel quantum worlds exist by building a quantum computer that can outperform all of the matter in the visible universe.


You know...it's hard to put my finger on. But there's just *something* about reading something, and you get this gut feel like it's not very good science, or shaky logic...then you read something else and you think "wow...now that's amazing..."

The article below, to me, reads like that. Really amazing stuff.

A Great NewScientist article on Superstring Theory - and the latest and most promising Theories

Superstring theory was a stunning breakthrough. It became one of the fastest growing and most exciting areas of theoretical physics, generating a feverish outpouring of thousands of papers. Then, in the early 1990s, progress seemed to grind to a halt. People became discouraged when they failed to find the answers to two key questions: where do strings come from, and is our Universe among the many solutions of superstring theory? But now the Internet is buzzing again as papers pour in to the bulletin board at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the official clearing house for superstring papers.

The trigger for this excitement was the discovery of "M-theory", which may answer those two vital questions about superstrings. "I may be biased on this one, but I think it is perhaps the most important development not only in string theory, but also in theoretical physics at least in the past two decades," says Harvard physicist Cumrun Vafa. M-theory led John Schwarz of Caltech, one of the founders of superstring theory, to proclaim a "second superstring revolution". And it inspired a spellbinding three-hour lecture by another leading exponent, Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey. The aftershocks of the breakthrough have spread to other disciplines, too. "The excitement I sense in the people in the field and the spin-offs into my own field of mathematics...have really been quite extraordinary," says Phillip Griffiths, director of the Institute for Advanced Study. "I feel I've been very privileged to witness this first hand."

In one dazzling stroke, M-theory has come close to solving superstring theory's two long-standing questions, leaving many theoretical physicists (myself included) gasping at its power. M-theory, moreover, may even force string theory to change its name because, although many features of M-theory are still unknown, it does not seem to be a theory purely of strings. Other strange beasts seem to emerge, including various types of membranes. Michael Duff of Texas A&M University is already giving talks with the title "The theory formerly known as strings".


Today, however, physicists are following a different trail-the one leading to superstring theory. Unlike previous proposals, it has survived every blistering mathematical challenge ever hurled at it. Not surprisingly, the theory is a radical-some might say crazy-departure from the past, being based on tiny strings vibrating in 10-dimensional space-time.

To understand how going to higher dimensions can help to unify lower dimensions, think back to how the Romans used to fight wars. Without radio communications and spy planes, battles were horribly confused, raging on many fronts at the same time. That's why the Romans always leapt into "hyperspace"-the third dimension-by seizing a hilltop. From this vantage point, they were able to survey the two-dimensional battlefield as a single, unified whole.

Leaping to higher dimensions can also simplify the laws of nature. In 1915, Einstein changed completely our notion of gravity by leaping to the extra dimension of time. In 1919, the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza added a fifth dimension and in so doing unified space-time with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. This triumph was largely forgotten amid the frenzy of interest generated by quantum mechanics. Only in the 1980s did physicists return to this idea to create superstring theory.


Likewise, the laws of physics-the forces between charged particles, for example-are the harmonies of the strings; the Universe is a symphony of vibrating strings. And when strings move in 10-dimensional space-time, they warp the space-time surrounding them in precisely the way predicted by general relativity. So strings simply and elegantly unify the quantum theory of particles and general relativity. Better still, gravity is not an inconvenient add-on. "Unlike conventional quantum field theory, string theory requires gravity," Witten has said. "I regard this fact as one of the greatest insights in science ever made."


Duality in Maxwell's theory is rather trivial. But in M-theory, we find another duality: g1/g. This relationship, though simpler, turns out to be incredibly powerful. When I first saw it, I could hardly believe my eyes. It meant that a string theory defined for large g, which is usually impossible to describe using present-day mathematics, can be shown to be equivalent to another type of string theory for small g, which is easily described using perturbation theory.

Thus, two different string theories can be dual to each other. In the non-perturbative region of string theory was another string theory! This is how, in fact, we prove the equivalence of all five string theories.

Altogether, three different types of duality called S, T and U have been discovered, which yield an intricate web of dualities linking string theories of various dimensions and types. At an incredible pace, physicists have now mapped almost all the solutions and dualities that exist in 10, 8 and 6 dimensions.


Wild stuff...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:17 am

Ryan you might enjoy this update on where M-theory lead the string theorists:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskin ... index.html
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:21 am

Hey Ryan, just doesn’t "feel" right to me for a number of reasons…

1. The math is way over my head and gives me a headache. (i.e. it’s a gross violation of the law of parsimony)

2. The math doesn’t describe our world. (i.e. it’s incomplete)

3. The extra dimensions (strings) are so tiny we can’t observe them. (i.e. it’s unfalsifiable)

4. GR and QM are not necessarily incompatible. (i.e. it's a “solution” to a nonexistent problem)

Then again who knows? I sure don’t… :)

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby ryguy » Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:29 pm

Access Denied wrote:
3. The extra dimensions (strings) are so tiny we can’t observe them. (i.e. it’s unfalsifiable)



Excellent point AD! I figure...since Gary is going to be throwing unfalsifiable theories around here - might as well add a little variety. And *this* one is much prettier than his. ;)

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:01 pm

Guys, the central problem appears to be your BELIEF that these theories cannot be tested empirically?

For the theories I discussed here previously, that is NOT the case.

For certain predictions of some string/membrane theories, with higher dimensions, that is also NOT the case:

http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/?pid=1000446

Revealing the ultimate: extra dimensions?

In our current understanding of the universe, the laws of the very large and the laws of the very small do not mesh. We have already discovered that three of the four known forces share the same mathematical structure described by quantum theory. Is it possible to reconcile gravity (the law of the very large) with quantum theory (the law of the very small)? Could there be a single underlying theory of everything? The ILC’s unique properties could point the way towards the ultimate theory.

String theory is one promising candidate to unify the laws of the large and small. The theory holds that all particles and forces can be thought of as tiny vibrating strings. One pluck of the string makes it a quark, while another makes it a photon – a particle symphony of sorts. String theory brings with it a number of dramatic concepts including supersymmetry and extra dimensions of space.

These extra dimensions are not visible in our everyday world. They are thought to be curled up so small that they will only become visible if probed with powerful accelerators.

If new dimensions exist at the Terascale, the LHC could discover them, and the ILC could determine the number of new dimensions, their size and shape, and which particles live inside them. Together, the LHC and ILC could thus open a window into a new world of quantum gravity.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:47 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_ ... y_collider

But some critics fear the Large Hadron Collider could exceed physicists' wildest conjectures: Will it spawn a black hole that could swallow Earth? Or spit out particles that could turn the planet into a hot dead clump?
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:25 pm

Already “discussed” here a while back…

Will Physicists Find God?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1221
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby dazdude » Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:39 pm

I'm sorry. But before I answer any questions of yours, I am afraid you will have to answer the questions I put to you in my last post. That is only fair, you know.


I'm sorry I couldnt find the questions in the previous post - please if you would repeat them again I will see what I can do.

all the best...

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:55 pm

dazdude wrote:
I'm sorry. But before I answer any questions of yours, I am afraid you will have to answer the questions I put to you in my last post. That is only fair, you know.


I'm sorry I couldnt find the questions in the previous post - please if you would repeat them again I will see what I can do.


Typically, question marks follow questions, hence their name. Here are the questions I asked you:

(1) Are you familiar with what statistical sampling theory is, and what it says with regard to your claim that this is "not good science practice"?

(2) So are you saying what we do with airplane is bad science too?


Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby dazdude » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:18 pm

(1) Are you familiar with what statistical sampling theory is, and what it says with regard to your claim that this is "not good science practice"?

(2) So are you saying what we do with airplane is bad science too?


Ok thanx and for the sarcasm - cuz that helps in a debate.

question1
I am only mildly fleetingly familiar with the theory of this.
But still using this type of approach for a set or projects that use PSi an already, historically hard to pin down phenomena and only sampling a time period that ALL involved in the project knows and reported was a time period when ALL trained remote viewers had left the projects and when morale and accuracy overall was at an all time low - is NOT IMO a proper scientific evaluation of all the available data. If you sample the worst production period in a long project history - hey imagine what data you will get back - go figure???

2. I know nothing about airplane science so I could not possibly answer this - but I'm damn sure the science behind airplanes and how this is evaluated does NOT mean its automatically the best approach for reporting in this case.

If the long term project team are reporting to those who want to make a study that all the best components for that study are gone and that a known and reported effect such a 'morale' was severely affecting the current results - it makes no sense other than cover-up to ONLY report on this reported 'down' period and to not expand the study to include some of the 21 good years of work when they did have trained remote viewers. Surely you don't see this as good scientific and unbiased reporting?

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:14 am

[sigh]

Daz, we've already been over all of this but even Jessica Utts (who believes “anomalous cognition” is possible) agreed it wasn’t necessary to focus on the SRI data…

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html#4.1

The review team decided to focus more intensively on the experiments conducted at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), because they provide a manageable yet varied set to examine in detail. They were guided by a Scientific Oversight Committee consisting of experts in a variety of disciplines, including a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, internationally known professors of statistics, psychology, neuroscience and astronomy and a medical doctor who is a retired U.S. Army Major General. Further, we have access to the details for the full set of SAIC experiments, unlike for the set conducted at SRI. Whatever details may be missing from the written reports are obtainable from the principal investigator, Dr. Edwin May, to whom we have been given unlimited access.

In a memorandum dated July 25, 1995, Dr. Edwin May listed the set of experiments conducted by SAIC. There were ten experiments, all designed to answer questions about psychic functioning, raised by the work at SRI and other laboratories, rather than just to provide additional proof of its existence. Some of the experiments were of a similar format to the remote viewing experiments conducted at SRI and we can examine those to see whether or not they replicated the SRI results. We will also examine what new knowledge can be gained from the results of the SAIC work.

Your point is moot. If it was a "whitewash" or “cover up” as you claim why would she agree with Hyman on this?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Access Denied » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:52 am

ryguy wrote:I figure...since Gary is going to be throwing unfalsifiable theories around here - might as well add a little variety. And *this* one is much prettier than his. ;)

Ah OK got ‘ya... there's definitely more than one way to skin Schrödinger's cat. 8)

Here’s another theory I find even “prettier”…

Using Causality to Solve the Puzzle of Quantum Spacetime
A new approach to the decades-old problem of quantum gravity goes back to basics and shows how the building blocks of space and time pull themselves together

Quantum theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity are famously at loggerheads. Physicists have long tried to reconcile them in a theory of quantum gravity—with only limited success.

A new approach introduces no exotic components but rather provides a novel way to apply existing laws to individual motes of spacetime. The motes fall into place of their own accord, like molecules in a crystal.

This approach shows how four-dimensional spacetime as we know it can emerge dynamically from more basic ingredients. It also suggests that spacetime shades from a smooth arena to a funky fractal on small scales.

Read the rest here in Scientific American…

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the ... m-universe

The Self Organizing Quantum Universe… now there’s a theory I can live with. :D

No doubt the retrocasuality crowd can't... that darn arrow of time keeps ruining all their fun :mrgreen:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Considering Theoretical Foundations to Remote Viewing

Postby Gary » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:58 pm

Thank you for the link AD! I have been following self-organizing / fractal spacetime ideas since the 1990s:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0004/0004152v5.pdf


It is shown that within the framework of the new relativity the cosmological constant problem is nonexistent, since the Universe self-organizes and self-tunes according to the renormalization group (RG) flow with respect to a local scaling microscopic arrow of time. This implies that the world emerged as a result of a nonequilibrium process of self-organized critical phenomena launched by vacuum fluctuations in Cantorian fractal spacetime


Acknowledgements
We thank D. Chakalov, S.Paul King , D. Finkelstein, E. Spallucci, E. Guendelmann, G. Chapline G. Bekkum and R. Guevara for many discussions.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron