Posted on 05/15/2013 2:30:31 PM PDT by djf
Deep in the basement of a dusty old library in Edinburgh lies a small black box that churns out random numbers. At first glance the box looks profoundly dull, but it is, in fact, the ‘eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future.
The machine apparently sensed the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center four hours before they happened, and appeared to forewarn of the Asian Tsunami.
"It's Earth shattering stuff," says Dr Roger Nelson, Emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the USA. "But unfortunately we don't have a box for predicting the future that we can sell to the CIA. We're very early on in the process of trying to figure out what's going on here. At the moment we're stabbing in the dark."
Dr Nelson's Global Consciousness Project - originally hosted by Princeton University - is one of the most extraordinary experiments of all time. It aims to ‘sense' whether all of humanity shares a single unconscious mind that we all tap into without realizing it. Some might refer to it as the mind of God. But the machine has also thrown up another tantalizing possibility: that scientists may have unwittingly discovered a way of predicting the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecontroversialfiles.net ...
:)
Time in the physical world is like this.
If you pick up a DVD, it contains an entire storyline that exists in one space and time.
The beginning, middle and end of the storyline are all existing at once.
The only way to view the storyline is to sit down and watch the story play out moment by moment.
Thanks for your response. However, I’m not sure, or maybe I am too dense to see it, that you answered my question. I, too, have been amazed by Bell’s Theorem for years. Can’t say I get all of it or all of its implications. And,
you’re 100% correct that the math is not difficult and is unassailable, which has irritated many physicists for years.
But, it just seems to me that taking Bell’s ideas and proof to a logical conclusion, and maybe, maybe, embellishing things a little bit, one can find support for a universal consciousness in his numbers and the ramifications they entail. This would tend to support the theory talked about in the article.
Help me here if you can. Thanks.
May the farce be with you, laddy. I put all my money into antigravity boots so that should they not work I’ll still have shoes to wear.
I’ve always thought that was true. That time does not flow, but rather we flow through time. The past and the future are real and have always existed, but our consciousness limits us to experiencing only the present. It’s one of the conditions of being alive that we are limited in that way.
Here is your operative phrasing...almost always. You are a good guesser, my FRiend. If you were a prophet, you would know it. And, I think I can safely agree with you that you are not God.
Thus, you are not seeing the future...you are guessing. Sometimes you will be right (I'll bet that home prices increase in Las Vegas) and sometimes you will be wrong (Gold will skyrocket tomorrow). Do not misperceive these as seeing into the future. Scripture specifically prohibits attempts to do so (other than your guessing and admitting it is a guess OR using your wisdom to anticipate something routine...your wife coming home for dinner). When you know the Powerball numbers and will stake your life on them, let us know. Then you may be a prophet.
I’m not sure that for this type of event (ore better yet, describe it as a “cluster of hypotheticals”) that we need Bells theorem.
It is true, AFAIK, that Bell’s theorem has no specifics about just exactly “How much superluminal” we are talking about, in other words, just a tiny bit superluminal (meaning the “event” in space and time are close) or vastly superluminal (spanning distances across the whole universe, times going back to the big bang).
This whole deal might be explained with your ordinary run-of-the-nill uncertainty. The particle is not here (exactly) and it’s not there(exactly), but it’s at some kind of fuzzy place that has a little bit of “here” and a little bit of “there”.
Although derided by purists, I recommend “Quantum Mechanics and Experience” by David Z Albert.
It uses alot of practical, understandable, day to day type metaphors to explain what quantum mechanics DOES NOT DO to give the reader a feel of how weird it really is!
Already done.
Anti-gravity is a proven fact, read “Beyond Einsteins Unified Field”, John Brandenburg, PhD.
As to specificity, I'll give you one example, but there are many others. One night, many years ago, I dreamt that a large tree branch crashed through the celling in my parent's bedroom in the dark. It was a vivid dream, I saw the plaster coming down, I heard the crack and crunch as the limb came through. I saw exactly where in the room it was going to happen, and saw it was dark outside. Oddly, I did not see my parents in the room. I called my mother the next morning and told her what I saw, and begged her not to sleep in her room that night. I had never done that before. That night there was sudden storm and a large tree toppled over and crushed the roof above my parent's room. When I arrived there the morning after, there was the limb, just as I had seen it, and just where I saw it. My parents having spent the night in the basement were unhurt. My mother listened to me because I was her child, and she noticed my weird intuition about things. Yeah, maybe I am just a good guesser, but I have learned to rely on it.
Alright! Do the boots come in patent leather?
bfl
ping
Bttt
Thanks. I will check out Albert’s book.
It still seems to me that if we accept non-locality, as we must (and I agree Bell made no attempt of which I am aware to expound upon its ramifications) (he seems to me to have been a very non-assuming man), that supports the notion of interconnectedness on both a quantum entanglement perspective as well as a macro perspective.
I recommend you review Herbert’s early 1980s book entitled “Quantum Reality.” He is a little strange, but sublimely interesting.
I think we are talking about a lot of superluminal goings on.
It does not violate the constant because they ie., the particles, were always connected, as are we.
Lol!
Probably something better than that!
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my personal belief is that we ALREADY have fully-functional anti-gravity, and have ALREADY gone to Mars, the outer edges of the solar system, and even beyond.
But there are many practical problems with that. For one, if you think there are bad skeeters in the Congo, imagine what might be out there 50 light years away!
So if we have the stuff, and I think we do, you can’t exactly go on The Tonight show and say “Well, we visited this really kool place last November... Turkeys there as big as houses!”
And again, full disclosure-wise, I have no practical knowledge or involvement with anything having to do with this.
Quite strange. That does not sound like a guess to me. Way too specific.
.
I do not understand how uncertainty could explain this. For example, as I comprehend it, no effort is made to calculate both location and momentum. Rather, simply simultaneous spin, in some ways violating the constant, was measured, which is just one measurement not precluded by the uncertainty principle. I think.
I realize this is pretty far out for folks not into this stuff, but it confuses the heck out of me. I think it was Feynman who said that if you claim to understand quantum mechanics you are really confused, or words to that effect.
Nice talking to you.
Well, we could if we want (and most do) think of time as being like a particle on a trajectory. We then have the ability to say )or measure as closely as we can) the position of the particle, which means, in effect, that we are determining what “time” it is.
But imagine if time is more wave-like. If you go down to the shore, you can stand near the water as the waves roll in.
But how do you look out at the water and see a wave approaching, how are you able to say “Well, that wave just hit me! and the time was XXXX O’clock”?
You can’t say that, no matter what definition you use for a wave, because a wave is spread over space and in a sense has no start or end!
The whole subject is fascinating. I am not sure we can ever understand it unless we look at our world and universe from a place that has more dimensions.
And thank you for your ideas!
lol u teh silly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.