Author Topic: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light  (Read 10560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2010, 02:02:42 PM »
I'm not surprised to find strong opposition even at this early stage.

It's not so much opposition.  Alternate models could easily be just as valid.  The problem
is that there would be a ton of work involved in rebuilding our models around a different
interpretation, and I just don't see why it's worth the effort.

Then again, this isn't a new problem.  One of the arguments people used against Copernicus
was that his method didn't really simplify the Ptolemaic calculations.  It took the later
observations by Galileo to really start to convince people there was a reason to change.
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2010, 04:52:52 PM »
just don't see why it's worth the effort.
I think because it takes us from being alienated, isolated blips in an automatic, mechanical, yet purposeless universe to opening the door to a re-Enlightened Cosmos of deep subjective inclusiveness and participation, authentic identities, lives that matter and matter that lives, beauty and shared experience down to the fabric of the universe instead of behaviorist instrumentalism driving irrelevant simulations of the same. It makes us human beings at home in the universe instead of undead meat robots reproducing.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2010, 10:00:07 PM »
I think because it takes us from being alienated, isolated blips in an automatic, mechanical, yet purposeless universe to opening the door to a re-Enlightened Cosmos of deep subjective inclusiveness and participation, authentic identities, lives that matter and matter that lives, beauty and shared experience down to the fabric of the universe instead of behaviorist instrumentalism driving irrelevant simulations of the same. It makes us human beings at home in the universe instead of undead meat robots reproducing.

Why is changing science necessary?

Science may be a simulation of reality, but no more so then our own senses are.  We can never directly perceive the world--it's always filtered and processed through various organs and our very fallible brain. In many ways, science helps us correct those errors and know more of the world than we would otherwise be capable of.

If you still find science is somehow not filling a need,  what in particular that is keeping you from being happy and content with the world exactly as it appears to be?



If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2010, 02:51:03 AM »
Why is changing science necessary?
Science has always changed to reach deeper understanding. That is the purpose of science.

Quote
Science may be a simulation of reality, but no more so then our own senses are.  We can never directly perceive the world--it's always filtered and processed through various organs and our very fallible brain. In many ways, science helps us correct those errors and know more of the world than we would otherwise be capable of.
Science extends our senses and adds yet another filter on our view of the world through various tools, and methodologies. It amplifies the fallibility of the brain as well as corrects it.

Quote
If you still find science is somehow not filling a need,  what in particular that is keeping you from being happy and content with the world exactly as it appears to be?
The world exactly as it appears to be to whom?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2010, 09:17:18 AM »

^^^ I disagree. The purpose of science is to get the most accurate understanding of reality that is possible. Scientists shouldn't care if the insight is deep or not.
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2010, 11:00:21 AM »
^^^ I disagree. The purpose of science is to get the most accurate understanding of reality that is possible. Scientists shouldn't care if the insight is deep or not.

That's fair. I'm talking about science as a whole, not the work of individual scientists or scientific disciplines. Also I meant a 'deeper understanding' to include 'more accurate'.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline xphobe

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5364
  • Darwins +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • the truth is out there
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2010, 05:49:22 PM »
It makes us human beings at home in the universe instead of undead meat robots reproducing.

Whether we turn out to be undead meat robots reproducing, or beauty and shared experience at home in the fabric of the univese, does it make a difference?  I still enjoy life, and I feel the same about myself and others either way.

For that matter, why can't we be both?
I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2010, 06:13:05 AM »
Whether we turn out to be undead meat robots reproducing, or beauty and shared experience at home in the fabric of the univese, does it make a difference?  I still enjoy life, and I feel the same about myself and others either way.

For that matter, why can't we be both?
Oh, yeah I think that definitely we are both, and we have the ability to shift our awareness in between the two somewhat on the fly (hence my OMM vs ACME continuum).

If anything we are more meat robots than enlightened beings - gravity has the upper hand as far it being relentlessly automatic (like right wingers  :D ), while electromagnetic feelings sometimes have to be chosen, are unpredictable, and are difficult either to maintain or turn off.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2010, 07:13:25 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEl-fTtP2tw[/youtube]

One more thing... With this model, the color you see is WYSIWYG color. None of that 'a blueberry is actually every color but blue, so the blue is just the frequency of light that is reflected into your eyeball.'

I'm thinking no. The blueberry looks blue because when your retina looks at it and imitates the sense of the experience, blue is how the human optic nerve and visual cortex imitates it, and the visual cortex is you. The subjective states and external behaviors of the tissues, cells, molecules, and atoms of the brain are you.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2010, 04:06:37 AM »
I'm thinking no. The blueberry looks blue because when your retina looks at it and imitates the sense of the experience, blue is how the human optic nerve and visual cortex imitates it, and the visual cortex is you. The subjective states and external behaviors of the tissues, cells, molecules, and atoms of the brain are you.

Dude, seriously, whatever your on....... SHARE!  Cause you're trippin'!
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2010, 03:10:54 AM »
Immediacracy, I'd definitely look up some book on the physics of light. Many of your questions could be answered there, and better than I'd dare to off the top of my head (can't speak of others of course).
Take Feynman, Gribbin, or Zeilinger. Those are the ones I read and no doubt there are many more books out there.

Since light is so fundamental, there's a huge number of books pertaining to it. For example, the so-called wave/particle duality is what spawned most of today's physics in the first place; any comprehensive history of quantum mechanics will describe it in some detail.
You may also be interested in quantum information theory. It does appear that information can in fact be transmitted faster than the speed of light; it's just that we haven't figured out how (if at all) read the information). Afaik Zeilinger's the go-to-guy there.



Points of interest:
Relativity does not technically state that nothing can move faster than the speed of light; it merely states that accelerating something slower to the speed of light would need an infinite amount of energy - but the same would be true for decelerating something faster! If something like that exists, that is.
Also, since light travels at light speed, relativity states that the time it "experiences" shrinks to zero, as does space along its line of movement. From its own "POV", light needs zero time to traverse the entire universe, whose length is zero as well.

No, I don't get really it either.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2010, 05:24:21 AM »
Immediacracy, I'd definitely look up some book on the physics of light. Many of your questions could be answered there, and better than I'd dare to off the top of my head (can't speak of others of course).
Take Feynman, Gribbin, or Zeilinger. Those are the ones I read and no doubt there are many more books out there.
I'm planning on reading Feynman when I get a chance actually, but I'd rather that someone explain to me their own understanding in relation of my ideas.

Quote
You may also be interested in quantum information theory. It does appear that information can in fact be transmitted faster than the speed of light; it's just that we haven't figured out how (if at all) read the information). Afaik Zeilinger's the go-to-guy there.
That's why I like my theory. The information isn't transmitted, it arises spontaneously out of a shared subjective experience.

Check this out. On Sunday there was a movie on tv with some dialogue about Nikola Tesla which caused me to read some more about him online. We were leaving for the afternoon so I left a page about him open in my browser to finish when we returned. When we came back that night, our house had been struck by lightning. I'm on a laptop at a hotel right now because it's too hot to sleep in our house with the a/c blown up. If it hadn't been for our friend accidentally buying tickets for the wrong day, we would possibly have been napping in the bed as the windows and wall sockets exploded. Coincidences are funny, no?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2010, 06:29:49 AM »
That's why I like my theory. The information isn't transmitted, it arises spontaneously out of a shared subjective experience.
It needs more than fit the facts nicely to be called a theory.
Specifically, you will need quite a lot more knowledge than you have now to even form a theory in order to even make sure that it does indeed fit the facts. (And explain why and how subjectivity adds any explanatory power.)
That's a prime reason to look up experimental results instead of (or in addition to) asking even well-read forumites.



Quote
Check this out. On Sunday there was a movie on tv with some dialogue about Nikola Tesla which caused me to read some more about him online. We were leaving for the afternoon so I left a page about him open in my browser to finish when we returned. When we came back that night, our house had been struck by lightning. I'm on a laptop at a hotel right now because it's too hot to sleep in our house with the a/c blown up. If it hadn't been for our friend accidentally buying tickets for the wrong day, we would possibly have been napping in the bed as the windows and wall sockets exploded. Coincidences are funny, no?
Yeah, but what does that have to do with light and information?
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2010, 07:09:01 AM »
That's why I like my theory. The information isn't transmitted, it arises spontaneously out of a shared subjective experience.

You may "like" your theory, but...

I pointed out over in this post http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14281.msg334657#msg334657 how your "theory" is either inconsistent with observed conservation laws or it requires:
 
  • extensive superluminal communication,
  • a brand new undetected energy source,
  • a completely new mechanism to explain why the speed of light is what it is,
  • and particles that can make calculations.

That is just scratching the surface of things that would have to be true for your view to have any merit.  The current QM model is shockingly simple by comparison.

Considering there is absolutely zero evidence for any of this,  you have absolutely no observations that support your view, this does not predict anything new, and existing models work a lot better, It's safe to reject your idea as just another of many thousands a crackpot theories. 



If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2010, 07:05:13 PM »
You may "like" your theory, but...

I pointed out over in this post http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14281.msg334657#msg334657 how your "theory" is either inconsistent with observed conservation laws or it requires:
 
  • extensive superluminal communication,
  • a brand new undetected energy source,
  • a completely new mechanism to explain why the speed of light is what it is,
  • and particles that can make calculations.

That is just scratching the surface of things that would have to be true for your view to have any merit.  The current QM model is shockingly simple by comparison.

Sorry, I think I'm not getting notifications on that thread for some reason. Just now seeing it.

My initial reaction is that you're making the idea, and the difference between it and QM more complicated than it is. The way I'm thinking of it, no new energy source would be required, and communications would function not as a superliminal existential mechanism but as an interior, essential recognition. As for explaining why the speed of light is what it is, I don't know enough about how the current model explains it to compare, but in general, there isn't a speed of light, it's just 'full speed' and 'anti-stasis'. The velocities of phenomena other than light would be calculated according to their values of mass, excitation, relative proximity to other masses and the character of their excitation, etc. The math should be the same.

My idea is that when matter is separated from itself by only a vacuum, excitement at particle A automatically continues to particle B regardless of distance since both particles are still essentially the same thing as they were before the condition of temporal and spatial distance was introduced. From the perspective of the matter, nothing has changed, except what needs to change to honor the precise nature of the condition. Space and time are defined (just as it seems) but the activities of matter and have no independent existence. Spacetime is matter pretending that there it's separated by spacetime. The Big Bang is, from an essential perspective, imaginary. If you anchor your perspective from the outside - from the reality of fragmented, particulate matter, then QM describes that observation accurately. The bigger picture, I think, is better and more simply understood by QCD (Qualitative Cooperation Dynamics).

Matter is an event. The character of the event carries with it inherent properties of location and relation to other particles just as it carries the properties of it's atomic identity, charge, momentum, etc. What I'm saying is that when electromagnetic excitement spreads across two objects separated by vacuum, the nodes behave as if a projectile or wave were affecting them, but I think this works like a pantomime. The actual behaviors observed are occurring at both points A and B (and other unobstructed points occupied by matter) but not in the empty space in between the points (D). You put something in between A and B something made of matter, and the presence of that matter M may have a particular effect on the behavior of A and B as well as on itself and any observer (O) which is made of matter. They are all sharing in the events which their cooperation produces, each with it's own holographically informed perspective/translation/transduction of the ABDMO.

If this is not making more sense to you, let me know how you are interpreting what I'm saying and give me a chance to try to make it clearer. Try to be more patient. Just because it's not a formal theory ready for publication doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile thought experiment. I've never said that this idea is 'the way nature must work'. I'm only wondering if this is the way that nature might work, and if not, why not?

The particles don't make calculations, they are calculations. They don't have to produce anything to communicate, the communication arises out of the void which separates them, just as electronegativity attracts electrons through a lack of electrons.

Quote
Considering there is absolutely zero evidence for any of this,  you have absolutely no observations that support your view, this does not predict anything new, and existing models work a lot better, It's safe to reject your idea as just another of many thousands a crackpot theories. 
I think that if you approached it from the perspective of seeing how the idea can work rather than seeing how it can't work, you might be surprised at how simple the idea is and how it must, by definition, support all established observations. It helps to understand that this level of reality circumscribes particle and wave behavior in the cosmos, but that it is not defined by the conventional particle and wave behavior we observe on other levels of nature. At the bottom, particle-like behavior gives rise to particles, not the other way around. Physical reality is an act that gives rise to non-acts and re-acts.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #44 on: July 20, 2010, 07:18:08 PM »
It needs more than fit the facts nicely to be called a theory.
Yeah, I'm being informal and a bit tongue in cheek calling it a theory. It's just easier than saying 'a set of ideas constellated around a set of scientific and philosophical themes'.

Quote
Yeah, but what does that have to do with light and information?
I'm not sure. My hunch is that it's confirming some aspects of the direction I've been going in but possibly demonstrating some powerful other aspect I'm missing or getting wrong. So far, I've been thinking about how 'ground' may be an aspect of gravity - the largest closest mass, and how gravity serves to guide electromagnetism. There's other threads about circulation, circuits, and electronegativity in relation to the spread or flow of information. Just letting it all percolate for now, trying to get our house put back together.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2010, 07:54:21 PM »
If this is not making more sense to you, let me know how you are interpreting what I'm saying and give me a chance to try to make it clearer. Try to be more patient. Just because it's not a formal theory ready for publication doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile thought experiment. I've never said that this idea is 'the way nature must work'. I'm only wondering if this is the way that nature might work, and if not, why not?
I want in comment here and say, first, that my comment about you not sharing your drugs was meant to be humorous because your musings are, you must admit, a radical departure from current accepted theory.  Second, never forget that ultimately your theory will have to make testable predictions about reality, and not only that, but predictions that deviate from current theory so the difference can be observed.  Third, it would have to pass verification, that is it would have to make correct predictions.  Fourth, it will have to pass peer-review, and that process will likely be brutal and rigorous, as it should be.

Finally, radical departures from any current theory usually draw criticism but they can pass the bar.  A certain theory about curved spacetime proved that.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2010, 11:32:51 PM »
The way I'm thinking of it, no new energy source would be required, and communications would function not as a superliminal existential mechanism but as an interior, essential recognition.
Then explain how energy is conserved in a manner consistent with observation.  If you can't understand
something as simple as that, why should anyone care what you think? 

Quote
As for explaining why the speed of light is what it is, --snip-- The math should be the same.
The math isn't the same.  If there is an "essential recognition"  it always takes a certain amount of time to happen based on c and the distance.  Exactly what you would expect from a propagating wave, but unexplained in your model.  Your model is particularly strange in that it requires superluminal communication between the sense particle and certain other particles, but it never happens between the sense particle and the original event.

Quote
My idea is that when matter is separated from itself by only a vacuum, excitement at...
I get what you are saying. 

Quote
The actual behaviors observed are occurring at both points A and B (and other unobstructed points occupied by matter) but not in the empty space in between the points (D). You put something in between A and B something made of matter, and the presence of that matter M may have a particular effect on the behavior of A and B as well as on itself and any observer (O) which is made of matter.
Yeah... I get it...  it just doesn't work.
Just having matter between A or B is not enough to see an effect.  The matter must be there at the precise time you would expect the photon to propagate from the source to that point.  Without propegation of a photon, there must be some form of communication, or the sense particle must have a mechanism to determine which of countless billions of particles was in the precise spot to affect the reaction at each point in time for what may be billions of years in the past. 

Quote
Just because it's not a formal theory ready for publication doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile thought experiment.
It's not worthwhile because it explains less than QM, introduces more problems, solves nothing, and has no basis in observation.

Quote
I'm only wondering if this is the way that nature might work, and if not, why not?
I explained that. You just don't understand high school physics.

Quote
They don't have to produce anything to communicate, the communication arises out of the void which separates them, just as electronegativity attracts electrons through a lack of electrons.
Stupid example.  Like all forces, the electromagnetic force requires energy, but your communication apparently doesn't.
Also, this mysterious undetectable energy that arises out of the void does not change the fact that you model requires a particle at one point to
have information about an event at another point faster than the anything could travel between them at light speed.

Quote
I think that if you approached it from the perspective of seeing how the idea can work rather than seeing how it can't work, you might be surprised at how simple the idea is and how it must, by definition, support all established observations.
I think if you had a clue about what you were talking about, you would recognize it for the crackpot idea it is.

Why do ignorant people who don't understand the most basic concepts of current science seem to think they
should be taken seriously when they propose throwing it out?  All though history, we find that the real innovators
actually understood the current state of their field better than their contemporaries.
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2010, 01:38:12 AM »
Immediacracy, I'd be very careful with statements like "they are calculations", as that would already be an interpretation of data and math you don't seem to have.

Also, it would merely be another model, even if scientifically substantiated, not a proof. In a book by Gribbin there is the example of three interpretations of a single mechanical description. Einsteinian relativity interpreted in three different ways, each one consistent with the exact same math, data, and observations, but mutually exclusive. "They are calculations" could at best serve as a way of thinking, not an established fact.

Even the famous wave/particle duality does not in any way mean that light is both a particle and a wave; it's just that it seems to act very much like one or the other (or, in fact, both simultanously), enough to allow for very precise descriptions.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #48 on: July 21, 2010, 02:53:57 AM »
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2010, 05:19:04 PM »
it's just that it seems to act very much like one or the other (or, in fact, both simultanously), enough to allow for very precise descriptions.
What I'm suggesting is that it seems to act like a particle and/or wave because it is acting like (we think) a particle or wave acts - but this behavior precedes the existence of any actual particles or waves. What we observe is the raw quality of matter itself - it's self-defining nature. It requires no sub particles to mediate the exchange it's own qualities between itself.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2010, 05:30:57 PM »
I want in comment here and say, first, that my comment about you not sharing your drugs was meant to be humorous because your musings are, you must admit, a radical departure from current accepted theory.
I appreciate that. I'm not sure that what I'm suggesting is all that radically different from any number of current interpretations of QM. All of the theory I'm aware seems fraught with ambiguity and unsettled science.

Quote
Second, never forget that ultimately your theory will have to make testable predictions about reality, and not only that, but predictions that deviate from current theory so the difference can be observed.
Current theory fails to predict order, life, or consciousness in the cosmos. My idea doesn't invalidate anything predicted by QED, it just relocates the phenomena to matter rather than to space in between so that all particles are observers. I'm all for testable predictions, but what the ideas predict is that not everything is objectively predictable nor testable.

Quote
Third, it would have to pass verification, that is it would have to make correct predictions.  Fourth, it will have to pass peer-review, and that process will likely be brutal and rigorous, as it should be.
That's not up to me.

Quote
Finally, radical departures from any current theory usually draw criticism but they can pass the bar.  A certain theory about curved spacetime proved that.
Someone give me a bar, and let's see if the idea can pass it.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2010, 06:56:36 PM »
All of the theory I'm aware seems fraught with ambiguity and unsettled science.
Of course, your profound ignorance of that theory couldn't possibly be the real issue.

Quote
Current theory fails to predict order, life, or consciousness in the cosmos.
And your theory predicts nothing new and testable. At least current theory has made countless
new and testable predictions.

Quote
Someone give me a bar, and let's see if the idea can pass it.
I did.  Your theory failed.  You didn't understand it.
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2010, 07:41:07 PM »
Then explain how energy is conserved in a manner consistent with observation.  If you can't understand
something as simple as that, why should anyone care what you think?
 
The observations don't change at all. The behavior of particle A is reproduced by particle B exactly as if there were a physical exchange of energy going on through space, except that there is no change to the empty space between them, and the observations attributed to the effects of space would be interpreted as causes of space-like effects.

Quote
The math isn't the same.  If there is an "essential recognition"  it always takes a certain amount of time to happen based on c and the distance.  Exactly what you would expect from a propagating wave, but unexplained in your model.
No, I've played with a few explanations including:

1. a computational 'Seek Time' based on memory since the Big Bang, with longer distances requiring more catchup time between particles.

2. a spatial-sequential priority queue which is proportionate to distance due to information factors. Rather than distant points receiving fewer photons, the message received by the Observer Material (O) through the Measurement Material (M), must reflect and recapitulate the totality of the O+M+A+B+D relationship, including all of the empty space between them.

3. Time and space are both observation artifacts of relativity and scale. Since c is instantaneous, the temporal drag is an aspect of the scale of spatial coordinates involved rather than propulsion through physical space. If an energy event happens across a long distance, it is instantaneous on the scale relative to those  larger scale phenomena.  Intergalactic events may happen instantly from the subjective perspective of a pair of galaxies. Likewise, atomic events appear to occur much faster to us than do events on our level of human cognition. It's how the Cosmos organizes itself.  Scale/frequency/energy are inversely proportional to distance/intertia/gravity.

The latency manifests a hierarchy of interdependence of forms, events, and consequence. Just as EM phenomena address different scales with different frequencies, the energy isn't speeding up, the excitement just resonates different scales of physical forms. It's the same excitement all the way up and down the line, it's just the relation of the Observer and Measurement to it that reflects back that measurement and observation.

Quote
Your model is particularly strange in that it requires superluminal communication between the sense particle and certain other particles, but it never happens between the sense particle and the original event.
In my model all particles are both sense-interpreters and action-events. There's no superliminal communication - just imitation - instantaneous through a vacuum, or rapidly and with qualitative transductions (amplification, attenuation, refraction, inversion, etc) through physical media.

Quote
The matter must be there at the precise time you would expect the photon to propagate from the source to that point.  Without propegation of a photon, there must be some form of communication, or the sense particle must have a mechanism to determine which of countless billions of particles was in the precise spot to affect the reaction at each point in time for what may be billions of years in the past. 
Think of the word photon to mean 'dance'. When we put our Measuring Material (M) between Particle A and Particle B at distance D, we take a reading from M which shows that when A is dancing fast, B changes it's dance to be faster - and that observation (O) can be reproduced and integrated consistently with our other observations.

I'm saying that A and B have a relationship - but that M and O not only modify that relationship but simulate that relationship at both M and O. O naively interprets the total experiment as an objective view of A,B, and D, but I think that what's actually going on is that O is observing M's observation of A and B and carrying it's prejudice into the experiment by projecting a space - D that's not objectively 'there'. It appears to be there because of the nature of O.

Quote
It's not worthwhile because it explains less than QM, introduces more problems, solves nothing, and has no basis in observation.
It solves the appearance of order, life, and consciousness in the Cosmos. It doesn't need to explain more than QM because it doesn't replace QM, it just augments it. It introduces no more problems. I've explained that it need not require any new form of energy or communications. It just requires that subjectivity be understood as having a fully physical basis (as opposed to arriving to the Universe as an utterly alien result of senseless collisions of inert particles.)

Quote
I explained that. You just don't understand high school physics.
High school physics isn't useful to explain the relation of light and consciousness. If people insist upon beginning from the assumption that I must be wrong, then all of what follows can only be a reflex recitation of the status quo.

Quote
Stupid example.
Stupid opinion.

Quote
Like all forces, the electromagnetic force requires energy, but your communication apparently doesn't.
What energy is required for 79 protons to communicate to each other to act like gold? My idea just acknowledges that the identity properties of matter continues independently of a vacuum. I think it works. I like it more and more.

Quote
Also, this mysterious undetectable energy that arises out of the void does not change the fact that you model requires a particle at one point to
have information about an event at another point faster than the anything could travel between them at light speed.
Our experience of communication is an evolution and extrapolation of these nano-scale phenomena through orders of magnitude of layers of forms and scales. You can't project our reliance on lower level carrier phenomena to conclude that such a carrier must be necessary at the bottom level.

We're looking at these things beyond our direct experience as a biased observer which is made of tissues, cells, molecules, and atoms of a particular nature. Everything we have ever experienced is a relation of those components with each other and with it's interpretations and measurements of what seems to be exterior phenomena. It's like an avatar in a video game observing the graphics that make up it's world and insisting that there would have to be some undetectable energy that arises out of the void which draws it all. Nothing needs to travel from one material object to the other if both objects know how to act out each other's condition - if both objects are acting out of the same essential, inherent set of possibilities and probabilities.

Quote
I think if you had a clue about what you were talking about, you would recognize it for the crackpot idea it is.
That's the thing. I know exactly what you're talking about. It could be a crackpot idea, but so far nobody has been able to come up with a compelling reason why I should believe that yet. All it would take is one commonsense example.

Quote
Why do ignorant people who don't understand the most basic concepts of current science seem to think they
should be taken seriously when they propose throwing it out?  All though history, we find that the real innovators
actually understood the current state of their field better than their contemporaries.
What I understand is consciousness. I come to this idea about physics by accident, as a byproduct of mapping consciousness. I'm not suggesting that anything be thrown out, I'm just questioning the premises of the worldview which I see as obsolete and increasingly dangerous for civilization.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2010, 07:46:53 PM »
your profound ignorance
your theory predicts nothing new and testable.
Your theory failed.  You didn't understand it.

Did you not see my footnote at the top of the thread?

"Please feel free to correct my information or contribute your own understanding. Unsupported opinions about my ideas or speculations about my opinions of my ideas, or any comments related to judgments about my personality, sanity, intentions, qualifications, the ridiculous over-footnoting etc, are hereby rejected in advance. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter."
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2010, 07:49:49 PM »
It solves the appearance of order, life, and consciousness in the Cosmos.
In what way, exactly?

Quote
That's the thing. I know exactly what you're talking about. It could be a crackpot idea, but so far nobody has been able to come up with a compelling reason why I should believe that yet.
No evidence. Just making sense to anybody doesn't cut it in any way, shape, or form.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2010, 08:00:07 PM »
It solves the appearance of order, life, and consciousness in the Cosmos.
In what way, exactly?
I'm surprised you ask... what could be more obvious? ;D
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 08:45:30 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2010, 08:07:12 PM »
In what way, exactly?
By fixing the origin of consciousness in matter itself.
If physical processes have both a subjective interior and an objective exterior, and that physical qualities are spread from physical form to physical form, then there is a precedent for cooperation, group intelligence, novelty, memory, creativity, etc. It's no longer just a flat, automatic, robotic universe of consequences, it is that, but it's also a Cosmos of living experiences which can achieve fantastic depth of richness and coherence.
What we are made of makes sense, it has sense, it is sense. The universe is made of the same thing.

Quote
No evidence. Just making sense to anybody doesn't cut it in any way, shape, or form.
Sense is the evidence. The very need to look for evidence is an aspect of trying to make sense. It's the only kind of evidence there is. When people agree on sense, then it becomes part of our collectively accepted sense. To deny our own experience as evidence doesn't cut it in any way, shape, or form either.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2010, 08:31:23 PM »
Did you not see my footnote at the top of the thread?

What does that have to do with anything?  Your theory does not work and
you either don't understand why or you willfully ignore it.
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac