Is Faith a scientific principle?

[Krazie243]

It is time for an unusual approach to the world around us. I encourage Evar to pop in at least once and correct any mistaken theory if I have any =)

Let us begin with the simple: There was an experiment once done referred to as the double slit experiment. Its origins begin with the idea of determining whether something is a wave or particle based on the resulting interference pattern of two sources of waves or particles. For simplicity, I'll refer to the pattern seen when particles pass through the double slit as the particle interference pattern (or PIP) and the pattern seen when waves pass through the double slit as the wave interference pattern (or WIP). I will also call the double slit experiment the DSE

Originally, this experiment was used to determine the behaviour of light. Is light a wave or particle? According to the double slit experiment, light is a wave. This is evidenced by the wave interference pattern seen when light passes through the DSE. Many wonderful science lab experiments prove this. Of course, there are many other things used to determine that light may be a particle, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

One guy once got a bright idea and fired some electrons through the DSE. To his eternal surprise, the pattern that emerged was the WIP. Well, aren't electrons particles? Maybe they interfered due to their size and such. So they fired a single electron at a time so that there could be no interference whatsoever. Strangely enough, the WIP showed again. What was going on? So they set up some apparatus to view what was happening. But this time the WIP did not show, instead PIP resulted. So the conclusion is that when observed, the matter in front of us is in a singular particle location but when unobserved it is in potentially multiple places in wave form. (Please comment on the validity of this Evar)

So, given that basis, let's move onto the theory. If we make an observation, we change something from a wave based uncertainty into a particle based certainty, of sorts. Of course, we are not the sole observer in this universe, so things are subject not only to our observations but to others as well. Well what happens if you were to attempt to observe the future? Surely you could visualize an outcome. If you were the sole observer of all pertaining circumstances, would your observed future become a reality? YES! However, in the head of every living being is doubt, and the consideration of possibilities. When you flip a coin, no matter how much you want it to land heads you know that there is a possibility that it will land tails. Thus, we have what might be described as anti-faith that operates in equal magnitude to our faith. So theoretically, if we were to somehow convince ourselves that certain possibilities did not exist, we could then observe the only possibility we truly perceive to be possible and it would come to existences from the former waves of uncertainty it once began in.

Now we have a new problem: while this task is hard enough in a solitary environment, there is the issue of there being thousands of observers all over the place. So while an act of absolute faith (or observation of possiblities) could result in something seemingly impossible occurring, we must face the fact that there are many other observers whose faith would conflict with our own - or bring alternatives to our intentionally limited perceived list of possibilities. So how does this work? Is faith a matter of force that can determine the result based on who pushes harder? Or does the mere fact that alternatives exist negative the forced belief that alternatives do not exist?

Surely if I were in a room and I were to explain this theory to 100 open-minded physics students and hold up a coin and tell that that it would land heads if we all agreed it would, then it surely would. But if a single person among the 100 were to intentionally believe in the alternative of it landing tails, would there be a 50% chance of it landing tails, or 1%? Or would the faith of the 99 overpower the 1 and ensure a 100% chance of it landing heads?

Comments?

 

[BruceCM_Aspergic]

Given your, may I call them, assumptions, if 99 believe 1 result and 1 another, that'd seem to lead to a 99% probability of the former being right. It'd be very difficult to test the idea, though. Even the 99% might not really believe it and how would you check? Or that they didn't have any doubts during the experiment? If it were to go on long enough to test the percentages, they'd be almost certain to have some!

 

[Krazie243]

Yeah the testing process would be rather interesting. But given that there have been religious claims that miracles can happen in situations where there were random observers that were unaware of an impending abnormality, you might think that this scientific explanation of faith (observing future possibilities in order to actualize them) is possibly a feat of strength. If that is the case, then a sufficiently strong person of faith could override most simple lacks of faith. Of course, there is more religious claim (biblical) that in circumstances of extreme doubt, even Jesus could not perform miracles. So theoretically there is also a limit to how much power a singular human can hold with their ability to observe.

Now the question is: Are the only future possibilities that we can actualize those that are initially possible? Or can we actualize impossibilities as well? This would be an interesting theory to look at. Religion would certainly argue the latter due to their claim in favor of miracles. But a natural scientific mind might think that you can't observe a particle in a location not occupied in any wave by the wave's former location - you can only observe a particle within the previous field of the wave. This would indicate that impossibilities cannot be observed (or that if they are they simply do not actualize)

 

[BruceCM_Aspergic]

Well, I'm not going to try believing impossible things! The problem there would be getting enough people who could do so. Interesting idea, though!

 

[Krazie243]

Well Bruce, why not? Think about it: what if you were to believe that you'd be cured from cancer overnight? In most cases that is so clearly in the realm of impossible that even a doctor would call it a miracle regardless of religious belief. I can easily see a person having the motivation to give such an experiment a try =)

Of course, the trouble is explaining quantum physics to a dying old person...

 

[BruceCM_Aspergic]

Well, get your volunteers and do the experiment! Tell me how it went, after.

 

[Krazie243]

I'm soooo lazy tho =(

I want Evar to come and comment on my quantum physics so that I know my theory is right or wrong in the beginning portions. I don't want to waste a bunch of time on something that doesn't have a hope because I got my science experiements wrong...

 

[BruceCM_Aspergic]

Ah. Well, it sounds OK to me but I'm not a scientist. And I do believe in God so I do believe that faith, or believing, can do the sort of thing you're covering.

 

[142857]

I've been looking for a quote from an Australian movie called Young Einstein, about Albert Einstein's early days living on a farm in Tasmania, his romance with a young Marie Curie, and how he became the first man to split beer atoms. It is the quote where he describes to Marie Curie how light can be a wave and a particle at the same time. No luck with finding the quote so far.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

A little background for those, such as myself, who are not so familiar with this experiment.

And here is an exceprt from the wikipedia page, regarding the effect of using detectors, that kind of matches up with my understanding of the "uncertainty principle" in quantum physics.

"There is a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors are placed in either or both of the two slits in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern. The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, time could be required for each to interact with its detector and they would most likely fall out of step with each other—that is, they would decohere. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected.[9]"

I don't have a particularly strong interest in or understanding of quantum physics. My guess, though, is that things like the uncertainty principle and the effect of using a detector on a photon or electron cannot be scaled up to the toss of a coin.

I do know that some people try to use these kind of results as "proof" that the supernatural is real, but not scientifically observable. But I'm too boring to believe in that sort of thing.

 

[Dani Evar]

Krazie, I do sense that your logic is safely specific as an act of imaginative abundance. Don't worry about being wrong or not at this natural level. Kant, Jacobi, and Popper -- for instance -- would readily give you different categorical assessments. And so would I, and, given this unique cyber-circumstance in the Universe, I'd rather communicate with you than ponder upon anything else.

I'd say very honestly that most physicists are hardly able to answer the kind of thing you're considering with just mathematics and experiments, and without equipping themselves with deeper phenomenology.

"What decides what happens in objective Reality?"

"Or how is Reality cloaked with infinite self-differentiation?"

For instance, physicists are further divided into 'Platonic idealists' (accepting the bizarreness of quantum mechanics simply as a real supra-physical component to every observable associated with an intrinsically observant consciousness -- such as Schrödinger), 'Bohmian realists' (insisting upon making quantum mechanics semi-deterministic via the hidden quantum potential -- such as Bohm and Einstein), and 'Popperian empiricists' (with the mechanism of quantum wave-collapse upon observation of an experiment, which accordingly is the way Intrinsic Objective Reality should dictate things -- many, many physicists belong to this category).

To me, while human existence is filled with ideas and partial forms of intellect, Reality is not an Idea (neither 'forma' nor 'materia', see Appendix below -- it's a bunch of rough rudimentary details still) -- and so not even the Highest Idea. We cannot expect the Highest Idea to bear Reality.

This, while a sufficiently highly evolved intellect, such as yours, neither precedes the cosmos nor phenomena, but simply has the ability to find 'All in All' (phenomena among phenomena, phenomena in the cosmos, and the cosmos in phenomena), even if Reality (I mean the Universe, as both Phenomenon and Noumenon) silently grows in Content, with the emergence of new noumena (or simply new informational contents), which, no doubt, only a few intellects can discern -- others won't have a trace of it, just as they may not be aware of the expanding Universe.

For sure, in the substance of a highly developed intellect alone, the Ontological Origin, if any, cannot be discerned at all; only interdependence seems tangibly real, and that all things simply exist simultaneously with the mind. Hence, the idea of an infinite, beginningless, endless Universe, or a finite, but unbounded, physical space.

Indeed, there remains a looming question among epistemologists since Kant: "Can the intellect ever overcome subjectivity at all?" The 3H-giants (Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger) of Modern Philosophy have delved into this as well. (Anyway, I'd remark here that Hawking was blatantly wrong due to his shoal-ignorance when he said, in one of his popular books, "The sole remaining task of Philosophy today is the analysis of language," -- in reference to whether the modern sciences need the maternal guidance of Philosophy or not.)

I'd say, something like primitive Faith is simply allowed to flourish and self-strengthen in Reality, among a group of common observers -- because one of the certain possibilities of existence is the (accommodation of) enjoyment, especially shared enjoyment, which does not have to be (profoundly) intellectual at all.

Once such subjectivity becomes self-isolated, it does have an impact, simply because it exists where it exists (the Universe we know, and not just absolute nothingness, and so such is not trivial at all). But specific faiths derived from cognitive, reflective thinking are quite something else -- closer, if not equivalent, to objectivity. And yet, again, the highest form of objectivity among them can not be equal to Reality Itself, since objectivity-in-itself, like regular subjectivity, is always subtly dual (to observables and, in a sense, to 'That-Which-Is') and bound to ideas and trans-finite progression, and ultimately (simply linearly) to the infinite contingency-interdependence of things.

At best, objectivity only works effectively at a certain (not arbitrary) point and time (epoch) in the Universe. Soon after, it drifts away through the infinitesimals -- unless suddenly 'God' removes the constraints of existence (and yet what else could they be, other than those recognized in our first epistemological analysis?).

Infinitely beyond this, there is a very conscious type of surjective reality-existence, which is both infinitesimal (actively participating in the expansive Content of Reality) and infinite (infinitely manifest as a large, expansive whole), subjective and objective, Platonic and Atomic, and neither both. (That's all I can say regarding the 'Nous'.)

You see... I'd love to present my response (no matter how hasty) to your post at once, but neither one of us is (equal to) the Universe Itself :lol:. Perhaps let's have some more fun, besides we're about the same age too .

Let's highlight the nature of quantum mechanics, rationality, and spurious mental association first (since probability is simply part of rationality, and rationality is a form of mental association), whether there is perfect (or at least prevalent) isomorphism between them or not (there is -- in my own epistemological system), especially whenever isolated systems (or assemblies) are considered.

Actually, I remember writing something to Krisi (and a few others), on another thread here. (Please invite her here?!) It shall reveal an important identity of what a particle (or a wave) truly is in itself, before we even consider doing any experiment with light or electrons, or whatever.

I guess it simply has had to await your arrival here. It's reproduced below.



***

Appendix


Besides the entire mammalian cerebrum (and certain 'naked neurons' in primitive organisms), the corpus callosum has always caught my attention, especially in many odd cases.

For those who are not yet familiar with the term: the corpus callosum is a bundle of nerves connecting the right and left cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Easily speaking, it normally functions to impart the same amount of information to the two halves of the brain.

Now, in split-brain patients -- as you already know -- there can supposedly be no communication between the left hemisphere (particularly related to speech-controlling) and the non-verbal right cerebral hemisphere. Hence, in such a case, one cannot verbally, laterally express what one feels or thinks. (At times, I can't help but consider my own dyspraxia, or, worse, what seems to be gradual aphasia in the real sense of Wernicke.)

Let's consider the following generic case. It's about how 'rationality may be (apparently entirely) lost while the mind persists on rationality'.

In one experiment (of Broca, if I'm not mistaken) with a split-brained, epileptic patient, different images were shown to the two hemispheres of the brain, which is possible due to the basic fact that the right and left sections of the retina are connected only to the left side and the right side, respectively, of the brain.

The right, non-verbal hemisphere was shown a winter scene. From among four pictorial choices available -- a snow shovel, a chicken, a leaf, and a pen -- the patient's left hand, controlled by the right half of the brain, pointed to a snow shovel. Then, the left, verbal hemisphere was shown a picture of a chicken's claw. The right hand, controlled by the left half of the brain, chose, from among exactly the same four choices, a picture of a chicken.

So, one may conclude that each half of the patient's brain was intelligent. It is somewhat tempting to generalize it further to all brains, of course.

Why did the split-brained patient -- without the corpus callosum functioning -- point to a snow shovel via the verbal (left) hemisphere, which supposedly was not aware of the winter scene sent to the non-verbal (right) hemisphere, but was still aware of the 'non-verbal' hand pointing to the snow shovel? When asked, "Why the snow shovel?" the patient answered, "Just to shovel out the chicken coop." This shows that an association was dodgily manufactured by the verbal (left) hemisphere just to preserve the appearance (emergence) of rationality (causality), although the chicken coop was not previously mentioned at all in the experiment. It appears that it was a pre-cognitive utter fabrication of the patient's mind.

The question, Krisi, is:

"Despite the presence of the corpus callosum, how much of people's (NT's and non-NT's) daily thinking (or every daily modality) involves such spurious mental associations?"

That (from neuroscience) is not all, though. Instead, now let's ramblingly give ourselves some background as to why reality (particularly physical existence) is roughly the way (we think) it is. Actually, essential things of the brain can conveniently be exposed in terms of quantum mechanics (excepting the 'wave function collapse' paradigm and Bohm's formalism of a hidden (deterministic) potential), without the help of neuroscience. That is, without anatomy at all (though verbally it doesn't necessarily mean refraining from mentioning the brain at all).

Let me emphasize that regular cognitive processing operates on an infinitesimal, unitary time scale. Any physical, isolated system evolves unitarily according to the wave equation of quantum mechanics. Thanks to the unitary character of the Hamiltonian in the evolution equation of Schrödinger. That is, the energy-momentum operator transforms unitarily (unimodularly) with respect to infinitesimal coordinate transformations of space and time (translations and rotations). (This is still similar to the Euclidean background of classical, deterministic 'billiard-ball mechanics', it's the embedded processes that are different -- those include fractal neural networks.) Roughly speaking, this is why we are able to be continuously aware of, say, exactly the same spatial event in a given span of time -- that the conscious event is globally invariant. We can be sure that an (ongoing) event now is indeed the same as the same event a few seconds later (to be more precise, a few split seconds later). That, most probably (due to the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics), Krisi now is the same Krisi a few seconds later, with the brain-mind (the prototypical phenomenal mind) converging an ensemble of superposition states (related to Krisi's being-in-existence) in just a couple of seconds. And since, prior to common (objective) observation, there can be many states, especially brain states, of just one entity, Krisi's being-here is no longer single-valued, it (she) is now a canonical multiverse. Schizophrenia exists-in-itself, without the participation of external observers.

Then, it follows from considering just a (temporarily) isolated part of existence (any isolated system, such as the brain), that the entire Universe evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, since it is by definition an isolated system; and so we are aware of the same Universe as long as we exist. That's basically the holographic principle. Let's say, you sleep at night, in this world, and when you wake up the next morning, you almost take it for granted (though rather correctly, as it need not be verified) that you're still experiencing the same world as before.

Upon sense-perception, in just a couple of seconds, (most) phenomenal things (that are otherwise diffusive) get cognitively regularized in the corpus callosum, making sure the brain has a great number of potential directions to the flow of a certain chain of thoughts. (As you already know, normal grown-ups have more amount of white matter in the corpus callosum, which determines their (crystallized) mindsets. And females, since the prenatal stage, are known to have significantly more white matter there than testosterone-laden males. So the majority of girls are supposedly more present, balanced, mature, and predictably regular (neurotypical, non-schizotypal), with respect to both spheres, and to reality. Related to this issue, it is interesting to discover/pinpoint potential differences between a male Aspie and a female Aspie.)

Then, how does something become the content of one's ordinary consciousness?

Well, what if, after all, the brain is just a super-computer -- a universe of automata in itself -- without any operator, with nothing behind it; what if there is just the computer?

Quantum mechanically, the mind (roughly just a mathematical, non-physical, abstract functional (functor), not yet a material brain) perceives all the branches of the wave function associated with a phenomenal event. Only then it freely chooses, before the firing of associated neurons, which branch to focus on. Only then (the notion of) the physical, diamagnetic, cameral brain comes into the picture. Having reflexively received a particular ongoing process from external physical reality, the mind freely chooses from the brain's internal events. This way, the mind plays the role of a puppeteer, and the brain is just like a puppet.

If I were the Universal Programmer, I'd be interested in finding a type of mathematics ('psychogenetic algorithm') for the somatosensoric material brain that would give both order and freedom, increasing complexity (diversity) while avoiding chaos (though not always). Too much order would only systematically determine the whole future of the brain's existence and functioning.

Hence, as a cognitive automaton, the phenomenal mind has no creativity. Creativity requires the presence of cosmic (intrinsic) schizophrenia (a multiverse), other than just the usual reality. Thus, a purely physical, neurological mind (and brain for that matter) cannot possibly undergo (conceive) creativity, for it has 'too much order' in the first place. For this reason, the creative human mind (to me) is necessarily non-physical, as the phenomenal Universe is continuously being self-created (recreated) at every moment (and for seemingly solid objects, it happens through quantum mechanical creation and annihilation of elementary particles).

The mathematical-biological evolution would then allow choices (most especially unique choices) for the thoughts of the mind. From the choices, the mind could freely choose the actions of the physical brain. It is the freely choosing mind, in isomorphic association with the brain's complex neurological arrangements, that makes one conscious.

In quantum mechanics, despite its daily application to particle physics and spintronics (superconductor technology), one may indeed assume (or, rather, perceive) that there are no (material) particles at all; they may exist only as (generally non-conserved) information -- and hence no neurons, axons, synapses, etc., and no brain at all -- and that existence consists solely of the wave function of the non-physical mind. The Universe-in-Itself need not an underlying physical substance (just as the truth of the axioms of geometry (Euclidean and non-Euclidean) does not depend on the existence of solid, material objects at all).

Yet, cognitively knowing this does not necessarily enable one to successfully -- especially mechanistically -- guide one's thoughts, no matter how much one is interested in how things (of the mind and brain) really are. No matter how much one is less concerned about things going one's way as well.

We know that modern neuroscience is not more than 200 years old; it still has little experience and a lot of possibility (most of which is foreseeable by quantum mechanics).

***

 

[Krazie243]

Phew... my mind is mush =)

Um, I think I understood a bunch of that. It seems to me that you gave a lot of information but intentionally avoided answering the question: "Is any of my theory wrong?". I would like to ensure that I haven't misquoted any experimental data or represented physics incorrectly. Whether or not my idea itself is wrong is, of course, up for discussion for all who are interested, but I would like to make sure that the basic assumptions that I have founded my idea upon are not incorrect. So I don't suppose that you could say, for the record, whether or not I accurately reiterated the concepts of the double slit experiment?

One thing that I have noticed since I first heard of the experiment is an actual explanation of how the oberservations were being done. Now this is somewhat irrelevant in the light of the occurences involving singular photons, electrons and such since we would be dealing with such cases that do not involve two objects interfering with one another, but I was glad to review that Wiki that 142857 mentioned and see that their methods of observation are, in fact, an interruption to the objects as well. But I suppose that this information makes one immediately wonder: Is it possible that opening our eyes is the same act of local environmental interference as what is used in the double slit experiment? If not, then why not use something that has no local environmental interference to observe the path of the objects within the experiment? So it is logical to say that despite the fact that the experiment is dealing with a variable that is determined by the detection method used, the interference caused by observing something on that small scale is duplicated by our own natural observations on a much larger scale. So theoretically, this fact (that observation interferes with objects) is irrelevant on the basis that it is common in all situations.

Now if we were to take some of these rather interesting concepts of the universe into consideration ('Shrodingers universe' as describe by you) then we essentially have a massive grouping of waves that all interact with one another and are capable of having specific behaviours within the local range of observers. I guess the idea I have is one that suggests that a truly 'self-aware' person could take advantage of this information and intentionally decide on which specific behaviours they wants to see - and thus manipulate the world around them instead of simply experiencing it. In a way, this is essentially an idea of turning a spectator sport (life) into a participation sport. While many people think that they are participating in life, what will frequently disturb them is the idea that someone else could control them. But the idea that knowing a person well enough would allow you to press buttons in just the right way as to almost treat them as a puppet. So the ultimate truth is that instinctual beings like ourselves are constantly just living our lives as nearly dictated by the universe - there is no real act of participation, at least not in the intentional sense. The act of using one's ability to affect the world's behaviour by observing things intentionally would be a true form of participation.

 

[142857]

I think Evar has chosen to address the broader issue in a philosophical way, rather than address the specific case that Krazie has given - the double slit experiment.

Your eye doesn't need to influence something in order to observe it. Your eye merely picks up photons that would have been emitted by the event you are observing whether your eye was open or not. Whereas with the double slit experiment the observer must influence the event in order to observe it - this is a common problem when it comes to quantum physics.

That is one way of thinking about it, the way I tend to think about it. But it would be a very boring old world if everyone thought the same way though, wouldn't it?

Here is another way of thinking about it:
In order for an atom, molecule or whatever to emit or reflect a photon, the atom or molecule or whatever is affected in some way by that process. While your eye does not directly influence what you see occurring, the event is still influenced by emitting the photons that your eye sees. Who knows what the eye does not see?

Probably badly put there ^ , because that isn't really how my brain works so I'm stretching. I'm sure that there are countless other ways of looking at the issue.

Science only moves forward because of those who dare to step outside the boundaries of accepted science. So don't be afraid to do that. Don't be afraid of people telling you that you are wrong.

 

[Krazie243]

I agree with that for the most part 142857. It does seem as tho the act of looking at something does not affect the thing being looked at. But the real question actually goes back to a distant belief that light came from eyes and when it touched things you could see them. This was disproven through science but to resurrect that weird concept, what if having your eyes open DOES have an effect? As they say in science: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". I am beginning to wonder if we could say the same about light. Sure, there is a molecular vibration that can be interpreted as sound regardless of an observer, but does the act of hearing the 'sound' waves somehow change anything? Oddly enough science conventionally agrees that no sound is made if one is not observed (heard) so then they must believe that the same is true for light. No light is made if none is observed. So then what actually exists when our eyes are closed? Does light 'manifest' purely because we are watching it? Of course, these are relatively meaningless questions in the grand scheme of things as we know that the light waves and sound waves do, in fact, exist without an observer. But electrons and such all behave as waves when unobserved, so then is anything real?

Traditionally, waves have been understood to be some series of compressions and expansions within a material such that energy progresses from one end of it to the other while spreading out somewhat and diminishing with time. But if everything in existence is a wave, then what are those waves passing through?

I think the big thing to think about is whether or not opening our eyes does change things. The fact that the light that passes by the person does not proceed past them but rather is absorbed or reflected makes a slight alteration in the local effects on the environment, but what of the source? Going back to a question I once made a while ago: What if light is an effect like gravity? Gravity exists in such a way that both objects feel one another. If light is the same, then whenever we see light it sees us. But what does it do when it sees us?

 

[Dani Evar]

Yes.

At first, I just wanted us to consider the furthest possible extent of a wave or a particle in quantum mechanics. And we have seen just what quantum mechanics (without quanta and other particles) is like. My first aim has simply been the awareness of that -- to enrich the potential of our ongoing discussion.

Now, we can address Krazie's thoughts more directly -- and I'll operate in my own epistemological space. I'll find an effective way by use of direct commentary.

"whether or not I accurately reiterated the concepts of the double slit experiment?"

I think you have accurately, conventionally reproduced it. There's no flaw in the presentation alone. Its further association with Faith (it could have been other things, like 'delusion', as well) is also just fine -- since that is a state of the observer's mind. And quantum mechanics is extensively about internal cognitive states.

The question

"what if having your eyes open DOES have an effect?"

comes in one package with the statement

"While many people think that they are participating in life, what will frequently disturb them is the idea that someone else could control them."

It does have an effect, and we may consider just three kinds of fundamental effect (or simply causality): classical linear effect (this requires no further explanation), circular effect (due to the infinite contingency-interdependence of the Universe), and absolute, self-differentiating effect (due to further intrinsic indeterminacy). And so I'd also say it depends on just what type of observer is involved (recall the three kinds of quantum physicists: Platonic, Einsteinian, Popperian). Or whether a group consists of roughly the same kind of observers or not -- whether by manipulation or direct inhomogeneity.

It is of course possible for someone (or an assembly) with a profoundly intense mind (some kind of mastery over his own wave function, and perhaps even over some larger aspect of the wave function of the whole Universe) to control the thoughts of others with lower levels of consciousness. I lack empirical evidence of this (I've never met a magician/juggler either), I can only say it's possible. But a form of it has often taken place (or always takes place) rather severely in science and science education -- against which Genius (read: extreme, profound originality in self-constitution and creative process) often rebels. At the more subjective level, history has given us many glaring examples from political propaganda and the like.

Then it's all subject to how a supra-conscious one (whether an individual or an assembly), if any (at any time of cosmic history), has decided to control the rest of beings. Such an entity must have provided this world with mental frames of thinking -- including all shallower forms of objectivity and subjectivity -- by simply outlining them among the masses. Mass-education can be an example. Yes, this way, individuals in the circle still participate in life and bear fruits (win-or-lose results), but not so profoundly. Like in the game of chess, there are rules of movement -- and the rules can be expanded any time, which will always be squarely logical -- but never can they reach the profound logical level and reflexivity, let alone the singular existential level, of the creator of the game/system, as long as they remain passive.

This is where the epistemic-philosophical topic of existentialism becomes substantially important. Either a life of self-fulfilled Authenticity, with absolute individual difference, being, and becoming between the Authentic and the rest of beings, or a life of relative emptiness and interdependence.

Besides theistic ones (like Kierkegaard), there have been profound atheistic existentialists as well, who have managed to 'bring down' Absolute, Profound Différance to the Earth from 'pure nothingness' and ultimately against the perceived irrationality of the existence of conscious humanity as a whole. Without 'God', the Process of Becoming itself should bear the infinitesimal, self-distinguished reality of Authenticity: have some sense of self-gravity, along with pure passion and talent, and realize Différance, and you shall be a creator (we claim that this is the essence and goal of Philosophy, Science, and Art -- without separation -- after all, this is Genius). This consists in reflective, objective thinking as well (for the simple purpose of transcending its furthest margins), and also the transformation of subjectivity, in the lap of profound objectivity and through unusual creativity, into surjectivity. In the constant awareness of death, that is quite enough for such individuals to encompass three very conscious goals of existence: consciousness, creativity, and passion (they must be most intimate with their own solitude). That's Surjectivity in a nutshell.

And so, now:

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I'd say, generally -- simplistically -- yes, because, again, we live in a Universe of inhomogeneous participants, which necessitates a kind of active (effective) average objectivity. Why should one have a problem with this kind of thing, simply because -- for instance -- gravity is gravity, and especially if gravity is now a manifestation of pure geometry? Naturally, the fall of the tree might be caused by gravity, due to its specific material constitution in response to its environment. All other effects, similarly, cannot be separated from the objectivity of a ceaselessly operating gravitational field, as long as the Universe exists this way. You see, especially in the Einsteinian way of seeing the cosmos, particular things cannot be separated from the arena: space-time, which is just geometry, to the extent that "matter shows space how to curve, and space shows matter how to move". On the large scale, geometry is simply ceaseless -- even on the sub-atomic scale, though with some fuzzy or discrete nature.

Also, that would be the case if the Ultimate Surjective Observer did exist. If It did exist -- from which other surjective beings would then derive their unique states -- then It simply must be aware of all things, both subjective and objective, and, being surjective, It could, if It would, actively participate in phenomena and noumena more directly. If so, not only would It be able to observe things -- (un)like we do -- and greatly affect the cosmos... As we have seen, the Universe of Schrödinger (especially the version 'without particles') does not really forbid the existence of a super-luminal Observer (this is basically from Special Relativity).

Most of us observe external things while being sub-luminal observers. And most of us process information the same way -- way under the light-speed barrier. So what would that be for the surjective super-luminal Observer-Participator? You don't have to call it 'God' even -- simply Reality. This, while the Universe is Its Highest Internal Idea (at the self-dual level). So Reality and the Universe are not exactly the same by Essence (the former being Essence Itself, the latter being the one infinity of interdependence-contingency proceeding from It, accommodating all kinds of process and singularity, evolution and revolution), but they are not different from each other either.

For an observer-participator to overcome all the rest -- even the Universe itself (the entire interdependence and contingency) -- he simply has to be at that most unique level of Conscious, Spontaneous, Self-Subsistent Being. Something then, other than the intellect, must be his trademark. I have no English word for it, for { }.

Anyway, that's [not] just an idea -- it is art. At worst, it is an epistemological tour de force.

Whether there exists a God-like Observer-Participator or not for some, things here, in the Universe, are real with respect to all kinds of observers (and their directly experiencing them), though with differing degrees of profoundness. Things are safely real enough. And specific things will be profoundly real for the individual who fully realizes Différance as a way to enrich himself, at the Atomic level, and the Universe, at the Platonic level.

 

[Krazie243]

Google and Wiki are my friends when I read your posts, lol.

I think what I gather from that post in a nutshell is that one of many possibilities is that we are all being manipulated by others or an ultimate observer unless we learn to create a gap between our instincts and our actions - by actively paying attention to all our behaviour and thoughts and some such like that. I think the simplest thing to break it down into is enlightenment (or what is socially known as such). If a person knows themselves and their environment fully they can break free of the causality links in some minute way as to actually give them options rather than a simple flow that cannot be avoided.

I wouldn't mind asking if you'd mind listing your Curriculum Vitae if you have one. You have spoken of an insane number of words that you have (intentionally I assume) capitalized that I'm sure I'd understand better if I have any chance of specifically targeting certain areas of research (rather than simply reading everything). I am beginning to understand your style a bit more but I'm still left looking through Wiki and stuff and what's scary is even after looking through Wiki I'm still confused sometimes, lol. So perhaps I could find what categories of study you got most of your knowledge from so I could find the material easier. =)

Additionally, Evar, did you say you were a prof? Or did someone else say that? If so, you are doing some kind of research right? Would it be possible to put this idea into a research location and see if people can somehow attempt to prove that 'Faith' as a scientific principle can work? It would be neat to see research conducted on the idea that the world can be altered by observation via an understanding of quantum physics.

 

[Dani Evar]

"I'm sure I'd understand better if I have any chance of specifically targeting certain areas of research (rather than simply reading everything)."

Surely, Surjectivity always eludes mere resonances of language (and other such forms).

Patterns nicely outlined can be a gentle or stern authority, but which human being can settle him/herself in just patterns and roadways? You still have to peck at objects. You can wed yourself to a sense of someone's qualitative greatness, but not even the speechless silence at the end of great phrases, orchestras, and paintings helps lend you his/her whole reality, let alone what continues into greater infinity. We want to begin at the end of someone else's greatest stretch of clarity even.

We want the Universe clasped unto itself (or infinity), in our own visions and experiences.

We want to be nothing but light in the cosmic dark, and yet in our own night first.

We want to be something across the Universe's silent, sparsely filled distances, and not just liquid nothingness recalling only stars and horizons.

We want to slip through cocoons if necessary, and discover our own butterflies.

We can be awakened from deep sleep and be told about anything, from fossilized mollusks to the human species, from originating nebulae to the expanding Universe, but we need to hatch the Metaphysical Universe itself anew after somehow falling together with a whole part of it into the depths of Mystery; else everything else is but a mid-summer phantom of Otherness. We want one moment of expansiveness carrying all secret measures of the night unto a different dawn and noon.

Geniuses here need to be happening to the Universe, like deliberate vortices of reason and unreason at the margins of rivers -- not merely carried by what has been done by others, and not merely shaped by that which is mainstream humanity. Hence, anyone like Dirac is capable of saying things like, "If I had to choose between mathematical elegance and simplicity and rigid empirical prediction, without doubt I would choose the Beauty."

Often, one, even a genius, starts out loving science without doubt, finitely knowing why, but not knowing whence and how. While mere objective reflections may slip into silence one by one in the smallest conscious thing called 'human', a profound scientist eventually finds the reason and being for all that transpires to him/her by also embracing Philosophy and Art, while the Universe turns out to be not the same thing from time to time for the rest of mortals.

"Would it be possible to put this idea into a research location and see if people can somehow attempt to prove that 'Faith' as a scientific principle can work?"

I guess that could be managed, but not specifically in any arena of Physics at the moment (but who knows?). I've told you about the linearity of most physicists. Perhaps we can try submitting our ideas to other forums of serious inter-disciplinary consciousness studies.

"Additionally, Evar, did you say you were a prof? Or did someone else say that?"

I happen to be a physicist, but, of course, that doesn't define my kind of existence, just as I wouldn't let Asperger's alone define me. I'm just a human being. I don't feel like boring anyone with a CV, but I guess I can still impulsively share a few things of life, of an August mid-day.

I had a myriad of different interests when much younger, such that I could never envision myself being committed to just one kind of professional work. Moreover, I flourish only in purely voluntary settings. And I always refused to be just a spectator. So as my objective knowledge grew in many ways, I became even more restless. My rather very extensive early readings were just a means of communicating with the authors, without self-asserting subservience/following. At one point, I easily stopped reading others and started doing my own research. I wanted to be a creator, whether in Science, Philosophy, or Art -- or my existence would simply be a damp, tasteless prison.

Even if I had felt so smart, without Creation it would have felt like having the trails of a sea-gull on the shore, soon enough becoming traceless. Nothing more.

At a certain point, I found myself developing a theory (aimed at the unification of fields) at about the age of 16, having known deeply where and how Einstein failed with his own attempts towards the end of his life. So, subsequently I chose that certain path of physical-mathematical beauty, leaving behind other kinds of philosophical-natural interests and completely disregarding the cultural sphere of normalcy -- normal human expectations and other traditional symmetries of logic.

I wanted nothing else but to encompass those awfully lonely intellectual cordilleras I saw (yes, rather miserably), and to come up with a single mathematical equation which would describe the cosmos to me in a very intimate, unprecedented way. It was just pure science, art, and passion. I did not even care about publication for quite a long while. It took me several more years of severe ashes and nebulous insights to finally arrive at various profound (very personally satisfying) unified field theories -- indeed some seven different versions of classical and non-classical quantum gravity. (I don't care about the non-scientific, political part that always belongs to people (colleagues) in this kind of epic.)

These days I tend to give my mind a lot of rest from Physics, even though it no longer gives me a portion of ocean trouble. Physics has been an early embarkation point only -- towards the fuller, more artistic and epistemic reality of my existence in the Universe. Now I've resumed doing Philosophy (Non-Philosophy included), Art (the piano, painting, and novel writing included), and other things. I want to befriend my Asperger's -- or just Asperger's in itself -- in a way I've never fully done before.

I could have died cold and bitter in desolate alleyways and dark abysses, but the singular, marooning aspect of Asperger's has helped me persist, think, absorb, and create a lot, after all. Despite its severity, it has never betrayed the specific existential goals of the human being that I am. And, having kissed its unique creative aspect at the expense of simple mortality, I shall never want to find a 'cure' for it. Nor do I desire (societal) normalcy. It is a solitary sea that swells and recedes, and I'm upon the fragile branches of its every high, glittering day and its every deep, swallowing night. I do know the instance of autism's darkness here on Earth, but I also know how to light its Unity up for some authentic constellations to emerge.

Even so, I don't have to relate how boring the whole academic sphere (the rather luxurious, often social, setting, but still a chicken coop) has always been for me. You don't want to know that, I guess. But I can always remind everyone passionate and intelligent of just doing pure science, simply for the beauty and intensity of his/her original visions.

Dreams are there in flames, you just have to perfect them by never abandoning authenticity and imagination (with intrinsic discernment), else you will just gain shadow and Otherness for a vagrant's length of time.

Unlike 'Religion', in order for Creation to emerge, Science, Philosophy, and Art necessitate you to enter chaos, finding yourself, the Universe, and Reality between presence and absence, still honest among lost frontiers, and yet still self-gravitating like a seed of intuition of the abyss, and like a single tidal wave of the cold sea, not specifically attached to the bottom.

I guess that's similar to any profound love experience.

The infinitesimal part of you that remains at the end is what bears Creation. The mind and passion of a creator can only live naked in this multi-layered world, often with some perceived madness and Stubborness of Will. It's a banishing wave at first, and a fusing wave at last. Its Forma unfurls and flows towards any known or unknown shore of Materia, delivering the sea-foams of new creation, by which the Universe is self-recreated in the most hidden threshing dimension.

"I think the simplest thing to break it down into is enlightenment (or what is socially known as such)."

Yes, and, as we have seen, a lot of reflection, and then possibly Enlightenment, is necessary, and yet it too must be overcome, whether spontaneously or by force. Overcome even the Universe and see just what it is from the level of Reality.

Forgive my verbosity. Everytime I'm here, it is as if I had only one more day to live. It's truly, simply like that.