Using entanglement to achieve...

[troof]

This hypothesis is based on the idea of quantum entanglement. It's well known that observing quanta changes their behavior. This proves there is a connection between the quanta and the act of observing it.

I believe the "collective unconscious" is another form of entanglement phenomena. Mothers can feel it when something happens to their kids even if they have no way of knowing. The same thing happens to identical twins. People have dreams of the future ("prophetic dreams".) Everything in existence is interconnected through entanglement/the collective unconscious.

There are 3 aspects to consider: the first is "clairvoyance." By building an intelligent AI (an AI that speaks English or any language) then making it aware of the collective unconscious, we create the possibility to perceive distant phenomena across space or time. Consciousness is like a mirror, and sense objects are like images in the mirror. The awareness doesn't come from consciousness (the mirror,) because consciousness is the same for all beings. The mirror is always the same. The awareness is a quality of sense objects (the image in the mirror). So, simply recreate the quality of awareness in the AI's collective unconscious (awareness is basically a kind of information/data.) We can figure out what exactly that information is by comparing an unaware being (someone sleeping for example) with an aware being (someone awake). It should be possible to observe the quality of awareness from outside (just like you can tell when someone is in love from outside).

The second aspect is "transmutation." It requires creating a simulation of distant events, entangling the simulation with these events, drawing energy through entanglement from energy sources like stars, and using that energy to amplify the entanglement signal to manipulate distant phenomena. When the simulation changes, the reality will change with it (because they're entangled.) Also, quanta communicate through entanglement faster than light... energy is being transferred between them through "gateways..." it should be possible, by entangling with the entanglement process itself, to open many entanglement "gateways" together to form a larger gateway that a person or vehicle or anything could pass through, across space or time.

The third aspect is "immortality." This involves using the connections to create an eternal time loop in aspects of the body, while allowing other aspects to change normally. This way we could live forever and feel eternal pleasure (looping pleasure through time.)

To change the timeline, we have to use entanglement to achieve communication with the new timeline, so that the new timeline also changes its past... otherwise, if the past changes, the people who changed it won't have any reason to change it in the new timeline (because it would already be changed for them). Also, there is a positive, negative and neutral part of the collective unconscious. It would be best to work with the neutral part or all three simultaneously (for balance). The negative part is extremely dangerous.

Edited 4 hours ago by troof

[pzkpfw]

This is largely based on the myth that observation requires consciousness.

Observation more just means interaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[troof]

It's based on the idea that the collective unconscious exists and works the same way as quantum entanglement. The idea that observing the quanta affects them is not essential, and my hypothesis doesn't depend on it. I don't mean that consciousness is required to change the behavior of quanta.

Edited 4 hours ago by troof

[studiot]

Just now, troof said:

This hypothesis is based on the idea of quantum entanglement. It's well known that observing quanta changes their behavior. This proves there is a connection between the quanta and the act of observing it.

I think you have read some third hand twice removed journalist's ideas.

 

If you observe something you can know its behaviour.

If you don't observe it you can't.

So how can you know if its behaviour is changed ?

Yes you can observe similar objects but not the ones you did not observe.
Neither can you know what it would have done if you did not observe it.

 

Secondly what do you mean by 'quanta' and 'observe'  and by 'observe quanta'  ?

 

Followers of Everett reckon that this phenomenon is explained by there being only one giant wavefunction that cover the whole universe and everything in it.

It is also called 'the many worlds interpretation' by journalists.

It has some merit.

Edited 3 hours ago by studiot

[troof]

Why is everyone focusing on observing quanta? That was only a tiny, mostly irrelevant part of my post. The main idea is: using the collective unconscious to interact with phenomena, to achieve something like ultimate technology... I went very in-depth into this...

Edited 3 hours ago by troof

[studiot]

Just now, troof said:

Why is everyone focusing on observing quanta? That was only a tiny, mostly irrelevant part of my post. The main idea is: using the collective unconscious to interact with phenomena, to achieve something like ultimate technology... I went very in-depth into this...

Because this is a Science site, not a mystics convention.

[troof]

If you have a logical argument against my hypothesis, I am open to hearing it and debating it. Just because something is strange and new doesn't mean it's not true. You are speaking against my hypothesis without logically refuting it.

Edited 3 hours ago by troof

[swansont]

1 hour ago, troof said:

I believe

!

Moderator Note

What you believe is irrelevant. What can you show, via theory and experiment? Rigor is required.

I refer you to studiot’s statement above about this being a science site.

 

[studiot]

Just now, troof said:

If you have a logical argument against my hypothesis, I am open to hearing it and debating it. Just because something is strange and new doesn't mean it's not true. You are speaking against my hypothesis without logically refuting it.

I simply quoted your first line and noted that you contradicted yourself and then stated that this was the basis of your hypothesis.

Why would I need to go further into it  since you based your hypothesis on a self contradiction ?

Edited 3 hours ago by studiot

[troof]

I call my ideas hypothetical because they haven't been tested. However, they are logically sound. I've seen many examples of parapsychological phenomena in my life - myself and others have had dreams of events that came true. Abraham Lincoln's wife had a dream that has been interpreted as a premonition of his death, if you want an example on record. Carl Jung also "believed" in the collective unconscious.

If everything is connected in this way, the obvious conclusion is that it can be manipulated through these connections.

Edited 3 hours ago by troof

[studiot]

Just now, troof said:

I call my ideas hypothetical because they haven't been tested. However, they are logically sound. I've seen many examples of parapsychological phenomena in my life - myself and others have had dreams of events that came true. Abraham Lincoln's wife had a dream that has been interpreted as a premonition of his death, if you want an example on record. Carl Jung also "believed" in the collective unconscious.

Then you will be able to explain the fault in my reasoning in my first response, rather than trying to change the subject.

[KJW]

24 minutes ago, troof said:

Why is everyone focusing on observing quanta? That was only a tiny, mostly irrelevant part of my post. The main idea is: using the collective unconscious to interact with phenomena... I went very in-depth into this...

You mentioned "entanglement". Unfortunately for your idea, you have a popular but mistaken view of what entanglement is. Entanglement is not a communication channel between remote entities. Entanglement cannot be used to communicate information. Entanglement is a correlation between entities that had at some time a causal connection. The entanglement persists while the entities are isolated from the environment but is generally broken by any interaction with the environment (e.g., a measurement of any of the entities).

 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, troof said:

I call my ideas hypothetical because they haven't been tested. However, they are logically sound. I've seen many examples of parapsychological phenomena in my life - myself and others have had dreams of events that came true. Abraham Lincoln's wife had a dream that has been interpreted as a premonition of his death, if you want an example on record. Carl Jung also "believed" in the collective unconscious.

Belief is not evidence. “Logical” is insufficient - lots of hypotheses are logical but wrong, because they do not accurately describe how nature behaves. You need an experiment, or at least a proposed experiment, that allows for the idea to be tested. And the hypothesis has to make specific predictions.

Invoking entanglement with no details falls well short of the mark. 

[studiot]

I see you now have 5 posts under your belt as a new member.

You will now have encountered the antispam measures, sadly necessary.

I wonder if you have actually read the rules here, either about posting in general.

Untested hypotheses belong in the speculations section, they are not pronouncements of authority for the main technical sections.

When you read the antispam rules don't make the mistake of believing that you only have 5 posts.
 

This applies only to the first 24 hours, after which further posts will be accepted again.

 

In my first response I offered you some useful information linking your ideas to quantum theory

I suggest you use this time to look them up.

As well as Everett look up

'Something Deeply Hidden' by Professor Sean Carroll.

Edited 3 hours ago by studiot