Tic-Tac doesn't obey laws of physics

Slightly misleading title, perhaps, but listen to this former Navy pilot describe his encounter with a UFO. This sighting was corroborated by 3 other pilots at the time, and there is video as well. The pilot speaking here, David Fravor, described the UFO as "not from this world" due to it seemingly not obeying the laws of physics.

Whatever the object was, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the behavior and speeds of this object can not be explained by any technology we as humans possess. The typical response will be that this UFO was probably part of a secret government program but after Trump's election I no longer believe any government on Earth has technology that advanced -- and any deep state isn't that deep.

My personal thoughts since I was a teenager have been that planet-formation is typical rather than a-typical around stars (the last 10 years have really borne this out) and that consciousness is integral to matter and the universe itself. So to me it is only natural that sooner or later we will encounter alien life. Personally, I think alien life has already encountered us. We are ready for it now, or so we think, but of course aliens might have been around millions of years ago -- not just when we finally have a basic understanding of space and other planets and solar systems. But I digress:



This is a video about the same subject but a day later with Christopher Mellon, former DoD employee, talking about what led up to the encounter:

 

The Trump comment was meant to be a whimsical one, as in, after Trump the supremely ignorant and immoral got elected, the deep state must not be that powerful or they would have prevented it.

The whole point about possible alien cultures which would have the technology to visit us or other parts of the galaxy that are very far away from their home planet, is just this: that they would have technology that we don't currently possess. So that we wouldn't understand how they do it would be inherent to our current predicament, wouldn't it?

If the sightings (that were both visually confirmed and confirmed by the greatest radar in the world) are indeed of a phenomenon that is part of a secret government program, then it is almost equally as exciting as the prospect of alien life because it obvious from the movement of that object(s) that we would be talking about a technology that is groundbreaking and not currently known by the general public (and I doubt by any other government either). However, if the scientific basis for this (that you tout) would be required for believing that, then that idea would be as seemingly impossible as the alien theory, wouldn't it?

I understand your scientific basis for the unlikelihood of space travel to the degree that alien UFOs would imply. I am very interested in physics as well and I've been reading about astrophysics from age 15 and still do. Every generation seems to feel pretty well established in their scientific knowledge because we can't really see what's beyond the corner. But 200 years from now, it will feel like we are in the stone age the way were are thinking about things now. Your or my point of view would be understandable, given current knowledge, so history won't look at you as a fool. However, the current models will no longer be viable or will otherwise be viewed as very limited ones. Of that I am sure. If based on nothing else than trajectory.

Does that "prove" anything regarding aliens or space travel? No. But then that was not really the intent of my post. My post was meant to bring up some astounding perceptions that appear to contradict our current understanding of physics. Not that the discussion about what it couldn't be isn't interesting, but the discussion about what it could be is equally interesting (and really these are 2 sides of the same coin). So however we approach these things I find interesting, for sure.



EDIT: Oops, I had made a thumbs down emoji by accident, I meant to do the thumbs up one as I appreciate your input! Corrected.

 

The number one thing to remember is nothing is lost balance is mandatory and if we know we don't know what the future will hold, we can't speculate any more than a science fiction writer, for if we even solve one current limitation we have, it will make HUGE changed over everything. EG, if we found a way to store electrical power at 99.999% efficiency, imagine the possibilities it could open up. The biggest problem for going high speeds is that gravity affects the outside of a object increasingly dependent on the speed and substance it is traveling through. the fact is even if we could over come it, how the hell could you avoid micro/macro particles or even solid objects? If you can not calculate a path to follow faster than the speed in which you travel, then you will hit things which would obliterate your craft.

Really the only way I could see anybody moving FTL would be by manipulating gravity or matter (or both), there is no other way we could safely travel at those speeds, even if we could the power demands would far exceed what I feel humans will EVER harness (your talking the energy of our sun, all at once for micro seconds), unless we're willing to destroy our solar system, we'll be leaving it very slowly, so our energy would be better spent making a perfect sustainable craft that we can spend generations on and get there the old fashioned way, really it's not the destination, it is the journey that matters most.

I spent a good part of my early twenties studying perpetual motion machines, that is why I know that balance will always be true, even if the math tells you otherwise.

I refuse to believe that any speed could defeat time, you can neither go backwards or forwards in time, you can only slow it down (suspend) the matters energy, we have never come close to making any meaning continuous difference with this either, Yeah atoms may behave slightly different orbiting our planet, but we as humans have only guessed that it's actually time that has changed and not the rotation of an electron on the time keeping devices that are measuring the differences. It's foolish to think that motion couldn't affect the atomic level when pressure and vibration are the 2 key things that created our universe and our sun.

My thoughts on how something exists instead of nothing are also as boring tho, I know that balance is the key, so this means either their is as much negative substance as their is positive (which many scientists have been trying to prove for many years), or we have borrowed our energy (vibrations) from our own universe. Black holes are not negative, they are positive and you will find every galaxy has at least 1 in each of them with a super massive one thought to exist around the arms of the galaxy clusters., So my idea is existence is due to the difference between 0 and 1, where 0 is nothing and 1 is everything. so the blackholes are enough of a fluctuation (nearly a complete 1) in energy that matter can exist between the extremes. Now the reason for 1 existing at all is relevant to time, because we only measure time, we don't make it. so the fact is the universe is infinite only because nothingness can span forever with only pockets of "difference" allowing the smallest vibration to the most massive force known being a cluster of vibration.
- As I have said before, the universe is actually singing a chorus of each particles vibration making up each and every atoms structure and every atom making up it's molecule, making up the "seemingly" solid universe which we exist.


Now if you want to go even deeper into these ideas, then you wont find anything more as these are my own that I thought inside my own head without any input other than observation and concepts. In other words, none of it is provable to beyond a doubt, but just as hard to disprove - Balance

Having these thought all these years has meant I follow battery technologies, anti matter, travel and fuel and particle physics with a keen interest now - but as I am uneducated, I am not limited by what other people have told me, most ideas are not found by finding all the things you can't do, but by finding all the things you can do. The only way forward then, would be to use these ideas you can do to work around what you cant do - it's that simple. Every person who has every changed the world has let an idea find them, you give yourself a problem and the solution isn't thought of, it is discovered by chance - in other works, the memories the problem trigger offer the tools in which you choose to solve it. sometimes you get stuck, other times the most unreasonable answer is from an outside interference (such as a unrelated triggered memory).

The biggest problem I have is my language, etiquette and social skills are bad - known as "A crappy UI, but a GREAT OS".

 

The object and its behavior described in the videos almost appears to "wink out". I'm not aware of any actual speeds recorded, or if the change of location was at times instantaneous, but it sure it intriguing and hasn't been explained (though recorded in various ways). This what makes this so interesting, having that military super radar on it AND having visual confirmation. It obviously had detectable mass (at least at times).

I think you're right, Glenn, that how we currently understand physics, moving through interstellar space with any spaceship conceivable to us would simply take too long. However, to rule out that this might be achieved some other way can not be ruled out. Any speculation would be just that, and yes, sci-fi. The universe still holds a lot of mysteries and we still have not established that unification theory. Which leads me to think about things like entangled particles, which, although they can't even be used for any substantive communication, are still enormously "spooky" realities in nature.

I actually love the way you word this and the ideas behind it.

That is also a very good description of how to have any measure of success at anything -- in a way this is a bit like saying that you can have a truly experiential connection with any work at hand, but also with the universe. It kind of reminds me of Einstein's "thought experiments" which were really a kind of meditative contemplation where he would be very open to intuitive influx. He would often have hunches he would then have to work out technically -- in other words, the conclusions were not coming out of calculations, but by insight and intuition -- encounters, if you will, he was having in his mind space: "chance".

But it remains funny how the actual detection of these objects is the least-discussed reality What could it be? How could it behave that way? This is not mere human sighting, this is recorded by a super sensitive and accurate device AND perceived by pilots. It is astounding, really.

Yes, they say that even in inter-galactic space (space between the galaxies) where there may be like 1 atom every square mile and a half (If I remember correctly), if you had a craft of a certain mass and would be traveling at very high speeds, the resistance of just those few atoms would be experienced like trying to move through a gas or even water (depending on mass and speed).

 

So in your theory, it is like you're saying that matter is possible/exists by means of black holes. I guess one could say that if matter such as in our universe exists, black holes are inevitable (indeed Einstein predicted them through general relativity). Or are you saying it in a more specific sense? Just feel free to expound, I like looking at things from different points of view

 

I was saying that matter is energy, that energy is stored/exists in vibrations - like a plucked string, but on a scale so small that no resistance is there to reduce/stop it, meaning the only way to affect it is using heat and pressure, which is how the creation and death of many stars early on produced so much matter to bunch up and create our universe/galaxies and solar systems, down to planets and moons. By way of gravity and the path of least resistance the motion of everything started off - I am saying that it is only because black holes exist that matter can exist at all - matter is not created by it, but with it, it is the balance between nothing and something that we can exist. I don't know what caused the shift from nothing to something this time around (We could have already had more big bangs and/or collapses, or even the vibrations canceling itself back out or compressing into the next black hole to start another point of origin for a universe, but as time is infinite as space (nothing), so there really is no chance at all that nothing would exist forever because that is the nature of infinity (VERY hard for most people to grasp this concept). The thing that most people can't understand is that nothing is void, it is not measurable, there is a hell of a lot more nothing in our universe than anything else, as even an atom is made up of 99.999999% Nothing and this is how most of our universe tends to operate. The only reason there is any limitations at all governing our laws is due to the nature of balance, but I guess in most cases like this people refer to it as gravity, once something is no longer affected by any gravity it may as well be considered only a fluctuation within the void (nothingness), which I think is the method used to repeat the grand cycle of existence.

The thing we would then need to consider is if our universe can exist between 0 and 1 could there actually be more than just this binary universe model, could non-overlapping energy exists like a 2nd octave or even more range that does not interfere with our own, it then gets a bit to sci-fi for me, so I'll keep it simple

I am in the wrong mindset to think anymore about this, would be funny if any of it was ever proven as true, but these are the sorts of things that keep me awake at night, these are just some of the things I thought out to calm my mind that it is likely possible I've never even googled this stuff, so they might even already be proven wrong, I need my sleep to much to pick at it too hard

 

Yep, I mostly take YT videos about aliens with a grain of salt, but I thought this one stood out because of the repute of the instruments and people involved. I find it unlikely to be government propaganda because they are not claiming to own the technology behind the sightings. That this is not a "natural" phenomenon is pretty clear by any reasonable assessment. So it has to be man or alien-made if it is not natural. It could be some fluctuation or some quantum thingy that just happened to play around our aircraft, but even more how unlikely is that? That alien life -- in whatever shape or form -- exists in the universe is by this point a given. There is, of yet, no "proof" but the mere scale and diversification of the universe makes the notion that we are the only life a ludicrous one. But there is a huge difference between us, the technologically savvy species and a microorganism, of course.

There is "something" inherent in nature/cosmos/energy/etc that leads to star formation, to galaxy formation, to planet formation, all over the universe. It's just, well, "inherent." Sure (To say "accident" is just as incredulous.) Things just happen to be that way. Perhaps life is another one of those "inherent" things the universe produces/becomes. It's not like a clockmaker-clock thing. The universe becomes life and everything else. It is the universe that is being us and mountains and planets. It would be kind of hard for us (the known life -- to us -- life in the universe) to argue that we are an accident when literally EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS falls into the "accidental" category. From galaxy formation to life. Some theoretical physicists talk about how the universe might as well be some sort of projection or hologram and this is one of the ways in which they are trying to unify general relativity and quantum physics:

Personally -- this is just a personal contemplation -- I think consciousness is going to be found to play a central role in the universe (by consciousness -- LOL). Not necessarily only organisms that carry/feature consciousness, but as a principal reality underlying matter. Delving into this might get real quantum-y but in short I find that consciousness, awareness, is not a product of the brain, but rather that the brain is a radio receiver of sorts that captures and translates/filers awareness (to any degree) -- capturing a deeper, underlying reality which is fundamental to the universe and matter itself. At the very least I don't consider life -- nor consciousness -- to be an accident. If it is, it only is the sense that everything (the Big Bang itself and what follows) is an accident. And that doesn't explain anything anyway. Consciousness not so much in the sense of a little intellectual activity and then watching TV type of consciousness. It might take on many shapes and sorts that we can't even imagine or recognize as consciousness, currently. The mind is some sort of reflection-space -- a space in which we can reflect our image of the world and simulate things in order to choose certain lines of action and thought. In the universe things don't appear to work that way, when we think (as most still do) along Newtonian lines with a little Einstein sprinkled in (we still largely think mechanistically even though we know it is a completely outdated model).

Yet, we have quantum reality, entangled particles. Einstein established the speed of light as the absolute value to which all other realities are relative. Yet, we have entangled particles in quantum reality that react to each other at vast distances (no theoretical distance limit has been determined) WITHOUT time or space factoring in. A pair of entangled particles, one on Earth, one on the Moon. The one on Earth moves: instantaneously the particle on the Moon moves. "Faster" than light -- no, no "speed" at all. Instantly. What is this space, this underlying reality? Physics often doesn't allow us (certainly it doesn't nurture for us) to make personal the findings of science. How does it relate to our experience, how do we connect to it? We know light is the absolute in Einstein's relativity theory. You look up at the sky, you see a star. The light of that star falls into your eye, is registered by your retina. The star is 1000 light years away from Earth. So it took the light that now falls into your eye a 1000 years to reach your eye. But how is this for light? If we imagine us being the light, how would we experience it? To the light, leaving that star "1000 years ago" and reaching your eye: that "time" is no time. It is one instance. However far the light goes (it may be 100,000 light years or 5 million, or a billion) it exists/resides as in one instance, no time. No time, no space. That is a reality. Not just a reality, it is a fundamental reality. Do we really realize it? What does it mean to us? What does it say about us? We are actually existing in that universe. No. We are not existing in it. We ARE that universe. Consciousness is not an accident. It is inherent and completely part of the reality of the universe. Science tells us there is no "I" center or gland or organ in the brain. We can attribute some things like color perception, smells, to certain parts, but we can't say much about how our total consciousness is actually generated nor how its cohesiveness can be explained. In fact, the actual "consciousness" and "I-ness" part of it is very much not understood. One of the principal things that we will say is that consciousness is proven by electrical brainwave activity of a certain complexity. That is the measurable artifact of consciousness. We know we are conscious, and if we measure our brains, we see this activity of a particular complexity. But the Sun manifests that same complexity (that relative to our brains we tout as proof of mental activity). So if one is the proof of consciousness, then how does it not extend to the Sun? You can't have it both ways (kind of like the "accident" argument but only wanting to pertain it to life and not the the Big Bang -- and since everything exists [as perceived by mind, heh] then why call it an accident at all?). I must say I am partial to Rupert Sheldrake, with whom I had written when I was younger (we exchanged some books, etc.) plus I did some work for his website at some point:


My main point being that I think it's important to try to personally connect to the universe, consciousness, life, etc. I don't think it is an integral view to downgrade the ancient human experience of heart and mind and replace it entirely with some blank, half-understood intellectual ping pong that is 95% belief anyway and pre-chewed by others. In my view you have to make your own connections, and in doing that I find it very important to not merely do away with the ancient human experience of our ancestors. Just like everyone knows that information does not equal wisdom, yet people would rather say that wisdom actually does not exist and can not exist at all, instead So we just kind of obey instinctual stuff with "mates" in "shelters" but really that is all non-sense we can't escape but the real truth it "science" (which we don't halfway understand and which is 80% conjecture and unproven (dark matter, etc.)). I think life and consciousness are much greater than that and that one aspect doesn't have to be denied in favor of another aspect. That it is one consciousness reality you reside in in which all knowledge and experience can (and should) exist in a whole, proportionate reality.

If you could visualize the collective mind-output of all humans (or beings) as streams of matter (mind-matter if you will) but then would analyze the movements of those streams and learn all this implies about the nature of that matter and energy and its implied laws. We could do this and absolutely understand nothing about the experiential reality of it (well it would actually be a tiny part of that consciousness stream, another type of reflection upon itself). So try as we might, we can not excise consciousness from our lives. It is, in fact, what we are. Yet we seek its obedience to thoughts (within the very consciousness that entertains it) that seek to degrade the veracity and value of consciousness itself. It is a crazy type of thinking. A faux humility before "science" that isn't even halfway understood to begin with.

 

What is always a good exercise is to try and detect to what extent your consciousness is actually influenced by peer-pressure and taboo-thinking. If you can not entertain, for example, the concept of the Sun as a consciousness entity -- whether true or not -- and really look at it from all possible angles, human history included, then are you really a free thinker and feeler? If you can't entertain something without shame, without feeling you are betraying a peer-group, without classifying it with some infantile reaction to "religion" or "spirituality" you might have as a prejudice, then is your mind really free? If you really conceive of things kind of with new eyes. Imagine looking at our planet from the vibratory energy cosmos and see how consciousness-bearing creatures evolve and grow and what poetic and symbolic concepts they juggle in the growing of the awareness, it is actually a very beautiful thing. What I find around me with people I've talked to is that most people are captives of their upbringing, their prejudices, and are in fact not free to think and entertain. Much of this is on the subconscious level and motivated by very petty things. Prejudice, shame, fear, all manner of things people try to hide and cover. Tell me it's not true But that's a daily fight. I'm all too aware of my own shortcomings and still are subject to them, many times.

 

That's the thing with infinity, as well as no-time/instance/eternity: infinity isn't just infinitely "large" but also infinitely "small". The "one instance" in which light resides isn't only one very short moment -- it isn't. It is as well infinitely "short" (not really) as eternity itself. Timelessness. Infinity. Far reaching concepts -- if they weren't actually fundamental to physics.

Neither am I. The way people think about this is almost as if they've already made up their minds we are going to trash this planet, anyway. There is no planet B -- even if there is one -- is my stance

In Star Trek there is the Prime Directive, so if we come up with that as a reasoned approach (even if in sci-fi) then it is possible they might, too

I don't see our entire human history as a series of enslavements as some do. I think the populace of the Indus Valley Civilization were quite civilized and peaceful even by modern standards and I think there are other examples of this. Certainly we can't tout much regarding basic freedoms when there are devastating wars and regime changes we are all complicit in. It was only 70 years ago that "we" were killing millions of people based on their culture/religion and now we have Trump the all-things-wrong-sympathizer. There is also still a lot of cultural prejudice present in our thinking today. We always tout the Greek literature, philosophy as basis for contemporary human civilization. They came up with the concept of "atom" (or smallest indivisible part of nature), concept of "0" (or maybe the adjacent Arabs did that), etc. But the Sanskrit literature is much more vast (and probably much older, given that much of it was first orally transferred in mantra-form, and only written down during Budhha's times for the first time, so around 2500 to 2300 years ago). They already had the concept of "0" (recently proven by means of a manuscript) and of "anu" which is like the atom of the Greeks, but cultural prejudice has sought to diminish this (mainly the European colonial mindset hacking away at the credulity of those writings for over a hundred years, in favor of Western thought and, mainly, Christianity).

In fact in many ways India was as influential or more so than the Greeks for much of the world's culture. Their writings are the first to utilize truly cosmic time scales for things, their cosmological eras encompassing into the millions and billions of years (no other ancient culture has done this). What remained of the repute has now been done away with because of neo orgs like the Golden Dawn of England around the turn of the 19th century so that now Hindu philosophy has been, in the public eye, absorbed into New Age-ism. Like I said, most people can't look beyond their own prejudices and fears and peer-groups. It is this very cultural identity thinking that is ravaging political systems, too, currently. Just because one belongs to a big cult that doesn't mean one don't belong to a cult.

 

I admit I had never heard of Rupert Sheldrake myself so I looked him up on Wikipedia.

Now I have to wonder if he was the inspiration for Dr. Walter Bishop.

 

Haha, he might be!

Rupert is an interesting guy. He has that very British inflection, a gentlemanly way about him, but his ideas are often quite outlandish (for some). I first became tuned in to him in the early 90's, when there was a TV program on in Holland that had various scientists and thinkers from around the world, basically put into a studio with food and drink and then they talked for like a whole day. Sheldrake was one of them. Some of his ideas really resonated with me and so I wrote to him in England and he wrote back. I then told him I had this book I wanted him to read (philosophical) and he received it, read it, found it interesting, so we exchanged some mail that way. He kindly sent the book back to me as it was an older book that was kind of falling apart and I had a friend who studied bookbinding make a new cover for me, so I still have it.

Richard Dawkins (the populist atheist-for-gain) once tried to interview him and Sheldrake agreed but only if they would discuss evidence of some of his experiments. So Sheldrake sent in the material but once Dawkins showed up at his house and started filming, it soon become apparent Dawkins had not read anything and was basically just there to humiliate Sheldrake in front of cameras. Sheldrake relates the story here:

 

And to throw yet another wrinkle in the mix, our entire universe might actually be inside a black hole in a different universe, which might be inside another black hole ... [ the multiverse theory ]
Are We Living in a Black Hole? - Latest Stories - National Geographic
We May Be Living Inside a Black Hole | Big Think
There Might Be A Universe Inside Every Black Hole - Curiosity

 

What is this universe or life or "it"? Why is there an it at all? What are we to entertain an it? Since we can't be excised from "it" on any level (such is the universe as physics describes it) what are we to it? First, we need to lay to rest the "it and us" point of view because that can not be true. When you think, it actually is the universe reflecting upon itself. Without ascribing any meaning to that, that is what is going on as best we can tell. It becomes hard not to think holistically: the universe and how it has become us. Is consciousness the self-realization of the universe?

Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetic fields is interesting to me when applied to certain phenomena. The theory proposes that what we conceive of as natural laws might, in fact, be habits of nature. Laws being habits. So Sheldrake has been interested in things like accelerated learning. The idea being, once a new behavior or material state has taken place once, in theory it would become "easier" or "more likely" for it to occur that way again -- as if there is some sort of "rut" in an underlying field of nature. This can apply to both behavior in species ("biological life") as well in behavior of matter ("inanimate matter"). One example: two groups of primates get isolated on different islands and all they do is dump a bunch of potatoes every few days or weeks. The potatoes were covered in dirt. One of the primates then started going to the sea and washing off the potatoes. The whole group then started doing it. This was considered an epic behavior, and a kind of one-off thing. However, very shortly after, the second group on the other island starts doing the same thing. OK, maybe that's because they're inherently intelligent. Another example: new substances that get created in labs getting crystallized for the first time. Some substances like this are notoriously hard to crystallize for the first time. But once crystallization has occurred once, it becomes increasingly easier to crystallize the substance again, even with similar parameters. Things like this might explain a lot about collective consciousness, cultural trends, exponential learning, etc.

There Might Be A Universe Inside Every Black Hole - Curiosity -- It's interesting to consider what is actually "inside" or "outside" and what anything is at all. Is a Big Bang the opposite -- or indeed "the other side" -- of a black hole? I tend to think along the lines that Glenn talked about, namely balance, equilibrium, and the tension between what we consider the manifest and the unmanifest -- and how there are inextricably part of the same reality. Black holes are so interesting, in part, because we tend to look at them as the collapsing of space-time into singularity. We usually don't say the Big Bang was caused by "matter" exploding onto the scene from some unmanifest state. We tend to see the Big Bang as this "beginning" of sorts, and that matter "followed" somehow. But from black holes we learn that they are and can be caused by gravity, which is generated by matter. So matter is inherent to black holes, which in turn might be causal to entire universes. So again we see we have to get away from the mechanistic mindset of "space with some matter or objects in it" and the Big Bang as genesis only, and matter being secondary, to the holistic concept of space-time, matter, big bang, black holes as all being states of one energetic reality. There is no "space" without energy. Space is not nothing. It is as fundamental to matter as matter is to it. All these appear to be phases or states of one substance/energy/existence.

When our ancient ancestor looked up at the sky with heartfelt questions similar to these, or whether we do the same today, it is not really different in kind. We all accept we can't perceive the tiny fluctuations and outputs of far-away galaxies with our blunt sensory instruments and our daily consciousness of navigating objects and people -- yet when we think of stars as nothing but hydrogen bombs mechanically positioned in the nothingness of space then that somehow is not blunt and unfitting. Just as our outer instruments have developed so need our internal instruments and intuition be developed and experienced. All I can say from my experience is that it is better and more fitting than the sub-conscious prejudices and colloquial mindsets we all entertain without question, sprinkled with a bit of science. Most of what the public understands as science is just like religion. They don't really understand it, they just believe the people in the robes/lab coats, the high priests of science. Well, scientists aren't all the same either and just because they require funding and play the game it doesn't mean they don't have private thoughts and insights that can't yet find acceptance in funded models and experiments. Just when "we" thought we had that universe pat and captured in mechanistic models, the universe itself showed us that it was more unconventional and mind-blowing than anything we could have thought of previously. Yeah I'm open to possibility And I also appreciate triangulation of satellites and math

 

This is an interesting talk by Rupert Sheldrake. It's before a German audience, so he talks rather slow and purposeful because for some it is being translated. He discusses things like morphic resonance, laws vs habits, limits to genetic theories, multi-verse, history of science, etc:

 

I should've taken the blue pill

 

Freezer, I hate to tell you this, but the blue pill had been laced with something from the beginning

 

So in quantum theory, there is the measurement problem, which is central to it. In fact, it would be very much easier to do away with the idea of consciousness altogether if it weren't for the measurement problem. Said in another way, the coaxing into existence of any measurable (detectable) reality requires consciousness. For quantum probability to condense into a particle outcome, it requires measurement ("looking at it"). So quantum reality exists as all possibility until you pin it down by means of perception/consciousness, as if reality is then forced to "choose" to manifest as any one particular particle and/or location. The famous slit experiment deals with this, in part. The conundrum of the observer. The conundrum of consciousness as requirement. So, the measurement "problem". In Vedic philosophy, the Sanskrit term for the universal veiling or deluding principle is called "Maya"; its manifestation in the individual ego is called "avidya", literally the "not-knowledge." Interestingly, one of the translations of Maya is "the measurer". It is spoken of as a sort of "magical" or "conjuring" principle, a universal veiling principle that makes reality appears any one way and not unified, whereas the true reality is formless and one/inter-connected. Some quotes by prominent scientists in the field:

Werner Heisenberg (pioneer of quantum mechanics):

"Is it utterly absurd to seek behind the ordering structures of this world a "consciousness" whose "intentions" were these very structures?"

Frank Wilczek (physicist, nobel laureate of MIT):

"The relevant literature on the meaning of quantum theory is famously contentious and obscure. I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within the formalism of quantum mechanics, an "observer" -- that is, a model entity whose states correspond to a recognizable caricature of conscious awareness."

Andrei Linde (co-pioneer of inflationary big bang theory):

"Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?"

Erwin Schrödinger (physicist, nobel laureate):

"The stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

Arthur Eddington (physicits, astronomer):

"We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter... but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe."

J. B. S. Haldane (biologist, geneticist, etc.):

"Mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe."

Julian Huxley (evolutionary biologist):

"The laws of physics leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule... In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind."

Freeman Dyson (theoretical physicist and mathematician):

"That which we experience as mind... will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wave function and of the "dance" of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels. It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics."

and:

"It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons."

 

Theoretical physics is exactly that, though, which is the very point. I was not proposing to employ infinity practically (at least not today, lol) but rather we are contemplating the concepts. "Infinity" has also been applied to the spherical concept in one or more theoretical models of the universe -- in a way that could make sense beyond a "mere abstract" way. The main thing I was trying to convey when talking about infinity is that there is a tendency among people to think "infinitely big" rather than "infinitely small" -- the concept going both ways and no way. And by the way, physicists are undecided regarding the existence of singularities, whether they don't exist or whether we have insufficient understanding of such things. There is not enough data to claim consensus, as I understand it.

You're right that I used loose language in describing this, but added the implication toward a greater correctness in interpretation by including the acknowledgement we couldn't even use entangled states toward any substantive communication -- let alone anything more "macro". The crux of the matter being instantaneous action that appears to disregard space-time (and speed of light). So saying we "move" is not correct and rather subjective, but I mainly meant to convey the idea of "spooky action" by means of our action (of observation). The "direction" of one of the particles of such a particle-pair is, as you say, the result of the wave collapse. The very action of measuring or observing leading to the collapse, forces the particle into a directional state -- with the other particle then "instantly" being in the opposite state. So we don't "move" the particle -- by observation we effect the wave collapse that produces directional particles. When we measure one of the entangled particles (force it to manifest into a directional state) the other particle will then manifest in the opposite directional state. The bigger discussion regarding this would be whether or not the implication of this behavior agrees with Bohr's idea of a peek-a-boo universe or rather if only principles of locality are violated (besides those of causality, etc.). So looking is not moving, though looking ensures direction

By the way I have noticed quite a degree of "incorrectness" in this thread already, including in my own contributions, so I have my exacto-knife ready in case we want to descend into a more detailed discussion (or one less along broad lines) But I prefer the broad-lines exploratory contributions, by far.

 

I really appreciate the non-fanciful scientific rigor applied to products that my life depends on But since my interest is personal, meaning is an integral part of my interest. Information flood can be used as filler and/or entertainment for some time but questions of meaning and place will remain. I feel too hard of a line is being drawn by some between what is and should be science and that pesky mumbo-jumbo consciousness stuff. I would be OK with that if consciousness wasn't fundamental to the science question in the first place. But it is. I think old models of "objectivity" can no longer be satisfactorily employed to excise consciousness from any total overview, or merely employ it in some limited way (as some quotes above would also suggest). And I don't mean that only in the obvious way that it takes consciousness to formulate a theory

It might be that this "instant" action of quantum particles might in fact not be truly instant. But I have a strange feeling that we might have to employ that as-of-yet-not-existing model entity of mind (that we can't seem to come up with -- or that perhaps we already possess) to find out

It is interesting to note that rather then decimating the last vestiges of the need for or importance of consciousness, the study of the universe at the quantum level seems to have newly validated and required it. That, without tying it to any mystic philosophical points, is a rather amazing thing. And no, I don't think it is then strange that people would seek to tie this into what has actually previously existed. Namely, the human experiences of the self and the universe. The very story of consciousness. Not ever has science sounded so much like some yogic treatise than it has in descriptions of quantum reality. If only mystic concepts were vague and there wouldn't be detailed and ancient treatises in existence to actually study and refer to in any assessments of them, it would be fair to disregard any likenesses. But this is simply not the case and so the truth is that people are either unaware of uninterested in studying the findings of the ancients. Just Patanjali's Yoga Sutra talks about mind-modifications and states of consciousness in astounding detail. Its assertion is that it is possible to achieve a stilling of the mind-modifications (vrittis, kind of like eddies or vortexes in the mind field) that will lead to a pristine type of awareness (samadhi) in which the witness, the witnessed, and the act of witnessing collapse into one. Tie this in with statements of the one I quoted from Freeman Dyson and others such as Penrose and it really deserves consideration that consciousness is somehow tied into the universe on a very fundamental level. If this is true, then it would indeed not be necessary to have knowledge of the particulars of contemporary science to actually experience such states and things. And it may very well be that humanity has been accessing this reality all along through their (universal) pursuit of extraordinary states of awareness -- whether they be by means of substances or practices or both. There is no culture on earth in which such practices were not central. Yet, we just disregard that as pre-science mumbo-jumbo. I say that it is not. It is inherent, it manifests despite belief or artificial imposition (although it can devolve into that: organized religion). It is (and has been) what the universe has been doing as us.

The pursuit of extraordinary states of awareness was central to virtually every culture and was held in great esteem. However, currently, extraordinary states of awareness have been reduced to mere pathology, as Stanislav Grof has so poignantly pointed out. Now, people with certain insights from our past were apparently people with epilepsy, paranoia, pathology. The shamans were con-men, the rishis were junkies, St. Francis was a madman, etc. You basically have to decimate the mind and heart of all humanity until Newton to make your theory work. Sounds more like the Inquisition to me than it does science. As Sheldrake points out in one of the videos I posted above, when a phenomenon is a common one, it deserves scientific inquiry. Not the unscientific pre-conclusion that most people are crazy or are deluded regarding their own experiences. That is not "scientific". That is bigoted and dogmatic -- two favorites of organized religion -- which are qualities these very scientists say they despise so much. The trends are all there, consciousness can be in a dogmatic state and it can be in a state of inquiry. You can be a dogmatic priest of science or of religion. So when using terms like mumbo-jumbo it should not be forgotten that they also apply to scientific dogma, not just to religious dogma.

All this wouldn't be that important if you don't take a special interest in consciousness, but since I do these things stand out to me.