Graviphoton

Yes. Copenhagen states we know, because upon measuring the particle, we see it in a state that has collapsed. We know the collapse must happen upon observation, due to careful experiments in the wave nature of gradual collapse in decoherence.

Well, don't mean to blow my own trumpet, but i thought i provided quite high-quality pseudoscience... errr,... speculations...

No, i state artificial intelligence is not achievable through electrons in a wire. I think you will find. I state there is a big difference to biological machines, to that of cold hardwire. ... I agree, biochemistry is resulting the phenomena of cosnciousness. This is why artificial life cannot exist in the form of computers. Biocomputers, maybe.

In respect to the binding principle, i stated once in an essay: ''How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, the 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes?'' The binding problem, for me to explain it well, is how mental phenomena, arises in such a clean state, and not in a disasembled configuration. Also, it can mean other things, but this is the universal interpretation. And, sorry... i don't know who coined the term. Also... have you never heard of the term of pathology used in science? I stated pathology, simply because it may be bias theory. It may not be though. I think the theory makes a lot of sense, and i am still waiting for people to tackle what i have stated.

Oh right... thanks

INow... no no. I knew that already. I was wanting a reference to, white holes looking like black holes to an observer

Any quantum physicist will agree, that we need to trace the unified theory back to the beginningof time, where quantum rules run the game. This isn't speculation, but maintream acceptance. Also, when you speak to Dr. Kaku, ask him about our wave functions, don't ask him about the tree. Ask him if ''our bodies'' have a wave function that spreads out into space. That is more accurate. Also, i am not avoiding your question: proove consciousness exists. I have a lot of paper work to look through to find the acceptance it does indeed exist. Please be patient.

How is it? I've introduced three principles (not to mistake the Uncertain principle for Heisenbergs uncertainty principle) for consciousness and mind. Before, i was talking about it having its own intrinsic degrees of freedom.

Swanson Well, that really depends doesn't it? Do you believe a particle is real when not looking at it? Quantum mechanics would state it isn't. Is this an interpretation, or a fact? Mooey... i'll come to you soon m8 Moeey - just4U lol Some famous qoutes: 'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles? Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.' 'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.' Niels Bohr 'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is actual afterwards.' Bryce S. DeWitt 'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one actually emerges.' David Bohm 'There is always a triple correspondence; 1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world 2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature 3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. ' Sir Arthur Eddington References to read: ''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds 1985'' ''Mind into Matter: The New Alchemy of Science'' Can i also add: Looking at wiki, it says the Heisenberg often confused his uncertainty principle as an observer effect. Does wiki know anything? It would do some of these writers good to learn about the subjects they are writing about, so we are NOT MISINFORMED... As Dr Cramer will tell you.. ''In Copenhagen, an observer is actually unique, because the observer HAS memory of the system she measures...'' A mundane observer cannot do this. That is why the observer effect is still alive today, despite decoherence. I'll leave you with a final qoute from Andre Linde, concerning our need to answer for conscisouenss and mind: ''The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves. Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?''

Mmmm... not tha i don't believe you, but do you have any refence to the observational qualities of a white hole? I know more on black holes, than what i do white... itr would be interesting.

No. The gravitational attraction of earth, would couple with the black hole, and would inexorably mean that the black hole would fall into earth, and start to eat it up. Also, hypothetically lets say it doesn't, if the black hole isn't very big, it would very much eventually evaporate through gamma radiation production; the smaller the black hole, the quicker the evaporation of its mass. Therefore, the theory is totally bogus. And it certainly wouldn't be a white hole, because they spew out energy, not contain it. This effect would also be noticable.

Actually, i am not. You will find that one of Copenhagens arguements is that the observer is unique, to a particle, because we store the memory of the subject being observed. That is actually a very important premise. Perhaps i should have made that clearer though... then you would have realised i know that a particle is considered an observer... difference is, its an observer with no true meaning.

Please... i should know what the laws of physics implies at the subatomic level. How can you say somethingalways follows cause and effect, AT the subatomic level, when they can experience the effect well before the cause? This is quantum physics. As for your other part of the post, as i have explained, the world of macroscopic systems are an illusion, because there isn't really big objects at large, but rather a collection of smaller statistical averages. The only reason we see a tree as a tree, because these statistical averages have came together to form a single average which at our conscious level, disobey quantum uncertainty and the wave function. But the tree still has a wave function. In fact, its componants that are still in a state of superpositioning, are found to extend right out into space: ''Hyperspace Theory, Dr Kaku'' Quantum phenomena, gives rise to these things we see defy quantum rules. It doesn't however mean that it isn't a quantum system. As for proving consciousness exists, it has been done. Let me look through my papers and find the correct information... Consciousness ''in a broad sense,'' as you put it with the tree, is not a physical reality, but does arise from a quantum physical reality... so just like we may not be able to see the tree in its quantum light, but still theoretically measure statistical behaviour of quantum activity* that makes the tree a tree, we can measure the physical properties of the mind, those quantum fluctuations that give rise to a thing we cannot see in true quantum light in a whole... or ''broader sense''. Therefore, consciousness arises from quantum fluctuations, and therefore, can theoretically be physically measured. Now the general rules of brain activity must follow quantum rules... any suggestion it doesn't, requires true attention and education in this field of research, because in the end of the day, not all the particles in my head have collapsed into definate states, and therefore, there is much quantum behaviour at work. As for ''following classical rules,'' as i said before: ''We cannot deal with a mind that follows classical physics alone... because that theory would be incomplete...'' I even gave an example. Take perturbations of fluctuations inside an atom, which advently changes its course in spacetime, changing the course of another atom, changing the course of a molecule, and then another, ect ect... they will eventually change the state of a neuron. So we do need to deal with new physics, and classical physics becomes obsolete. *which is ofcourse impossible, or atleast, a mathematical disaster

And? It maybe the subject of consciousness, but in effect they are different subjects on consciousness... ... would you rather me straddle along to the physics area, and talk about some other topic on physics?

Depending on what you mean, because many doctors of physics will insideously present that the first rule of quantum physics, is that there is no reality without the perception of reality. Because of this, i can make the suggestion: ''This so-called abstract phenomenon we call consciousness, is in fact the very thing keeping any description of spacetime from being an abstract theory itself.''

The Three Laws of Time Evolution (Expectant, Uncertain and Certainty) The Pathology and Arrangement of Knowledge – I propose there are three main principles, that work differential roles against the flow of time. It highlights possible relations with the uncertainty principle in a whole, and explains why nothing at the subatomic level can be applied to mere cause and effect. In principle, they explain why we have the knowledge we have… the qualia of existence… the fountain of matter and energy, and even the ethereal mixture of consciousness. If we exist in the present time, the only ever real time, then the past, according to both the expectancy and certainty role, combined with uncertainty, says that the past is: 1. The past is ruled by certain and UNCERTAIN rules. This means that we can be certain about past events, but we can also be uncertain, as a past event could and does hold incomplete knowledge from time-to-time. During the present, we don’t tend to ‘’expect’’ anything from the past, so it doesn’t play a role. The rules in the present are all functional: 2. We can be certain, UNCERTAIN, and expect outcomes during the present time. Here, we can see that we can be certain of the present, and also be uncertain of it. So many examples could be said to how we could be uncertain during the present time: It might occur very frequent in your life… and we expect more during the present… If mind is time, and time is mind, then we always expect more… a future, this is what we always expect. Then the future has aligned for it: 3. We can be UNCERTAIN about the future and we can be Expectant of it. It seems that axiom no.3 is the only principled axiom that cannot allow any certainty. There, certainty and uncertainty arise side-by-side, and this is caused by Entropy of knowledge, which I called a while back as, ‘’linear knowledge,’’ meaning that knowledge has a linear realization to the human being. It presents itself, and unfolds its memory to us as the arrow of times shows us a directionality to that unfolding. In fact, since there is no arrow representing this, instead of some interpretations of the ‘Psychological Arrow of Time’, I shall call the ‘Informational Arrow of Time,’ to represent the linear nature of human knowledge. It’s more specific. So here we have it. The rules of consciousness has just been displayed out according to the boundaries of living in the present. This can all be linked to the Binding Principle of Neurophysics, since the mind is binding time together with knowledge. The Binding Problem can be answered for though, as I have explained, I think everything is predetermined. Because of this, space and time has a memory. We seem to ‘’seep’’ out of this memory, out of space and time, and it created this thing we call consciousness. No other configuration could perform this work, and has stunning probabilistic arguments for the Anthropic Principle of QM. Nothing? I'll just add, Niels Bohrs principle of complimentarity would be useful in describing these concepts i have brought forth.

If the theory/speculation goes against mainstream, then it should be in pseudoscience. However, (if) a theory/speculation talks about a subject not well established in current mainstream science, then the theory is speculation, and no more.

I agree with skeptic There are subtle differences between psuedoscience and speculations. In fact, not far from my first set of posts in this forum, i made exactly the same postulation. I suggest that speulations be removed, and made into its own domain.

The problem i have isn't that it predicts extra dimensions, but it simply can't work without them. The limit is 11 dimensions, 26 in some... and it cannot work below this threashold, and that limit may be damaging in the long-run.

Snap. Don't know anything or much of unparticles. I will read through this. Very interesting.

*Technically*, you cannot say a photon is a particle or a wave seperately, but instead saying it is both. This is the wave-particle duality/nature of matter... all matter.

''I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity.'' No mooey:) In quantum physics, particles below the threshold of atoms do not obey cause and effect, because these laws effectively break down. One explanation is the uncertainty principle... and by far, the most accepted explanation. In short, particles disobay the laws of macroscopic systems, and without this ability, quantum mechanics could not operate.

No point writing out a massive essay. Let's keep this as short as possible, so that we can keep on track. Here is my arguement... Without consciousness, spacetime as we know it would become abstract, simply because reality is relative to the perception of an observer. Without this so-called ''abstract'' reality of consciousness (which evidently arises from actual quantum fluctuations), is afterall, the only reality at large. I can qoute many physicists stating this fact. For what would reality be, without the observer there to give it meaning... or putting it another way... The reality of existence as we know it, would cease to exist without the observer, so physics cannot explain what reality would be at large without an observer. So in short... This so-called abstract phenomenon we call consciousness, is in fact the very thing keeping any description of spacetime from being an abstract theory itself.

bascule After some thought, here is my answer: I am not sure what parts of the brain cannot be explained by classical means, other than trying to explain for electroquantum dynamics inside the head, or protons or neutrons, or like systems. But as you said, classical mechanics can answer for nuerons... but here is my problem. Quantum systems, as much as they are descriptive, they are also incomplete. The path of a neuron, may be well mapped out, but tiny peturbations, (such as quantum behaviour) can indeed alter the course of an atom, atoms and even a neuron. Not only this, but we know that the atom is also incomplete, and requires the existence of non-classical mechanics, because we know there are smaller things. Indeed, mechanics is still in quandary about even smaller things than subatomic particles in the form of solitons. Any description of the brain using classical physics is incomplete, if we are to derive a GUT... and if the new physics is also incomplete, then we have quite a journey to go.

I see what you mean now. Let me mull over this.