From: Steve (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 15:06:15 MST
Yeh, I see, ta. The field of a primal eye has a kind of background radiation
effect, so can be just about be described by physics, but physics can't "get
at it"
because it existed in the past.
MVT is an explanation for the evolution, and therefore also functioning of
E-1
consciousness; thus also contributes to the notion of 'observers' and
the nature of "after life" too maybe. I am interested in your phrase "bath
of VIRTUAL particles" ... what does this mean to you exactly? Philosophical
idealism?
Best
Stevo
www.posthuman.org(anisation)
>
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:28:21 +0100
> From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
> Subject: Re: Quantum superposition, microtubules & MVT consciousness
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:49:10AM -0000, Steve wrote:
> > > > My physics is not particularly strong, but perhaps someone could
tell
> > > > me why a seeming observation of dual occupation of "space" might not
> > > > really be a blur caused by dual/ persistent occupation of different
> > > > points in time?
> > >
> > > What do you mean? It doesn't make much sense to me. Are you talking
> > > about the uncertainty relations? The uncertainty of position of a
> > > particle can be viewed as an uncertainty in time fairly easily; if the
> > > observer is moving relative to the observed system relativity will
cause
> > > a mixing of space and time, making the uncertainty a combination of
> > > both. [Delta x * Delta p >= hbar and Delta t * Delta E >= hbar can be
> > > seen as statements about the spatial and time components of the
> > > relativistic location and momentum vectors].
> >
> > OK, yes, this is what I thought... superposition can be viewed as
> > uncertainty in time.
>
> No, that is not that the above says. A quantum superposition is not
> uncertainty. For example, you can have a system with a superposition of
> the states "spin up" and "spin down", but when you measure it you will
> get exactly "up" or "down", not something uncertain. Before you measure
> the system you don't know which it will be (and it might be physically
> impossible to tell), but that is just lack of knowledge, not the same
> thing as the Heisenberg relations speak of. They show that you cannot
> get more than a certain amount of knowledge about a certain kind of pair
> of properties, regardless of how you try.
>
> Also, a superposition can be more complex than a 50%-50% mix of "up" and
> "down", like a 10%-90% mix or even stranger combinations due to
> interference or entanglement with other systems.
>
> > > > In that case, if there is a 'lag' between different times, then the
> > > > MVT persistent phantom pineal eye could well have quantum
connectivity
> > > > with our brains because of dual occupancy of time...... no
'physical'
> > > > pineal eye now, but it
> > > > did start to develop in us embryonically, so has a biological
latency
> > > > and pattern, so maybe has an engram or organisational effect in our
> > > > brains on quantum level.
> > >
> > > This doesn't make much sense either. Note that the uncertainty
relations
> > > doesn't say that things have to happen at separate times, and in any
> > > case relativity makes the concept of 'simultaneously' disappear - two
> > > events that occur at different times to one observer can appear
> > > simultaneous to another observer who is moving relative to the first.
> >
> > This is a fairly mundane point and not what I am trying to find out.
> > Must admit that I am fishing a bit here, and not too up to speed with
> > theoretical physics. I guess there are just "observers" ultimately,
> > and Shrodingers cat &c. are just observer-related effects .., but I
> > want to know if sub atomic particles (which are not directly
> > observable, and can only be inferred by their effects) leave some sort
> > of "trail" or prescence in space over time? Is a donut that once was
> > solid but now a ring absolutely identical with a donut that was made
> > as a ring and always that shape, even if the two are atomically
> > equivalent now?
>
> Hmm, some kind of memory effect? Since everything reacts with the bath
> of virtual particles around them, I would say that there is a kind of
> "memory" of how the donut looked in the past in the background radiation
> (technically, it would be a difference in the multipole distribution).
> But just like spoken words vanish once they are spoken, this information
> gets diluted into noise. The words reflect from walls and objects,
> turning into mechanical vibrations that become heat. This heat diffuses
> everywhere, but in principle the information is not lost. In practice
> you cannot reconstruct it from the heat without producing more entropy
> (otherwise thermodynamics wouldn't work). The donut and radiation fields
> is much the same. So nothing is lost, we just can't get it.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 15:08:43 MST