View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby craig weiler » 16 Sep 2011, 23:36

I wonder but not to much if Persinger realizes how difficult it would be to entangle all of the atoms in two brains at the same time.


Why would this be difficult? Subatomic particles are always entangled.

craig weiler wrote:viewtopic.php?t=1533




I'm familiar with that experiment, but what does it have to do with entanglement?


By synchronizing magnetic waves in two separate minds, Persinger has been able to demonstrate that an effect in one shows up in another. This is only possible through entanglement. The human is mind is apparently able to sort it all out.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula






Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby really? » 17 Sep 2011, 19:25

really?: I wonder but not to much if Persinger realizes how difficult it would be to entangle all of the atoms in two brains at the same time.


craig weiler wrote:Subatomic particles are always entangled. Why would this be difficult?

Individual sub-atomic particles do. How often in natural conditions is unknown. Conglomerations of particles like that found in brains behave classically. Difficult. Have you read any articles for how particles are entangled.






Arouet: I'm familiar with that experiment, but what does it have to do with entanglement?

craig weiler wrote:By synchronizing magnetic waves in two separate minds, Persinger has been able to demonstrate that an effect in one shows up in another.

Perhaps that is true.
craig weiler wrote:This is only possible through entanglement.

Methods for entanglement always require particles to have been in very close proximity. Close enough to be able to directly share spin characteristics. I absolutely doubt these two brains got that close.

craig weiler wrote:The human is mind is apparently able to sort it all out.

Perhaps this sorting out does not apply to Persinger's thinking.
What makes you think he knows what he's talking about. And remember Persinger used if.

I'll leave you with this article to consider. It applies to everyone that steps beyond their area of expertise
Why my fellow physicists think they know everything (and why they're wrong)

By Chris Lee
One of the most important things that I've learned in my time writing for Ars Technica is how little I know. Look at my back catalogue of stories and you will notice that most of my articles are combinations of quantum mechanics and optics. Every now and again I venture into the fraught territory of cosmology, materials sciences, and climatology. Even more rarely, I head off into the wild and write something about medicine or biology.

I only ever write these articles if the papers on which they are based are written clearly; I want to be reasonably certain that I haven't mangled the research entirely. Yet, if you let yourself be flushed down the intertubes, you will find physicists and engineers like myself expounding on topics that are far outside their field of expertise. These people are often so badly wrong that it is hard to know where to begin in any argument to counter them.

I find it quite frustrating because these are supposedly smart people. So what goes wrong with us physicists?
Just enough knowledge to be dangerous

Part of the problem comes from the idea that physicists and engineers do "hard science" while everyone else does, well, "easy science." We are told that physics is the core science and everything else is, essentially, just an elaboration atop the underlying physics. The implication is that we physicists, if we would only find problems in other fields interesting, could solve the relevant equations and everyone in that field could retire. (Back in the days when nonlinear dynamics was popular, insights based on mathematical physics did have an impact on fields outside of physics—nonlinear equations helped explain the general features of population fluctuations and irregular heart beats, among other things.)

This is compounded by physics being the science that revolutionized society in the 19th and 20th centuries. Chemistry followed suit, and biology is now hitting its stride, but physics made its impression long ago, and it stuck: physics is useful, chemistry is sort of useful, and everything else is just stocking the library.

Then there's the math. Most people are more intimidated by calculus than they are by statistics, and many fields of science make more practical use of statistics than they do of calculus. So, in people's minds—especially in the minds of physicists and engineers who can barely calculate a standard deviation—scientists who use calculus must be truly hard core, and many physicists use lots of math.

All of this has combined to put physics and engineering on a pedestal, at least in many people's minds. But many of us in these fields just don't recognize that the pedestal on which we stand is imaginary, and that we don't really know enough to contribute much at a high level outside of our own field.

I am focusing on physicists and engineers but, in fact, anyone can fall victim to this belief in their own expertise. Research shows that the less expert we are in some field, the more certain we are that our opinions and predictions are correct. The cynical view of this is that we are all stupid and don't hesitate to exhibit our stupidity in public, but it's more likely that we all know a little something about many different things. Unfortunately, what we don't know are all the caveats, exceptions, and oddities that always accompany the general rules of any field.

This lack of truly specialist knowledge makes it difficult to accurately evaluate new facts and opinions--or even to determine if it is possible to evaluate such facts.

That doesn't stop us all from trying. The evidence from psychological experiments indicates that people will go to great lengths to make up a coherent story based around facts. And, if they happen to be invested in the story, they will twist themselves into knots to make the result fit their preconceived notions. This sort of reasoning knows no political boundaries: communists did not blame communism for the failure of their regimes, and free market ideologues never blame the market.
I may be wrong, but I tell a good story

Now, you might think that physicists, engineers, and other highly trained individuals might be the sort of people that you could talk down from the ledge of insanity. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. These people aren't stupid (although it would be wrong to think that they are extraordinary, either), and they have been given extensive training in marshaling arguments to support their positions. In fact, our school system actively encourages this, where we set up debates about arbitrary propositions and decide a winner based on debating techniques—facts need not apply.

So, we have a group of people who have been trained to think nothing of defending absurd positions, have relatively good training in logic, and slightly broader knowledge than the general populace.

The result is some physicists and engineers who argue vehemently, and with little detailed knowledge, that Michael Mann is a moron and that global warming is bunk. We have physicists who don't know their eukaryotes from their prokaryotes arguing that Darwin was daft. We have physicists and engineers who argue that 9/11 was an inside job.
Does it have to be this way?

To be honest, I don't know if human nature is such that this will always be true. But I am more certain that one can train oneself to be open to changing a long-held opinion. For instance, just recently we ran a story about the plague, and one of the authors admitted that he had changed his mind entirely when faced with evidence that undermined his position.

This is notable because of its rarity, sadly. Our educational systems often do a good job teaching people to construct logical and consistent stories, and to develop arguments to support a position. Unfortunately, they haven't always taught us how to recognize that our opinion may have been ill-formed, that our logical tower may be founded on faulty premises, and that, in general, we are all vulnerable to falling victim to smart people who tell a good story--or to becoming those people ourselves.

I've picked on physicists and engineers here, but perhaps I'm simply the victim of confirmation bias. Now it's your turn: tell me about doctors, lawyers, biologists, and ecologists who declaim at length on topics outside of their expertise. Rather like I have just been doing. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...eyre-wrong.ars
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby craig weiler » 17 Sep 2011, 22:50

Really?

This is a difficult thing for people who have a materialist mindset to grasp. You are very much at a disadvantage here. First of all, I learned about quantum physics by reading textbooks by physicists. Not one, but several, so that I have an understanding of this from several different people and several different angles. In other words, I have done my due diligence and I can talk intelligently on this subject. I readily admit to not being a physicist, but this does not prevent me from understanding. I am not straying from the well worn path either.

So let's go down the list:
Individual sub-atomic particles do. How often in natural conditions is unknown. Conglomerations of particles like that found in brains behave classically. Difficult. Have you read any articles for how particles are entangled.


The scenario you are outlining, where particles are not always entangled, is frankly impossible and has not been considered as a possibility in any physics book I have run across. It is a fundamental aspect of the universe, not some sort of emerging property. It is more fundamental than time and space, which can change.

As far as I know, there is no mechanism for entanglement and I have never heard of one that was suggested; further, I think, given the nature of entanglement, that this is unlikely. As I said, it is clearly fundamental. Maybe I should explain this: The entanglement of two subatomic particles is basically a sweet little "blank you" to space and time. Entanglement would not be possible at all in our universe unless both space and time were emerging properties, which they are. We know this because they can be bent and distorted, which entanglement cannot. It is impossible to get around this.

Methods for entanglement always require particles to have been in very close proximity. Close enough to be able to directly share spin characteristics. I absolutely doubt these two brains got that close.


Whoever gave you that information was a complete idiot and I'm sorry that you ever met them. It is a shame when information has to be unlearned because it just makes things harder.

The truth, and you can look this up, is that entanglement works across the entire blank universe. Instantaneously and with no signal loss and without regard for intervening objects. I swear, I am not making this up and it is not up for debate anywhere in the physics community. This information can be found in any quantum physics textbook.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 18 Sep 2011, 02:23

craig weiler wrote:Really?

This is a difficult thing for people who have a materialist mindset to grasp. You are very much at a disadvantage here. First of all, I learned about quantum physics by reading textbooks by physicists. Not one, but several, so that I have an understanding of this from several different people and several different angles. In other words, I have done my due diligence and I can talk intelligently on this subject. I readily admit to not being a physicist, but this does not prevent me from understanding. I am not straying from the well worn path either.

The truth, and you can look this up, is that entanglement works across the entire blank universe. Instantaneously and with no signal loss and without regard for intervening objects. I swear, I am not making this up and it is not up for debate anywhere in the physics community. This information can be found in any quantum physics textbook.


I also am only a well read layman, probably less well read on the subject than you.
It seems tho, that this is an argument between "weak entanglement" and "strong entanglement" and is on the edge of being about unfalsifiable, fundamental questions, although it seems there could be a little more experimental evidence than on many other fundamental questions.

My understanding is poetical, metaphorical, and always ready for modification, but a thought occurs to me. It is my own thought, the only seed I can think of connecting my thoughts to others is Rbt Anton Wilson's description of Einstein "imagining what it is like to ne a photon" but I have been increasingly impressed with what I call the "lucisphere"
the entangled photons of the universal field of light. Relativistically, a photon's existence appears to be, from the photon's viewpoint, a single moment. Consider then, the whole interactive field, containing all illuminated moments' in space and time. Add in even the photon's minimal awareness of being observed, and we have a means by which every particle is entangled, and even quantum mechanic's ultimate observer, which "collapses the vector" into the state of mutual coherence.
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby craig weiler » 18 Sep 2011, 03:45

Thanks Twain,
The basic premise of entanglement is that it is instantaneous. One experiment that I read about had this occur between twin particles 7 miles apart. Based on this and other experiments, the physicists concluded that distance was irrelevant; i.e. it didn't matter how far apart they were from each other, the particles would still be entangled.

It is hard to wrap your head around, but there it is. It does not violate relativity because nothing travels. Information already exists at both places at once.

My understanding is poetical, metaphorical, and always ready for modification, but a thought occurs to me. It is my own thought, the only seed I can think of connecting my thoughts to others is Rbt Anton Wilson's description of Einstein "imagining what it is like to ne a photon" but I have been increasingly impressed with what I call the "lucisphere"
the entangled photons of the universal field of light. Relativistically, a photon's existence appears to be, from the photon's viewpoint, a single moment. Consider then, the whole interactive field, containing all illuminated moments' in space and time. Add in even the photon's minimal awareness of being observed, and we have a means by which every particle is entangled, and even quantum mechanic's ultimate observer, which "collapses the vector" into the state of mutual coherence.


You totally lost me. :(
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 18 Sep 2011, 06:44

craig weiler wrote:Thanks Twain,
The basic premise of entanglement is that it is instantaneous. One experiment that I read about had this occur between twin particles 7 miles apart. Based on this and other experiments, the physicists concluded that distance was irrelevant; i.e. it didn't matter how far apart they were from each other, the particles would still be entangled.

It is hard to wrap your head around, but there it is. It does not violate relativity because nothing travels. Information already exists at both places at once.

My understanding is poetical, metaphorical, and always ready for modification, but a thought occurs to me. It is my own thought, the only seed I can think of connecting my thoughts to others is Rbt Anton Wilson's description of Einstein "imagining what it is like to ne a photon" but I have been increasingly impressed with what I call the "lucisphere"
the entangled photons of the universal field of light. Relativistically, a photon's existence appears to be, from the photon's viewpoint, a single moment. Consider then, the whole interactive field, containing all illuminated moments' in space and time. Add in even the photon's minimal awareness of being observed, and we have a means by which every particle is entangled, and even quantum mechanic's ultimate observer, which "collapses the vector" into the state of mutual coherence.


You totally lost me. :(


Sorry, Craig W. I have mentioned bits and pieces of my "Lucisphere" theory, mainly in a SCECOP initiated thread whining about a strawman in the sky allowing evil, and I was hoping you had seen some.
I have been thinking about this, as an autodidact poet and actor, since I first read, thirty years ago, that Einstein developed relativity by imagining what it is like to be a photon. While I picked up bits and pieces from the world, I have never heard, that I recall, anyone else come up with a similar theory.
First, let me say my first approach to every question is semantic. Am I thinking about something that can be referred to an object, aspect, or event in the universe, or is it an abstraction, and if so, is it too abstract to be referential to any degree?
Start with the double slit experiment. That indicates a photon has at least a minimal awareness of being observed.
Relativity implies that, in a photon's "experience" every moment from emission to absorption would be experienced at once.
If, as Robert Anton Wilson said, there is no awareness without information, and no information without awareness, then a photon is possibly a model for the minimum unit of awareness
Some implications of this for entanglement: a photon, from our perspective, is emitted pre-entangled with all the photons it will ever encounter during its existence, and in turn with the photons those photons encountered, etc. This provides a locus for the awareness of unified fields of light, culminating in that frame of reference that (in big bang cosmology) would extend from the moment the universe became translucent to the last mutually observed flicker of heat death, and which I call the "lucisphere."
If this "Lucisphere" is presumed to have awareness, it is an awareness that takes in all space and time as one event. It would thus, “collapse (what “had happened” from what “could have happened” ie.) the field vector” in quantum mechanical terms, the Lucisphere being a universal observer that “decided” what “had happened.”
Okay Craig W, that is my attempt to explain the part of my theory I mentioned above. (Further questions will not be welcome, because they will point out that I have still failed to make myself clear, :( but despite frustration, I would attempt to answer so ) feel free to ask.
Now, a postscript from my semantic Shakespeare half of my brain.
The Lucisphere is arguably the source of all non-kinetic energy in the universe (and if matter is merely light squared, that too, and the metaphor gets truly frightening).
It is also, if the metaphor is correct, aware of everything it observed.
It also shines impartially on Auschwitz and zebras.
The Lucisphere is, therefore, referentially and by definition, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (And doesn't give a flying blank about stopping evil, as I explained to SCECOP)
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby craig weiler » 18 Sep 2011, 10:12

Twain,
So if I understand you correctly, you hold to a panpsychic view of the universe in which everything is conscious. This consciousness has an emerging property that is an overall meta-consciousness that encompasses the entire universe and is beyond space and time. This meta-consciousness just is. It takes no sides in the affairs of earth or anything. Whatever it does is totally beyond us.

Yeah, I get it. My views are very similar.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Logical Fallacy: The Burden of Proof

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 18 Sep 2011, 13:38

craig weiler wrote:Twain,
So if I understand you correctly, you hold to a panpsychic view of the universe in which everything is conscious. This consciousness has an emerging property that is an overall meta-consciousness that encompasses the entire universe and is beyond space and time. This meta-consciousness just is. It takes no sides in the affairs of earth or anything. Whatever it does is totally beyond us.

Yeah, I get it. My views are very similar.


Thanx, my feeling we were in agreement, and only looking at "meta-consciousness" from different angles, made my failure to be clear very frustrating.

As to it taking no sides or being beyond evil, first I think "evil" is mostly sloppy thinking, and mostly does not exist where it is perceived, but it is possible this "meta-c" decided this universe was the best of all "possible" alternatives, in which case it has already done everything it can or will do to minimize "evil"

Keep in mind, this is a theory. My null remains the big bang, but only for the sake of appearing "sane" This is my preferred explanation, tho. However, even it is partially dependent on a big bang cosmology with a fixed dimension of eternity. In the EMU model the Lucisphere more specifically agrees with your description "an emerging property that is an overall meta-consciousness that encompasses the entire universe and is beyond space and time."
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests