Thread: A Thought Experiment on Time and a Predetermined Universe

(The conclusions drawn forth are not simply hypothesis, but if the moderators feel the need, i am sure it will be seemed only a hypothesis... however... moving on)

Turning Back The Hands of Time in a Predetermined Observer-Dependant Universe

Is Consciousness a beaken of illusion? A mediation of maya? A dillusion of directionality? I question these thoroughly from a strictly scientific
point of view, and i am quite certain that the following thought experiment cannot be interpreted any other way without being a little biast.

Now, first i want to direct our attentions to the psychological arrow of time. It is a useful arrow for any oberving system whereas we find a
specific direction in time. Time of course, is not liner by nature. Linearity in time seems to evolve from having a specific knowledge of events
which unfold to become either the information of a past and some distinction of a future. The difference between the past and the future are pivotal
in our understandings of this particular thought experiment.

Whilst both the past and future are very real events (1) - and are predicted to happening right now paradoxically by relativity, we seem to have a
problem of bias in how we personally distinguish what is a correct ''direction'' to the universe. In fact, directionality without any observer is then
left to the statistics of quantum mechanics alone, and ultimately the Schrodinger Equation. We must know for a fact now that any specific directionality of
the uncovering of events must break down without an observer to collapse the wave function (2). Thus if an oberver was not about, we then deal with
the statistical nature of the wave function, which in turn would be ultimately God playing with the proverbial dice.

We know from experimentation that directionality seems to be totally subliminal, kept close to the conscious observer as events are unfolded and processed
into knowledge of events, which then provide a basis of such a direction. This direction we have come to distinguish as ''forward,'' rather than
''backward.''

Predeterminism now enters the question. If the universe is predetermined, then we cannot really have any real choices. We cannot be held responsible
ultimately for the decisions we make. But if the universe where to have a sudden symmetry in time (where everything began to move backwards in time),
predeterminism should be found to yield the same as it would forward as it would backwards.

Premise one

If the universe evolves exactly the same way as it does forward as it does backward in time is evidence in the equations that everything is
predetermined

If consciousness is ultimately not an extension of time nor of space, then it is arguable that only conscious observers can exist in a universe that
is predetermined from some beginning, and back to whence that beginning had came from. Let me explain with more clarity what this might mean.

Dr Hawking argues that the conscious observer will be aware of events that move backward in time (3), and if this is true, then we are to believe
that even though quantum statistical averages might also be reducing in the brain, this will not effect our capability of knowing events moving backward (4).
These quantum systems do not effect our ability know, even when moving back in time - suggesting that the human consciousness is not dependant on a specific
arrow. If we are indeed to believe we would be aware of events also moving backward, then quantum systems are provided the necessery information to collapse
exactly the same way they had forward as they had backward, and hence the strange contention of this thought provoking experiment. It seems that events
moving foward are certainly predetermined in a universe which has a specified symmetry in time which relies on the observer to provide some kind of
information in how to de-evolve, or simply reduce back in the entropy it had excelled in.

I feel this is a proof experiment that a predetermined universe is the only solution when taking into account an observer-interdependancy-theory and that
with how we interpret the direction of time, because if there was nothing predetermined, then there is absolutely nothing stopping us from saying
without complete insanity that our pasts are not real now, nor is the evolution of our pasts increadibly important, which is a very disturbing thought.

(1) - Parallel Universes, 1985, Dr Wolf
(2) - The quantum zeno effect
(3) - A Brief History of Time, Dr Stephen Hawking
(4) - Unless we are to believe Hawking is wrong in this example, then our ability to know in any coherent sense would simply break down without the correct
directionality the human observer seems to make sense out of reality at large is solely interdependant on what direction in time consciousness has chosen
to be the only way to process knowledge, and thus be conscious as a whole. So it might be, that consciousness is not necesserily a product of the low
entropy located in the past cone, but rather consciousness has chosen to exist in one direction because it simply can't in the other. This would be
the only thing that would stop this thought experiment from actually being a workable theory.

Greetings,


To get right into it, "science won't change reality, reality just "is"".

No matter how we theorise the workings of reality, that theorising won't change reality one little bit.

The concepts of "space" and "time" are arbitrary concepts we use to best define reality in the simplist fashion possible in a way that is "agreeable" to our perception.

Take the extreme absurd idea that space-time and perception are linked. That would suggest space-time is conscious and that our theorising space-time using our perception can have an impact on space-time, on reality. That would be a classic theory, nonetheless, because it would require the use of "unreal" numbers, like "0", infinity, and "i". But nonetheless that theory could use "perception", "our perception" to derive laws that BEST FIT our perception of reality, and those LAWS would not only be understandable, but REAL to our perception.


Chicka bow wow.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Greetings,


To get right into it, "science won't change reality, reality just "is"".

No matter how we theorise the workings of reality, that theorising won't change reality one little bit.

The concepts of "space" and "time" are arbitrary concepts we use to best define reality in the simplist fashion possible in a way that is "agreeable" to our perception.

Take the extreme absurd idea that space-time and perception are linked. That would suggest space-time is conscious and that our theorising space-time using our perception can have an impact on space-time, on reality. That would be a classic theory, nonetheless, because it would require the use of "unreal" numbers, like "0", infinity, and "i". But nonetheless that theory could use "perception", "our perception" to derive laws that BEST FIT our perception of reality, and those LAWS would not only be understandable, but REAL to our perception.


Chicka bow wow.

In all my years of investigating this topic, i have seen more evidence which weighs in for referrals in space and time topologically-linked with the human perception. No where in my investigations have i ever found a prominent physicist who has said it is an absurd idea, but rather illuminating the possibility that it may be the only best idea we have.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Greetings,


To get right into it, "science won't change reality, reality just "is"".

No matter how we theorise the workings of reality, that theorising won't change reality one little bit.

The concepts of "space" and "time" are arbitrary concepts we use to best define reality in the simplist fashion possible in a way that is "agreeable" to our perception.

Take the extreme absurd idea that space-time and perception are linked. That would suggest space-time is conscious and that our theorising space-time using our perception can have an impact on space-time, on reality. That would be a classic theory, nonetheless, because it would require the use of "unreal" numbers, like "0", infinity, and "i". But nonetheless that theory could use "perception", "our perception" to derive laws that BEST FIT our perception of reality, and those LAWS would not only be understandable, but REAL to our perception.


Chicka bow wow.

In all my years of investigating this topic, i have seen more evidence which weighs in for referrals in space and time topologically-linked with the human perception. No where in my investigations have i ever found a prominent physicist who has said it is an absurd idea, but rather illuminating the possibility that it may be the only best idea we have.

I bring about a paradox for you. If consciousness is not a field around the carbon-based bodies of ours, then it must exist as a subspacetime dimension totally seperate of space and time, not even extended into space nor time by mere observation, thus what we percieve would certainly be none-influential to the world, but unfortunately, we have proven we do effect the world by collapsing the wave function of matter, so how can consciousness be totally outside the laws of physics, and how do these referrals (or mere acts of observation) tranpose real effects into the world around us, yet simultaneously, and maybe efficiently gathering the correct information about such change in systems?

A theory of “perception” and “space-time” is merely an IDEA that we can UNDERSTAND REALITY WITH OUR BRAINS…………OUR PERCEPTION………….THAT THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN SPACE AND TIME AND OUR BRAINS, even though there isn’t one there if we took our brains out of the equation, it is because we are HUMANS that we must do this, that we must acknowledge our need to use perception to comprehend space-time.

From the ancients, science tried to use lines and numbers, numbers that represented lines, to then transform those lines of space into equations of numbers, to then use those numbers to explain things about space and time not explainable to our clean perception. Science employed mathematics to represent LINES to use numbers in equations to explain the GRID of space-time.

It is a very laborious yet crafty way of explaining space.

The BEST WAY though is to find out what our perception is fully capable of by applying “limit numbers” to a theory of perception relevant to space-time……………..because that theory will explain the absolute limits of what we can UNDERSTAND with our perception in space-time.

The limit of using mathematics with LINES is of course “time”………how can a process of mathematics, one mathematical step to the next, explain “time” if “time” is a process of number crunching lines of space.

Perception is merely a very complex "machine" of space-time automated to adapt to it's changing environment.



I actually believe space-time and perception are linked, but I also respect the scientific community in that they would think it is an absurd claim.........I respect the scientific community in saying I believe in an absurdity.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

A theory of “perception” and “space-time” is merely an IDEA that we can UNDERSTAND REALITY WITH OUR BRAINS…………OUR PERCEPTION………….THAT THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN SPACE AND TIME AND OUR BRAINS, even though there isn’t one there, it is because we are HUMANS that we must do this.

From the ancients, science tried to use lines and numbers, numbers that represented lines, to then transform those lines of space into equations of numbers, to then use those numbers to explain things about space and time not explainable to our clean perception. Science employed mathematics to represent LINES to use numbers in equations to explain the GRID of space-time.

It is a very laborious yet crafty way of explaining space.

The BEST WAY though is to find out what our perception is fully capable of by applying “limit numbers” to a theory of perception relevant to space-time……………..because that theory will explain the absolute limits of what we can UNDERSTAND with our perception in space-time.

The limit of using mathematics with LINES is of course “time”………how can a process of mathematics, one mathematical step to the next, explain “time” if “time” is a process of number crunching lines of space.

Perception is merely a very complex "machine" of space-time automated to adapt to it's changing environment.



I actually believe space-time and perception are linked, but I also respect the scientific community in that they would think it is an absurd claim.........I respect the scientific community in saying I believe in an absurdity.

So my own idea which must arise right now through my perception of visualizing this space and sensing a time pass is but an idea in itself? That's an oxymoron of sorts, and a bit unjustly for all the evidence seems to point to the contrary.

Reality is an idea, but not just an idea, BUT a very complex and automated and self-regulated "idea LEVIATHAN".






Bow chicka wow wow

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Reality is an idea, but not just an idea, BUT a very complex and automated and self-regulated "idea LEVIATHAN".






Bow chicka wow wow

Right, stop, because you truely are confusing me. Are you saying reality at large external of the observer is just an idea, or that the perception of the reality at large is subliminally just an idea, or both?

TAKE a look at this link from this website to a topic which discusses whether reality at large can exist without the observer. It is true that reality at large may remain, but it still acts quite strange without the observer, so we do have real measurable effects which must be more than a simple idea:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Unive...ved-17309t.php

Well, good point.

Both.

We microcosm live in the greater macrocosm. We are space-time machines automated to adapt to the macrocosm machine LEVIATHAN.

We though are space-time, and so is the reality that permeates us. We are conscious as a holistic entity, as reality would be as a "holistic entity".........we as a micrcosm space-time machine, reality as the macrocosm space-time machine.






(Machine is such an ugly word.......maybe "stream of consciousness" is a little better)

As for that link, is that like a grand scale version of shroedlinger's cat?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Well, good point.

Both.

We microcosm live in the greater macrocosm. We are space-time machines automated to adapt to the macrocosm machine LEVIATHAN.

We though are space-time, and so is the reality that permeates us. We are conscious as a holistic entity, as reality would be as a "holistic entity".........we as a micrcosm space-time machine, reality as the macrocosm space-time machine.






(Machine is such an ugly word.......maybe "stream of consciousness" is a little better)

As for that link, is that like a grand scale version of shroedlinger's cat?

So we are spacetime now... not long ago you said that spacetime was not conscious...

I was being polite to the forum members. Many times have I suggested space-time and perception were linked only to have forum members ignore all my posts by reputation. I have done much therapy to reach this level of respecting their belief on the matter.

If you go back to the initial statements, you will find I have explained them with editing..............my confidence came back.

I don't think perception is an "ingredient" to reality, I think perception is the "theme" of the grand equation.







To know the grand equation is to use the logic of our perception.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I was being polite to the forum members. Many times have I suggested space-time and perception were linked only to have forum members ignore all my posts by reputation. I have done much therapy to reach this level of respecting their belief on the matter.

If you go back to the initial statements, you will find I have explained them with editing..............my confidence came back.

I don't think perception is an "ingredient" to reality, I think perception is the "theme" of the grand equation.







To know the grand equation is to use the logic of our perception.

Say what? You think spacetime and perception is linked to discredit you...? Is this a meaningful joke, or do you really believe that?

You can expore all my posts and the reactions forum members provided.

If I believed perception and space-time were linked to discredit me, I woulnd't blame the forum members because I would have to think they are the gold standard of truth.





(thanks for the discussion...........have to go)

One thing I forgot to make clear is this: when an ultimate theory of space-time is reached, the "theory of all space-time", for want of a better term, many will begin to argue that the theory actually represents a CODE to not just how we "think" about reality, but how we "perceive" reality, like the way we think is connected to how we are able to "perceive". To cut a long story short, my argument is that no one has tried, officially, to actually investigate "human logic", the limits of human logic, the possibilities, to explore that, and then use that code and apply it to space-time to then determine what human logic is able to, in theory, "theorise" of space-time.

It sounds so simple, and perhaps is, but the nature of science today demands we walk on the shoulders of old pythagorean giants, forcing us to use trial and error with measurements as opposed to accepting that how we think is related to how we perceive, and that incorporating a theme of the LOGIC of our perception ability holds the key to a grand unified field theory of space-time.





chicka bow wow

The future is fixed. Predeterminism is a simple fact of our universe. Life is like a television show, the ending has already been decided, we just dont know it yet, but that does not mean it is not fixed. Just accept it.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

The future is fixed. Predeterminism is a simple fact of our universe. Life is like a television show, the ending has already been decided, we just dont know it yet, but that does not mean it is not fixed. Just accept it.

Bravo!!!! BRAVO indeed!!! I think someone here has nailed (for once) the specific meaning behind my thought experiment. It may be good for me now to highlight on those details.

I believe some wise man (and many) have once said that there is no beginning without an end. Unless our beginnings where by pure fluke, then we certainly would have no future, which seems to be a proof in itself that we certainly do have a future, because ''intent'' and ''wishes'' seem beyond the observer herself. This is the nature of the universe at large, and it seems that our little ''localized'' worlds brings a veil over this obvious fact... that we may have choices from a personal view, but those choices are significant when distinguishing the quintessential nature of how the universe may simply not even care about them, because...


.... it doesn't need to.

I thought I nailed the issue. Allow me to explain.......

If something is pre-determined, there exists in the here and now a code that specifies a certain event will happen. Wow, did I miss something? Is that idea already championed by virtue of the "laws themselves of space and time, the laws of reality that we try to best explain with the concept of space and time, that reality won't go pear shaped with currently known laws all of a sudden?". The very concept of science upholds the need for there to be LAWS that represent the code of issues of reality that won't go away, like "c", like e = mc(squared), and so on and so forth. I think what you are trying to get at is "specific" pre-determinations. That which escapes predeterminism is merely a loosely held construct that has failed to be properly perceived in our minds as the effect of a list of causes we have yet to fully appreciate in our perception of reality.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and say that ultimate pre-determination is how everything "began", that the past links with the future, that we all exist on some type of never ending wheel of time, right...........snake chasing it's tail, huh?




Boom chicka boom.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I thought I nailed the issue. Allow me to explain.......

If something is pre-determined, there exists in the here and now a code that specifies a certain event will happen. Wow, did I miss something? Is that idea already championed by virtue of the "laws themselves of space and time, the laws of reality that we try to best explain with the concept of space and time, that reality won't go pear shaped with currently known laws all of a sudden?". The very concept of science upholds the need for there to be LAWS that represent the code of issues of reality that won't go away, like "c", like e = mc(squared), and so on and so forth. I think what you are trying to get at is "specific" pre-determinations. That which escapes predeterminism is merely a loosely held construct that has failed to be properly perceived in our minds as the effect of a list of causes we have yet to fully appreciate in our perception of reality.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and say that ultimate pre-determination is how everything "began", that the past links with the future, that we all exist on some type of never ending wheel of time, right...........snake chasing it's tail, huh?




Boom chicka boom.

This is better, but not what you said.

In fact, it's not just better --- after some implored thought, it seems to be a written proof of the thought experiment itself. I am actually very impressed.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Greetings,


To get right into it, "science won't change reality, reality just "is"".

No matter how we theorise the workings of reality, that theorising won't change reality one little bit.

The concepts of "space" and "time" are arbitrary concepts we use to best define reality in the simplist fashion possible in a way that is "agreeable" to our perception.

Take the extreme absurd idea that space-time and perception are linked. That would suggest space-time is conscious and that our theorising space-time using our perception can have an impact on space-time, on reality. That would be a classic theory, nonetheless, because it would require the use of "unreal" numbers, like "0", infinity, and "i". But nonetheless that theory could use "perception", "our perception" to derive laws that BEST FIT our perception of reality, and those LAWS would not only be understandable, but REAL to our perception.


Chicka bow wow.

Perception doesn't determine reality, which is perhaps why reality is so big and we so small.......who knows. We can only do so much with our perception to change reality. Many of us, very many of us, can impact on reality, sure, but as an a-priori perception doesn't dictate reality. As I said, reality just "is". Perception is like "space" and "time", namely they are "ways" we define reality. They are NOT reality as such, but ways we "define" reality. Space, time, and perception as measurement entities will not change reality.






chicka wow wow

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Greetings,


To get right into it, "science won't change reality, reality just "is"".

No matter how we theorise the workings of reality, that theorising won't change reality one little bit.

The concepts of "space" and "time" are arbitrary concepts we use to best define reality in the simplist fashion possible in a way that is "agreeable" to our perception.

Take the extreme absurd idea that space-time and perception are linked. That would suggest space-time is conscious and that our theorising space-time using our perception can have an impact on space-time, on reality. That would be a classic theory, nonetheless, because it would require the use of "unreal" numbers, like "0", infinity, and "i". But nonetheless that theory could use "perception", "our perception" to derive laws that BEST FIT our perception of reality, and those LAWS would not only be understandable, but REAL to our perception.


Chicka bow wow.

Perception doesn't determine reality, which is perhaps why reality is so big and we so small.......who knows. We can only do so much with our perception to change reality. Many of us, very many of us, can impact on reality, sure, but as an a-priori perception doesn't dictate reality. As I said, reality just "is". Perception is like "space" and "time", namely they are "ways" we define reality. They are NOT reality as such, but ways we "define" reality. Space, time, and perception as measurement entities will not change reality.






chicka wow wow

But there is a limit which you give yourself when determining these propositions, which leaves your conclusions unscientific. Fred Alan Wolf, Fred Hoyle and among others (1) believe that there are in fact quantum arguements that shows that our actions now are determining the past cone where there was no observer, or assuming there is no actual God. It seems that no matter how small or remedial our observations are in this world are sending signals back to the past and defining them more and more, collapsing the wave function, whilst there is also a statistical influence of the past on the future. I advise you read the book/source i provided, because it makes good use of a theory that derived from the (Absorber Theory of QM) called the Transactional Interpretation.

(1) - Parallel Universes, Fred Alan Wolf PhD,

By contemporary standards what I propose may sound unscientific, but the scientific method today gives no credit to the logic of our perception ability. I would rather withstand the accusation of being unscientific than not incorporate into a theory of space-time the logic of our perception ability.


Besides, who is to say that when you put your perception back in time, or ahead in time, out of the here and now, that it is not your own perception ability that decays which makes wave-function also appear decayed?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

By contemporary standards what I propose may sound unscientific, but the scientific method today gives no credit to the logic of our perception ability. I would rather withstand the accusation of being unscientific than not incorporate into a theory of space-time the logic of our perception ability.


Besides, who is to say that when you put your perception back in time, or ahead in time, out of the here and now, that it is not your own perception ability that decays which makes wave-function also appear decayed?

Exactly, this is why i begged to question Hawkings proposition that human conscious awareness remains, even if the chemical reduction in the brain also happens. I think Hawking might have been flawed in his arguement. I direct you to the fourth insert at the end of the OP.

:wink:

I think Hawking is looking for an answer to his own infirmity which isn't universal among men if he seeks to mend himself through time through not being exclusive to the here and now.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I think Hawking is looking for an answer to his own infirmity which isn't universal among men if he seeks to mend himself through time through not being exclusive to the here and now.

Are you referring to his condition blinding him?

I am only taking your word for it right now. I've never met him. But if he proposes that perception doesn't decay through time beyond the moment that exists which defines us as being "real", he could be putting himself in another time dimension by which he is making his existence in the here and now almost "sick", non-existent.






.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I am only taking your word for it right now. I've never met him. But if he proposes that perception doesn't decay through time beyond the moment that exists which defines us as being "real", he could be putting himself in another time dimension by which he is making his existence in the here and now almost "sick", non-existent.






.

Are you distinguishing now, between a forward directionality and one that inexorably moves backwards, are two different time dimensions, because it is the same, just one is played backwards, whilst the other is seen as forward, for there is no real need to shift the two directions as different dimensions.

Forward and reverse, well, look at yourself. Do you walk backwards? Your face looks ahead, right? Or do you live in a house of mirrors, right?



Perception associated to space-time in explaining reality confirms the need to face a direction ahead, one would think.








Chika boom boom bow wow

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Forward and reverse, well, look at yourself. Do you walk backwards? Your face looks ahead, right? Or do you live in a house of mirrors, right?



Perception associated to space-time in explaining reality confirms the need to face a direction ahead, one would think.








Chika boom boom bow wow

But mathematically-speaking, and also with a hint of philosphy and metaphysical attributions, is that requiring two time dimensions is not a need. the universe works in the most efficient way possible... introducing another time dimension only complicates the investigation further, whilst you may comparitively believe it solves it.

If perception and space-time help explain reality, our ability to think backward in time (aka "memory") is a "hint" to a trait of time assiting perception in explaining "reality", backward time. But foward time wins. One direction of time must dominate though, just like there are strong nuclear forces and weak ones. One dominates. The one that dominates is the one that dominates with our perception.........forward facing.

If perception and space-time help explain reality, our ability to think backward in time (aka "memory") is a "hint" to a trait of time assiting perception in explaining "reality", backward time. But foward time wins. One direction of time must dominate though, just like there are strong nuclear forces and weak ones. One dominates. The one that dominates is the one that dominates with our perception.........forward facing.










I must excuse myself from this forum for the time being. Another wall has been reached.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If perception and space-time help explain reality, our ability to think backward in time (aka "memory") is a "hint" to a trait of time assiting perception in explaining "reality", backward time. But foward time wins. One direction of time must dominate though, just like there are strong nuclear forces and weak ones. One dominates. The one that dominates is the one that dominates with our perception.........forward facing.










I must excuse myself from this forum for the time being. Another wall has been reached.

If you reach a wall, you need a hammer. Just get through it, and once you do, i am sure we can have more discussions on this topic.

(The conclusions drawn forth are not simply hypothesis, but if the moderators feel the need, i am sure it will be seemed only a hypothesis... however... moving on)

Turning Back The Hands of Time in a Predetermined Observer-Dependant Universe

Is Consciousness a beaken of illusion? A mediation of maya? A dillusion of directionality? I question these thoroughly from a strictly scientific
point of view, and i am quite certain that the following thought experiment cannot be interpreted any other way without being a little biast.

Now, first i want to direct our attentions to the psychological arrow of time. It is a useful arrow for any oberving system whereas we find a
specific direction in time. Time of course, is not liner by nature. Linearity in time seems to evolve from having a specific knowledge of events
which unfold to become either the information of a past and some distinction of a future. The difference between the past and the future are pivotal
in our understandings of this particular thought experiment.

Whilst both the past and future are very real events (1) - and are predicted to happening right now paradoxically by relativity, we seem to have a
problem of bias in how we personally distinguish what is a correct ''direction'' to the universe. In fact, directionality without any observer is then
left to the statistics of quantum mechanics alone, and ultimately the Schrodinger Equation. We must know for a fact now that any specific directionality of
the uncovering of events must break down without an observer to collapse the wave function (2). Thus if an oberver was not about, we then deal with
the statistical nature of the wave function, which in turn would be ultimately God playing with the proverbial dice.

We know from experimentation that directionality seems to be totally subliminal, kept close to the conscious observer as events are unfolded and processed
into knowledge of events, which then provide a basis of such a direction. This direction we have come to distinguish as ''forward,'' rather than
''backward.''

Predeterminism now enters the question. If the universe is predetermined, then we cannot really have any real choices. We cannot be held responsible
ultimately for the decisions we make. But if the universe where to have a sudden symmetry in time (where everything began to move backwards in time),
predeterminism should be found to yield the same as it would forward as it would backwards.

Premise one

If the universe evolves exactly the same way as it does forward as it does backward in time is evidence in the equations that everything is
predetermined

If consciousness is ultimately not an extension of time nor of space, then it is arguable that only conscious observers can exist in a universe that
is predetermined from some beginning, and back to whence that beginning had came from. Let me explain with more clarity what this might mean.

Dr Hawking argues that the conscious observer will be aware of events that move backward in time (3), and if this is true, then we are to believe
that even though quantum statistical averages might also be reducing in the brain, this will not effect our capability of knowing events moving backward (4).
These quantum systems do not effect our ability know, even when moving back in time - suggesting that the human consciousness is not dependant on a specific
arrow. If we are indeed to believe we would be aware of events also moving backward, then quantum systems are provided the necessery information to collapse
exactly the same way they had forward as they had backward, and hence the strange contention of this thought provoking experiment. It seems that events
moving foward are certainly predetermined in a universe which has a specified symmetry in time which relies on the observer to provide some kind of
information in how to de-evolve, or simply reduce back in the entropy it had excelled in.

I feel this is a proof experiment that a predetermined universe is the only solution when taking into account an observer-interdependancy-theory and that
with how we interpret the direction of time, because if there was nothing predetermined, then there is absolutely nothing stopping us from saying
without complete insanity that our pasts are not real now, nor is the evolution of our pasts increadibly important, which is a very disturbing thought.

(1) - Parallel Universes, 1985, Dr Wolf
(2) - The quantum zeno effect
(3) - A Brief History of Time, Dr Stephen Hawking
(4) - Unless we are to believe Hawking is wrong in this example, then our ability to know in any coherent sense would simply break down without the correct
directionality the human observer seems to make sense out of reality at large is solely interdependant on what direction in time consciousness has chosen
to be the only way to process knowledge, and thus be conscious as a whole. So it might be, that consciousness is not necesserily a product of the low
entropy located in the past cone, but rather consciousness has chosen to exist in one direction because it simply can't in the other. This would be
the only thing that would stop this thought experiment from actually being a workable theory.
_________________
Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.

Whilst both the past and future are very real events (1) - and are predicted to happening right now paradoxically by relativity,

No. That is to say, it isn't actually a paradox. Events that happened in the present will reach you simply a little later. This doesn't actually imply that the past and future are actually the same; relatively simply says that for an observer, events that happened in the present, from the viewpoint of someone at rest, will reach them sometime in the future, again from the oberserver at rest's viewpoint; for the person in motion. These events that happened in present, from the viewpoint of someone at rest, will then become his present.

The present continues to go on; people simply receive information about it a little later than normal.

we seem to have a
problem of bias in how we personally distinguish what is a correct ''direction'' to the universe.

Why? Time flows from the past to the future. This is accepted in Newtonian dynamics as well as quantum mechanics. In QM, we cannot actually say what was happening in the past, because we weren't able to find out without changing the past; this doesn't mean that no actual direction exists.

We must know for a fact now that any specific directionality of
the uncovering of events must break down without an observer to collapse the wave function (2).

Again, why? Events that are happening now will only be determined by the collapser of the wave function. It doesn't mean that time will asuddenly flow backwards if someone isn't there to collapse the wave function.

In my own opinion, this thread should go to the philosphy forum, and not here in physics.

Originally Posted by Liongold

(The conclusions drawn forth are not simply hypothesis, but if the moderators feel the need, i am sure it will be seemed only a hypothesis... however... moving on)

Turning Back The Hands of Time in a Predetermined Observer-Dependant Universe

Is Consciousness a beaken of illusion? A mediation of maya? A dillusion of directionality? I question these thoroughly from a strictly scientific
point of view, and i am quite certain that the following thought experiment cannot be interpreted any other way without being a little biast.

Now, first i want to direct our attentions to the psychological arrow of time. It is a useful arrow for any oberving system whereas we find a
specific direction in time. Time of course, is not liner by nature. Linearity in time seems to evolve from having a specific knowledge of events
which unfold to become either the information of a past and some distinction of a future. The difference between the past and the future are pivotal
in our understandings of this particular thought experiment.

Whilst both the past and future are very real events (1) - and are predicted to happening right now paradoxically by relativity, we seem to have a
problem of bias in how we personally distinguish what is a correct ''direction'' to the universe. In fact, directionality without any observer is then
left to the statistics of quantum mechanics alone, and ultimately the Schrodinger Equation. We must know for a fact now that any specific directionality of
the uncovering of events must break down without an observer to collapse the wave function (2). Thus if an oberver was not about, we then deal with
the statistical nature of the wave function, which in turn would be ultimately God playing with the proverbial dice.

We know from experimentation that directionality seems to be totally subliminal, kept close to the conscious observer as events are unfolded and processed
into knowledge of events, which then provide a basis of such a direction. This direction we have come to distinguish as ''forward,'' rather than
''backward.''

Predeterminism now enters the question. If the universe is predetermined, then we cannot really have any real choices. We cannot be held responsible
ultimately for the decisions we make. But if the universe where to have a sudden symmetry in time (where everything began to move backwards in time),
predeterminism should be found to yield the same as it would forward as it would backwards.

Premise one

If the universe evolves exactly the same way as it does forward as it does backward in time is evidence in the equations that everything is
predetermined

If consciousness is ultimately not an extension of time nor of space, then it is arguable that only conscious observers can exist in a universe that
is predetermined from some beginning, and back to whence that beginning had came from. Let me explain with more clarity what this might mean.

Dr Hawking argues that the conscious observer will be aware of events that move backward in time (3), and if this is true, then we are to believe
that even though quantum statistical averages might also be reducing in the brain, this will not effect our capability of knowing events moving backward (4).
These quantum systems do not effect our ability know, even when moving back in time - suggesting that the human consciousness is not dependant on a specific
arrow. If we are indeed to believe we would be aware of events also moving backward, then quantum systems are provided the necessery information to collapse
exactly the same way they had forward as they had backward, and hence the strange contention of this thought provoking experiment. It seems that events
moving foward are certainly predetermined in a universe which has a specified symmetry in time which relies on the observer to provide some kind of
information in how to de-evolve, or simply reduce back in the entropy it had excelled in.

I feel this is a proof experiment that a predetermined universe is the only solution when taking into account an observer-interdependancy-theory and that
with how we interpret the direction of time, because if there was nothing predetermined, then there is absolutely nothing stopping us from saying
without complete insanity that our pasts are not real now, nor is the evolution of our pasts increadibly important, which is a very disturbing thought.

(1) - Parallel Universes, 1985, Dr Wolf
(2) - The quantum zeno effect
(3) - A Brief History of Time, Dr Stephen Hawking
(4) - Unless we are to believe Hawking is wrong in this example, then our ability to know in any coherent sense would simply break down without the correct
directionality the human observer seems to make sense out of reality at large is solely interdependant on what direction in time consciousness has chosen
to be the only way to process knowledge, and thus be conscious as a whole. So it might be, that consciousness is not necesserily a product of the low
entropy located in the past cone, but rather consciousness has chosen to exist in one direction because it simply can't in the other. This would be
the only thing that would stop this thought experiment from actually being a workable theory.
_________________
Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.

Whilst both the past and future are very real events (1) - and are predicted to happening right now paradoxically by relativity,

No. That is to say, it isn't actually a paradox. Events that happened in the present will reach you simply a little later. This doesn't actually imply that the past and future are actually the same; relatively simply says that for an observer, events that happened in the present, from the viewpoint of someone at rest, will reach them sometime in the future, again from the oberserver at rest's viewpoint; for the person in motion. These events that happened in present, from the viewpoint of someone at rest, will then become his present.

The present continues to go on; people simply receive information about it a little later than normal.

we seem to have a
problem of bias in how we personally distinguish what is a correct ''direction'' to the universe.

Why? Time flows from the past to the future. This is accepted in Newtonian dynamics as well as quantum mechanics. In QM, we cannot actually say what was happening in the past, because we weren't able to find out without changing the past; this doesn't mean that no actual direction exists.

We must know for a fact now that any specific directionality of
the uncovering of events must break down without an observer to collapse the wave function (2).

Again, why? Events that are happening now will only be determined by the collapser of the wave function. It doesn't mean that time will asuddenly flow backwards if someone isn't there to collapse the wave function.

In my own opinion, this thread should go to the philosphy forum, and not here in physics.

1) I disagree. It seems very paradoxical, when you take into account the existence of a here and now, and yet, relativity predicts that time is not linear. This is a paradox of understanding.

2) Not really. The collapse does not just need to be an observer, but since the observer destinguishes a past and a future, even Einstein was troubled saying, ''Only fools believe that a past and future exist,'' meaning that we set for ourselves a past and future whilst events in relativity are all instantaneous as though the past and future are happening right now (see Doctor Wolfs book Parallel Universes which allowed me to construct many of my thoughts on this subject.

3) I don't agree that this is philosophy. In fact, i've tried to keep this as scientifically-sound as possible. The talk of time is not one of philosophy as it would normally have been classed before special relativity. Now time is a serious subject we can talk about, without the absolute need of philosophizing.

1) I disagree. It seems very paradoxical, when you take into account the existence of a here and now, and yet, relativity predicts that time is not linear. This is a paradox of understanding.

I don't think so. "Here and now" implies a place in the same frame of reference over a certain time. The non-linearity is between different frames moving at relative speeds, which only becomes significantly non-linear at high speeds approaching C. We ultimately measure our time in relation to celestial bodies in our immediate vicinity that are not travelling as significant relativistic speeds.

2) Not really. The collapse does not just need to be an observer, but since the observer destinguishes a past and a future, even Einstein was troubled saying, ''Only fools believe that a past and future exist,'' meaning that we set for ourselves a past and future whilst events in relativity are all instantaneous as though the past and future are happening right now (see Doctor Wolfs book Parallel Universes which allowed me to construct many of my thoughts on this subject.

I would rather not read his book if that is ok. "events in relativity are all instantaneous as though the past and future are happening right now "? Since time is a measure of relative movement, the past and future of each particle is determined by its position on its world line in relation to all other particles on their world lines. The direction of time is determined by entropy, which is influenced by the direction of forces and interactions. Photons, for instance, are emitted by a source and cannot originate in the opposite direction.

AFAIK

Originally Posted by KALSTER

1) I disagree. It seems very paradoxical, when you take into account the existence of a here and now, and yet, relativity predicts that time is not linear. This is a paradox of understanding.

I don't think so. "Here and now" implies a place in the same frame of reference over a certain time. The non-linearity is between different frames moving at relative speeds, which only becomes significantly non-linear at high speeds approaching C. We ultimately measure our time in relation to celestial bodies in our immediate vicinity that are not travelling as significant relativistic speeds.

2) Not really. The collapse does not just need to be an observer, but since the observer destinguishes a past and a future, even Einstein was troubled saying, ''Only fools believe that a past and future exist,'' meaning that we set for ourselves a past and future whilst events in relativity are all instantaneous as though the past and future are happening right now (see Doctor Wolfs book Parallel Universes which allowed me to construct many of my thoughts on this subject.

I would rather not read his book if that is ok. "events in relativity are all instantaneous as though the past and future are happening right now "? Since time is a measure of relative movement, the past and future of each particle is determined by its position on its world line in relation to all other particles on their world lines. The direction of time is determined by entropy, which is influenced by the direction of forces and interactions. Photons, for instance, are emitted by a source and cannot originate in the opposite direction.

AFAIK

Or don't read his book. No skin off my noes: I just feel he is one of the most prominent theorists in this area of research and has one of the best understandings of relativity i have found in a physical scientist.

Nevertheless, may i point out that when someone speaks of a linear time, that is but a time experiences to have a direction. Global time exists in physics |(which is an absence also of some intelligent recording device)| and the here and now becomes, merged into one entity with the past and future. Everything then becomes ''present now'' in relativity.

Needless to say, the only ever real time we are told in physics is the present time. If Einsteins theory did not allow that the past and future have their own present times existing now, then time travel would never have been a possibility.

Isn't that more a mathematical trick than anything else? I mean, just because you can work something out does not mean that it actually works like that. Playing around with the equations can give weird results like tachyons. It does not mean they actually exist though. Adding a fifth dimension gives Maxwell's equations and adding others could potentially solve other questions, but it does not mean that there actually are more spatial dimensions than the 3 we are used to. The same goes for time travel. You can plug any numbers into Newton's equations and they would work out fine, but we know now that the solutions become increasingly inaccurate with higher values. Similarly, relativity does not work in every situation and at all scales yet.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Isn't that more a mathematical trick than anything else? I mean, just because you can work something out does not mean that it actually works like that. Playing around with the equations can give weird results like tachyons. It does not mean they actually exist though. Adding a fifth dimension gives Maxwell's equations and adding others could potentially solve other questions, but it does not mean that there actually are more spatial dimensions than the 3 we are used to. The same goes for time travel. You can plug any numbers into Newton's equations and they would work out fine, but we know now that the solutions become increasingly inaccurate with higher values. Similarly, relativity does not work in every situation and at all scales yet.

It truely depends. If by mathematical trick you mean you can excite the equations to prove that the past and future must have their own present times, then perhaps. It soley depends on whether or not one wants to accept that the past is unredeemable or not.

Consider the alternative. If we strictly go by a Copenhagen Viewpoint, then the past is not unique, nor is our experience of it, and understanding the future is almost just as problamatic, because in this interpretation (the standard one of phsyics) is that the future does not really have any influence over the statistical averages of the past, which seems obsurd from a Delayed Choice Experiment.

I say the last part, because in essense, the Delayed Choice Experiment shows how we can ultimately create the past by mere observations we make now. Doctor Wolf in the book i cite to you to read, whether you read it or not, explains that the Delayed Choice Experiment can show how you can a mix of statistics in a quantum wave travelling over the galaxy (in this case, let us assume it to be an electromagnetic fluctuation/wave), and this tiny photon could take all possible paths as it moves theoughout this global world... but as soon as someone observes the photon on Earth, only one TRUE path of the photon will arise as being the provident real path it would take... usually in physics we must assume it to be the most probable path (the Least Action Principle)> and from here hence i direct one's attention to how our mere observations today in theory are making the ''undefined'' parts of the past more and more real.

so, by our observations now we can recreate the past... so, if we observe now that, say, Rome never fell, we could create a past where Rome is still the dominant empire and in a perpetual seat of power on Earth, meaning that Rome is currently the leading power of the world, effectively making Ceaser the ruler of the planet? Or, to take a different approach, I observe that the sun explodes in a giant expanding cloud of plasma, eradicating the Solar system and ending all life on Earth. I'm not sure this is really something I'm comfortable agreeing with. I fail to see how this is practically true, just as I fail to see how many respected and instrumental physicists are right in their respective theories; all we can do is guess at what the Universe is and how it works. there is no way to be sure, no matter how nice our theories and models are.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

so, by our observations now we can recreate the past... so, if we observe now that, say, Rome never fell, we could create a past where Rome is still the dominant empire and in a perpetual seat of power on Earth, meaning that Rome is currently the leading power of the world, effectively making Ceaser the ruler of the planet? Or, to take a different approach, I observe that the sun explodes in a giant expanding cloud of plasma, eradicating the Solar system and ending all life on Earth. I'm not sure this is really something I'm comfortable agreeing with. I fail to see how this is practically true, just as I fail to see how many respected and instrumental physicists are right in their respective theories; all we can do is guess at what the Universe is and how it works. there is no way to be sure, no matter how nice our theories and models are.

so, by our observations now we can recreate the past... so, if we observe now that, say, Rome never fell, we could create a past where Rome is still the dominant empire and in a perpetual seat of power on Earth, meaning that Rome is currently the leading power of the world, effectively making Ceaser the ruler of the planet?

Bravo, yes. However, usually in physics for this to be a mathematical certainty, we would need to gether enough minds to make this happen. One mind concurrently is not enough, though one mind can be enough to change the world in suspective ways. For instance, take the 'Butterfly Effect.'' Will changing the event of a single photon make a large effect in the observable universe?

Fred Hoyle even speculated that we are constantly sending these signals back in time which then refer to the present, but our conscious beings would be unaware of this change....... here i refer you to Fred Hoyles speculations on the man who may awake next to a new spouse everyday but not know this fact, simply because the present day information has adapted along with an adaptation of conscious experience itself.

Or, to take a different approach, I observe that the sun explodes in a giant expanding cloud of plasma, eradicating the Solar system and ending all life on Earth.

The statistics of such a change here are much larger mind you.

I'm not sure this is really something I'm comfortable agreeing with. I fail to see how this is practically true, just as I fail to see how many respected and instrumental physicists are right in their respective theories; all we can do is guess at what the Universe is and how it works. there is no way to be sure, no matter how nice our theories and models are

Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, and it was this discovery that proved Einstein wrong. Now let us consider how much change a single, or many collective minds can actually effect the ''undefined world out there.''

Originally Posted by Manynames

Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, and it was this discovery that proved Einstein wrong. Now let us consider how much change a single, or many collective minds can actually effect the ''undefined world out there.''

I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?

no matter what I observe now, it will not change what has already happened... end of story

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, and it was this discovery that proved Einstein wrong. Now let us consider how much change a single, or many collective minds can actually effect the ''undefined world out there.''

I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?

The Collapse of the Wave Function? This is evidence enough that we effect the probabilities and the statistical nature of the universe. This is a proven fact from the Double Slit Experiment, but i will rake out some resources.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

no matter what I observe now, it will not change what has already happened... end of story

It probably won't change anything too drastic. But the main point of this thread was that i would remain scientific. All i see is denial that scienc/physics does not seem to predict these things when i am assuring you that physics is in fact saying these things.

Originally Posted by Manynames

I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?

The Collapse of the Wave Function? This is evidence enough that we effect the probabilities and the statistical nature of the universe. This is a proven fact from the Double Slit Experiment, but i will rake out some resources.[/quote]In what way is the collapse of the wave function evidence that a human observer is different from any other observer?
That is the question you were asked. Your answer is either incomplete, misalligned, or unconvincing.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?

The Collapse of the Wave Function? This is evidence enough that we effect the probabilities and the statistical nature of the universe. This is a proven fact from the Double Slit Experiment, but i will rake out some resources.

In what way is the collapse of the wave function evidence that a human observer is different from any other observer?
That is the question you were asked. Your answer is either incomplete, misalligned, or unconvincing.[/quote]

No... (maybe slightly incomplete) ----- Truth is, is we have observed the collapse of the wave function, and seen real effects being manifest in the world. I am not lying. The Einsteinean world fell apart on the discovery of the collapse of the wave function, because he was adament that a single observation could certainly not drastically effect the world... but since this has been proven time and time again, the choice of what observer we choose is arbitrary at best. However, with that said, i am collecting data as we speak which suggests that there needs to be more than just hoping any oberver will do.

Manynames,
you still have not addressed MagiMaster's request.

"I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?"

Are you collecting data to demonstrate this? Or did you mean you are assembling citations? The first is interesting, but does not really address MM's request. The second would.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Manynames,
you still have not addressed MagiMaster's request.

"I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?"

Are you collecting data to demonstrate this? Or did you mean you are assembling citations? The first is interesting, but does not really address MM's request. The second would.

I am assembling data right now and citations. Moreover, i must have missed Magimasters request... Hold on.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, and it was this discovery that proved Einstein wrong. Now let us consider how much change a single, or many collective minds can actually effect the ''undefined world out there.''

I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?

Joh Galt has asked me to refer back to this post. I think he was a bit mistaken, because when i said i was getting resources of data, i don't think he realized it was really directed at this post.

I fully understand you are referring to that post. It's the same post I am referring to.

In your first reply you indicated you were assembling data. These data, as I suggested, might well be interesting, but they would hardly meet MagiMaster's implicit request for citations.

You have now expanded your commitment to not only gather data, but also to provide citations. I am pleased to hear you will be doing this. I look forward to seeing them.

(Is the distinction between data and citations clear to you?)

Since a lot of these thoughts i brought forward where excited by Doctor Wolfs investigations, let us consider many of these things he brings to our attention: Source can be found on his Blog Page:

Concerning backwards in time communication, Doctor Wolf says,

''If you are a physicist, also look at physicist David Deutsch's work on time travel and the recent work of Aharonov, Vaidman, and Albert dealing with measurements in the present which are affected by future measurement of quantum systems.''

Concerning questions he receives, one question he got is:

''Question: How do you describe the Observer's effect on Matter? Is it Mind? Consciousness? Electro-Magnetic?

Answer: The effect is mind/matter. Not mind alone or matter alone. The observer effect occurs both in mind (the inner part of experience) and in matter (the so-called outer part of experience). You can't have one without the other.

Bolded part is now me:

This in effect shows what the role of an observer is, and how we distinguish this role from a quantum mechanical viewpoint. Whilst this question Doctor wolf recieved is in fact asking about the effect we have on matter, or rather how it is described, it is also important to note the effect is not purely imaginal. We do and can effect the statistical cloud that covers matter, hence Dr Wolf also states:

''The Schrödinger wave of probability or quantum wave function describes a wave moving in a multi-dimensional imaginal space and through time. The dimensions of the space refer to the possible places the objects described by the wave can be found whenever a measurement is performed on any one of them.''

This means that the wave will undergo a sudden change whenever someone attempts to locate a real observation made in real time on a system that might be a smear of possibilities, but only one true real path is evident to come out of such an observation. This is the observer effect of quantum mechanics. Moving on to the question of how is the observer any more important than any other observer, may be partially undertsood from reading Wolf' answers. I personally cannot find any damning evidence other than to say that we certainly are more important than let's say, an atomic observer because we can have a memory of that event, whilst dead, innamate matter cannot. Why our observations are important could be answerable also from this passage Doctor Wolf cites:

''When a collapse from several possible positions occurs the particle is only in one place at a time. But a new kind of observation is now being considered in which you kind of look out of the corner of your eye so to speak and on average find the particle causing detection to occur at more than one place at a time. In other words, if you don't look intently you will find it occupying more than one place at a time. This is difficult to really grasp and many physicists are currently at work looking it the problem. One of them is Aephraim M. Steinberg who wrote:

We have been setting up an experiment to observe laser-cooled atoms tunneling through an optical barrier, wherein probes interacting with atoms at various positions and various points in time should allow us to study the weak-measurement predictions. In parallel, we have been thinking about the theoretical approach necessary to determine whether each single particle had actually affected two measurement apparatuses at spacelike separation, or whether despite this appearance on average, each particle could be thought of as being at only one device at a time. If the wave function is not merely a measure of our ignorance, but in some deeper sense "real," then one ought perhaps not to be surprised by a particle having a (weak) effect in two places at the same time, so long as no "collapse" occurs. Nevertheless, I believe that most physicists still have an underlying intuition about the indivisibility of particles which would lead them to predict such effects could not occur. Amusingly, when I have tried to explain our proposed experiments, most of the physicists I know, who are willing to discuss such things, had the opposite reaction: of course a particle can be in two places at the same time, and of course both pointers may shift simultaneously! "Our initial proposal was to build on the following idea. Consider pointers P1 and P2 at spacelike separated positions. We would like to demonstrate that even though each picks up only a small shift on a single event, it is possible to show that individual particles interacted with both pointers. Let us therefore assume the opposite, the corpuscular hypothesis that on a given event, either P1 or P2 was affected, but not both. Nevertheless, weak measurements will show that both P1 and P2 are shifted on average by an amount roughly equal to unity (a measurement that the particle was almost certainly in a given region). This must imply that on some occasions, P2 is unshifted, while on other occasions, it is shifted by an amount greater than unity; and the same for P1. Due to the anticorrelation of these shifts, we expect the distribution of the difference P1-P2 to develop a larger uncertainty. ''

Now if we move on from Doctor wolf, if the collapse is a real collapse that has real effects in the world at large, then we are sure that perhaps other quantum issues might be present behind the mechinsms that allow this to happen. Doctor Cramer proposed a fantastic new interpretation to quantum mechanics where the worlds history (both past and future) effect each other statistically. This is called the Transactional Interpretation, and actually came from the Absorber Theories. His theory is a non-local theory which actually solves many problems with current quantum experimentation.

^ The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by John Cramer. Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688, July (1986)

If indeed we are to believe this interpretation, then signals from the future not only statistically effect the present, but we can also (by mere measurement theory) effect the past also in statistical ways. This means that even though we are speaking in a statistical sense, we may make undefined parts of the past more and more real

^ Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited by A.R. Marlow, Academic Press, 1978
^ Cho, Adrian. After a Short Delay, Quantum Mechanics Becomes Even Weirder. ScienceNOW Daily News. 16 February 2007
^ John Archibald Wheeler, "The 'Past' and the 'Delayed-Choice' Double-Slit Experiment", in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited by A.R. Marlow, p. 13

From the Delayed Choice Experiment, it can also be seen in light of a photon travelling the galaxy in a smear of probability, meaning it would take all possible paths in a virtual sense. Not until some detetctor on Earth locates it, does a real true path is given to the photon. For more on this wave function of possibilities, i cite

^ Feynman, Richard P. (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3. USA: Addison-Wesley. pp. p.1–8. ISBN 0201021188P.

Feynman, Richard P. (1988). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02417-0.

Concerning our ability to have this real effect on matter, we call this the observer effect. I cite

^ Norsen, T. Against "Realism"
^ Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

And although a collapse in the wave function does not always need to be referred to a real live observer, if the real live observer could measure the wave of a particle, the wave will almost certainly undergo a collapse.

^ J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin, 1932 (Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, Princeton University Press, 1955).
^ The "collapse" or "reduction" of the wave function was introduced by Heisenberg in his uncertainty paper and later postulated by von Neumann as a dynamical process independent of the Schrodinger equation. Kiefer, C. On the interpretation of quantum theory – from Copenhagen to the present day

This should be enough for now.

I am probably having an off day. I have read that quite carefully I think, but cannot find anything that makes a distinction between a human observer and other observers. That is what MM was asking for. Could you point me to the passage that I must have missed.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I am probably having an off day. I have read that quite carefully I think, but cannot find anything that makes a distinction between a human observer and other observers. That is what MM was asking for. Could you point me to the passage that I must have missed.

Maybe i am the one having an off-day. What is exactly meant by the question? Who are the other observers?

For the third or fourth time of asking, I'll repeat it once more. MagiMaster asked this:
"I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?"

He asked this in response to your observation:
Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, (My emphasis.)

You specifically stated that it was the observation of the human that effected statistical probabilities. MM asked you to provide references that showed human observation rather than non-human observation made a difference. In short, you made a rather unusual claim. MM asked you provide justification/evidence for it.

You then offered a lengthy piece which I understand was supposed to provide this justification/evidence. I cannot see anywhere in it that does so.

(ManyNames, this is like pulling teeth. Could you try focusing please.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

For the third or fourth time of asking, I'll repeat it once more. MagiMaster asked this:
"I'd be interested in seeing some references for this. Specifically, what experiments show that a human observer is different from any other observer?"

He asked this in response to your observation:
Well... denial of such events are much expected, however, it has been proven in labs all around the world that the observation of the human can and does effect staistical probabilities, (My emphasis.)

You specifically stated that it was the observation of the human that effected statistical probabilities. MM asked you to provide references that showed human observation rather than non-human observation made a difference. In short, you made a rather unusual claim. MM asked you provide justification/evidence for it.

You then offered a lengthy piece which I understand was supposed to provide this justification/evidence. I cannot see anywhere in it that does so.

(ManyNames, this is like pulling teeth. Could you try focusing please.)

Ok, i cite On the interpretation of quantum theory – from
Copenhagen to the present day
Claus Kiefer
Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik,
Universit¨at zu K¨oln,
Z¨ulpicher Str. 77, 50937 K¨oln, Germany.

In this paper, we are shown that it is not unheard of in the past for scientists to somehow link an importance with consciousness and the collapse of the wave function, even if there is an aparatus being used to detect matter. If i say our observations are important, i may not personally mean this in, what i feel is a very misleading question. The human observer if we could have a quantum eye without any aparatus would still collapse the wave function.

In the paper i cite, it explicitely explains (and it's not a very lengthly paper, but rather one devoted to understanding the Copenhagen Interpretation better), that

''Even Bohr’s own interpretation did change in the course of time. This
happened in particular due to the influence of the important paper by Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 (EPR) [7]. Before EPR, an essential
ingredient of his interpretation was the uncontrollable disturbance of the
quantum system by the apparatus during a measurement. The analysis of
EPR demonstrated, however, that the issue is not the disturbance, but the
non-separability (the entanglement) of a quantum system over in principle
unlimited spatial distances...''

''....A somewhat ambigous role in the Copenhagen interpretation(s) is played
by the “collapse” or “reduction” of the wave function. This was introduced
by Heisenberg in his uncertainty paper [3] and later postulated by von Neumann as a dynamical process independent of the Schr¨odinger equation, see
Sec. 2. Most proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation have considered
this reduction as a mere increase of knowledge (a transition from the potential
to the actual), therefore denying that the wave function is a kinematical concept
and thus affected by dynamics. The assumption of a dynamical collapse
would definitely be in conflict with Bohr’s ideas of complementarity which
forbid a physical analysis of the measurement process....''

But more importantly, the adoption of the primary theory where the observation of humans may indeed collapse the wave function is not only taken seriously in the past, but still does with some scientists.

''...But this state is a superposition of macroscopic measurement results (of
which Schr¨odinger’s cat is just one drastic example)! To avoid such a bizarre
state, and to avoid the apparent conflict with experience, von Neumann
introduced the dynamical collapse of the wave function as a new law. The
collapse should then select one component with the probability . He even envisaged that the collapse is eventually caused by the consciousness of
a human observer, an interpretation that was later also adopted by Wigner.
In the Everett interpretation, all the branches (each component in (3)) are
assumed to co-exist simultaneously.''

I don't know if that answers your question any more?

Originally Posted by Manynames

I don't know if that answers your question any more?

It was MM's question. You'll have to ask him. I didn't have a question. I just dislike seeing posters avoid responding to any questions no matter who they are from. It defeats the purpose of a forum.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

I don't know if that answers your question any more?

It was MM's question. You'll have to ask him. I didn't have a question. I just dislike seeing posters avoid responding to any questions no matter who they are from. It defeats the purpose of a forum.

Fair enough, but in the future questions should be more clear. I suffer from a condition that may blind me from seeing the ''obvious nature'' that might be behind them.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Fair enough, but in the future questions should be more clear. I suffer from a condition that may blind me from seeing the ''obvious nature'' that might be behind them.

The question could not easily have been any clearer.

I asked in another thread if you suffered from dyslexia or any other condition that could hamper your reading comprehension. I pointed out that if this was the case it would evoke considerable sympathy and a more tolerant attitude to your posts.

Thank you for confirming you have such a condition. May I ask its nature? That may help other posters to phrase their posts to you more effectively.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

Fair enough, but in the future questions should be more clear. I suffer from a condition that may blind me from seeing the ''obvious nature'' that might be behind them.

The question could not easily have been any clearer.

I asked in another thread if you suffered from dyslexia or any other condition that could hamper your reading comprehension. I pointed out that if this was the case it would evoke considerable sympathy and a more tolerant attitude to your posts.

Thank you for confirming you have such a condition. May I ask its nature? That may help other posters to phrase their posts to you more effectively.

Semantic Pragmatic Disorder. Not that I ever wanted to tell you or anyone.

Ok. I found that on Google Scholar (in the book Time, Quantum and Information), and I was reading a bit of it. About a page down from your last quote (on page 296), is this (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Time, Quantum and Information (page 296)

Both system and apparatus thus assume classical properties through the unavoidable, irreversible interaction with the environment. This dynamical process, which is fully described by quantum theory, is called decoherence [13]. It is based on the quantum entanglement between apparatus and environment. Under ordinary macroscopic situations, decoherence occurs on an extremely short timescale, giving the impression of an instantaneous collapse or a "quantum jump". Recent experiments were able to demonstrate the continuous emergence of classical properties in mesoscopic systems [16, 17]. Therefore, one would never ever be able to observe a weird superposition such as Schrödinger's cat, because the information about this superposition would almost instantaneously be delocalised into unobservable correlations with the environment, resulting in an apparent collapse for the cat state. The concept of decoherence motivated Wigner to give up his explanation of the collapse as being caused by consciousness [18].In fact, decoherence makes it evident that living creatures play no particular role in the interpretation of quantum theory.

Reference 18 looks particularly relevant: E.P. Wigner: Philosophical reflections and syntheses, Springer, Berlin 1995

So, yes. What citations you've given so far do show that others did hold this view as well, but it looks like at least some of them have changed their minds. Can you provide any more recent citations to support this?

Also, I'm curious what you think makes humans special with regards to the wave function collapse?

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Ok. I found that on Google Scholar (in the book Time, Quantum and Information), and I was reading a bit of it. About a page down from your last quote (on page 296), is this (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Time, Quantum and Information (page 296)

Both system and apparatus thus assume classical properties through the unavoidable, irreversible interaction with the environment. This dynamical process, which is fully described by quantum theory, is called decoherence [13]. It is based on the quantum entanglement between apparatus and environment. Under ordinary macroscopic situations, decoherence occurs on an extremely short timescale, giving the impression of an instantaneous collapse or a "quantum jump". Recent experiments were able to demonstrate the continuous emergence of classical properties in mesoscopic systems [16, 17]. Therefore, one would never ever be able to observe a weird superposition such as Schrödinger's cat, because the information about this superposition would almost instantaneously be delocalised into unobservable correlations with the environment, resulting in an apparent collapse for the cat state. The concept of decoherence motivated Wigner to give up his explanation of the collapse as being caused by consciousness [18].In fact, decoherence makes it evident that living creatures play no particular role in the interpretation of quantum theory.

Reference 18 looks particularly relevant: E.P. Wigner: Philosophical reflections and syntheses, Springer, Berlin 1995

So, yes. What citations you've given so far do show that others did hold this view as well, but it looks like at least some of them have changed their minds. Can you provide any more recent citations to support this?

Also, I'm curious what you think makes humans special with regards to the wave function collapse?

Before i try and rake anyone else into this, can i just make it absolutely clear i see nothing special related between the collapse of the wave function and that of human life itself. When i said the human observer, i think i was being too poetic at the time. To be fair, i feel the human is important when (and this part is important) ''past statistical averages'' are taking into account, not so much ''the collapse state on the object in the present''.

By this i mean there is a chance that we can add detail to the smear of possibilities inherent in the function of a system upon the collapse of the wave function that may be drastically different if it had just been a simple atomic observer who has no thoughts on the system.

Sorry, but the way that reads, you are contradicting yourself.

You said "i see nothing special related between the collapse of the wave function and that of human life" and "we can add detail to the smear of possibilities inherent in the function of a system upon the collapse of the wave function". I can't see how these can both apply. Either human life (and life in general, really) has no effect, or it has some effect...

With what i said above, i want it known i do not believe in the conscious-collapse model, but for resources or even simple informational values, here is an excerpt from wikipedia

''Consciousness causes collapse
"Consciousness causes collapse" is the name of an interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which observation by a conscious observer is the cause of wave function collapse.

The involvement of Consciousness has been summarized as follows:

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.[26]

This interpretation attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. However, it is not explained by this theory which things have sufficient consciousness to collapse the wave function ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"[27]). Until the Hard problem of consciousness is solved, it is undefined what could or could not have consciousness. It could be that measuring devices might also turn out to be considered conscious by this definition.

Consciousness causes collapse can be seen as a proposed answer to the Wigner's friend thought experiment by asserting that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer.

Wigner believed that consciousness is necessary for the collapse process. See Consciousess and measurement. There are several possible ways to explain the Wigner's friend thought experiment, some of which do not require consciousness to be different from physical processes. See, Consciousness and Superposition and Wigner's friend in Many Worlds.

Recent study of quantum decoherence reduces the emphasis on the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory for most systems. Quantum decoherence does not, however, apply to systems governed by a quantum control. Modern scientific discourse has evolved to try to quantify how quantum systems decohere due to their interactions with their surroundings. This provides a unified view which treats neighboring quantum systems, thermal baths and the measurement apparatus on the same footing. Although decoherence gives new insight on how quantum mechanics gives rise to the classical world in general, decoherence is not a philosophy and it does not claim to give a resolution to the philosophical aspects of the problem of measurement.''

This became to be known as Wigners Friend, Wigner's original remarks about his friend appeared in his article "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question", published in the book "The Scientist Speculates", edited by I. J. Good. The article is reprinted in Wigner's own book Symmetries and Reflections.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Sorry, but the way that reads, you are contradicting yourself.

You said "i see nothing special related between the collapse of the wave function and that of human life" and "we can add detail to the smear of possibilities inherent in the function of a system upon the collapse of the wave function". I can't see how these can both apply. Either human life (and life in general, really) has no effect, or it has some effect...

No it's not a contradiction. Read again what i said, i said, ''there is nothing special between that of life and the collapse,'' i never really mentioned the importance in a much larger picture where our memory can add detail to the past. That is why i made it clear to add there is nothing special between consciousness and a collapse made in the present.

Read over what i said again.

p.s. memory as well may not be necesserily tied to a living life form. It just so happens however the human is a brilliant recording device.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Sorry, but the way that reads, you are contradicting yourself.

You said "i see nothing special related between the collapse of the wave function and that of human life" and "we can add detail to the smear of possibilities inherent in the function of a system upon the collapse of the wave function". I can't see how these can both apply. Either human life (and life in general, really) has no effect, or it has some effect...

No it's not a contradiction. Read again what i said, i said, ''there is nothing special between that of life and the collapse,'' i never really mentioned the importance in a much larger picture where our memory can add detail to the past. That is why i made it clear to add there is nothing special between consciousness and a collapse made in the present.

Read over what i said again.

p.s. memory as well may not be necesserily tied to a living life form. It just so happens however the human is a brilliant recording device.

Plus, another reason why i feel it is wise to stay away from mixing human life and the collapse as some important type of conjugates, is simply because we know the collapse of the wave function can happen in decoherence without any living biosystem.

the importance in my speculations here however is that of memory. Something we have adundance of, and it must bring detail into the universe which an atomic observer, indeed any innanimate observer can do.

Ok. I somewhat see what you're saying. Now my questions are:

How can you change the past without causing some form of wave function collapse, assuming it's possible at all?

Can you provide any citations showing that changing the past is possible? Or that memory has any special ability to do so?

How does this apply where different people remember things differently? What about when memories are changed or disrupted?

Is your theory falsifiable?

I think removing life from this is a good idea. any kind of organic life is prone to error and corrosion of data within the device with which it is recorded. Memory, as manynames means it, (I think) is more simply defined as the record of events as stored in some way on something; like, for example, a video tape; it stores all the audio and visual information of some event which, for this purpose, we could label a "memory". how you change these memories is completely up to you, manynames, for explanation.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Ok. I somewhat see what you're saying. Now my questions are:

How can you change the past without causing some form of wave function collapse, assuming it's possible at all?

Can you provide any citations showing that changing the past is possible? Or that memory has any special ability to do so?

How does this apply where different people remember things differently? What about when memories are changed or disrupted?

Is your theory falsifiable?

How can you change the past without causing some form of wave function collapse, assuming it's possible at all?

How does this apply where different people remember things differently? What about when memories are changed or disrupted?

In response to this question, first we need to ask, ''what is a history?'' In a Copenhagen Interpretation, there can be no such thing as recreating events in the past. True enough said that today physics has devoloped experimentally that we can actually modify the old Copenhagen School of thought, with introducing a set future.

But what is a history but a collection of intelligent recording devices which seems to have came to agree on such a specific past cone of events? In fact, take this quite literally, then we have the answer. The past is nothing more than the conscious present which ''remembers'' or has ''collectively'' came to agree on a certain unfolding of events. But what if you gathered enough minds in the world to counter that arguement? What if you had enough minds that could say for instance World War Two never happened? Doctor Wolf raises this question in his studies in his book 'Mind into Matter,' and though he makes it clear that such drastic changes are highly unlikely, smaller one's which we haven't quite defined in our history could flux and manifest into more real events.

Needless to say, while quantum mechanics can and does say this is possible, it cetainly is not possible without some quantum mechanical collapse of the wave system itself. Nothing in this universe becomes more real without some definitive collapse in the wave function

Is your theory falsifiable?

Yes it is. If we ever come to find in physics that the Old School of Thought in Copenhagen is proven to be correct, and no Cramer Transactional Interpretation can be fathomed in physics, then my theory could not work. (To be fair, it's not really ''my theory'', but my interpretation of the theory is mine, and the structure of which i have adopted.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

I think removing life from this is a good idea. any kind of organic life is prone to error and corrosion of data within the device with which it is recorded. Memory, as manynames means it, (I think) is more simply defined as the record of events as stored in some way on something; like, for example, a video tape; it stores all the audio and visual information of some event which, for this purpose, we could label a "memory". how you change these memories is completely up to you, manynames, for explanation.

I could bemore black and white and simply say memory is nothing but a storage of all past events, or rather, the present is made from all pat events. But how many past events are there, because quantum mechanics is purely a statistical theory at best...?

Richeard Feynman showed us that the past is not fixed at all to just one singular past. The Many Histories of the universe shows us that there are equally many histories where perhaps the wave function has not converged under , where the collapse yeild statistically . This single value is when something actually becomes ''real''.

how does one change the past?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

how does one change the past?

I cannot intuitively answer that question without resorting to the wave mechanics of quantum physics. If parts of our past is undefined, 'where the wave function is still quite ghostly and superpositioned,' then it i possible that by altering the wave function in the present can manifest the past in details which may have elluded the observer in the ''so-called'' past.

In much the same way, the future then statistically effects our present, because our present time is also a past time. This works well with Doctor Cramers Transctional Interpretation which derived from Absorber Theory.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Is your theory falsifiable?

Yes it is. If we ever come to find in physics that the Old School of Thought in Copenhagen is proven to be correct, and no Cramer Transactional Interpretation can be fathomed in physics, then my theory could not work. (To be fair, it's not really ''my theory'', but my interpretation of the theory is mine, and the structure of which i have adopted.

Sorry, but that's not how falsifiability works. For one thing, nothing in science can be proved, only disproved. Therefore, if the only way for your theory to be disproved is to prove a competing theory, it is not falsifiable. Theories that are said to have been proven actually aren't. (They've just resisted all attempts made to disprove them.)

That said, I'll ask a slightly different question. Can you think of an experiment that could show your theory to be false? If not, then your theory is unfalsifiable and can only be considered a matter of faith, not science. If so, then it's at least good science and can be tested. (It doesn't matter if we have the capability to actually carry out the test, as long as we would eventually be able to do so.)

Originally Posted by Manynames

Needless to say, while quantum mechanics can and does say this is possible, it cetainly is not possible without some quantum mechanical collapse of the wave system itself. Nothing in this universe becomes more real without some definitive collapse in the wave function

Are you saying that changing the past would require the collapse of a wave function? If so, how do you reconcile that with your other statements that a conscious mind is needed to change the past and a conscious mind has no particular effect of wave function collapses?

Simple question: In what way is memory different from simple causality? For instance; A photo of a solar eclipse and a memory of one. I don't think there is a difference.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

Is your theory falsifiable?

Yes it is. If we ever come to find in physics that the Old School of Thought in Copenhagen is proven to be correct, and no Cramer Transactional Interpretation can be fathomed in physics, then my theory could not work. (To be fair, it's not really ''my theory'', but my interpretation of the theory is mine, and the structure of which i have adopted.

Sorry, but that's not how falsifiability works. For one thing, nothing in science can be proved, only disproved. Therefore, if the only way for your theory to be disproved is to prove a competing theory, it is not falsifiable. Theories that are said to have been proven actually aren't. (They've just resisted all attempts made to disprove them.)

That said, I'll ask a slightly different question. Can you think of an experiment that could show your theory to be false? If not, then your theory is unfalsifiable and can only be considered a matter of faith, not science. If so, then it's at least good science and can be tested. (It doesn't matter if we have the capability to actually carry out the test, as long as we would eventually be able to do so.)

Originally Posted by Manynames

Needless to say, while quantum mechanics can and does say this is possible, it cetainly is not possible without some quantum mechanical collapse of the wave system itself. Nothing in this universe becomes more real without some definitive collapse in the wave function

Are you saying that changing the past would require the collapse of a wave function? If so, how do you reconcile that with your other statements that a conscious mind is needed to change the past and a conscious mind has no particular effect of wave function collapses?

Rigorous experiments such as the Quantum Eraser experiment, Delayed Choice experiment, Schrodinger's Cat experiment, and many other experiments are actually in favor of this thought experiment alone. But more importantly is their constant improvement. I would never say this theory is unfalsifiable. You seem to believe i have chosen an error in my understanding of unfalsiafiability, but from my perspective, i feel you are in error of what it really means. Let me give you an unfalsifiable theory... String Theory. It is unfalsifiable because there are no experimental ways to either test it nor disprove it. My theory however does, and i've shown this.

''Are you saying that changing the past would require the collapse of a wave function? If so, how do you reconcile that with your other statements that a conscious mind is needed to change the past and a conscious mind has no particular effect of wave function collapses?''

Yes, changing the past in some substantial way would require the collapse of the wave function. Think of the wave function as a graph, which peaks in certain area's; if you can make that peak above area's that had once been neglected by rigorous observations, then you are in fact making that event more and more defined. I don't need to go through this part any more do I?

(ps) If you are going to qoute me on sentances like: a conscious mind has no particular effect of wave function collapses, could you at least make sure when you qoute you have either the whole sentance so it does not try to discredit my work. I am very particular that way. If the sentance just given was (provided word by word) then it certainly would not be true.

Sorry, I was trying to summarize, not quote. Can you at least explain why my summary was wrong?

Also, can you show where you've shown your theory to be falsifiable?

String theory is falsifiable. There are experiments that can, eventually, be carried out that can test its predictions. The fact that we are currently incapable of performing those experiments doesn't change this.

You said that the way to disprove your theory was to prove some other theory, but that's not valid science. Can you point out what experiment could falsify your theory?

No, i will cease this until you admit string theory is not a falsifiable theory to date. A theory to be falsifiable is a theory to date which has no proof of current experiments which can proove or disprove. String theory has none of that, only hypothesized experiments which have never been testable so far simply because technology sucks.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Simple question: In what way is memory different from simple causality? For instance; A photo of a solar eclipse and a memory of one. I don't think there is a difference.

Memory is different from a usual entropy because it also has the state of loosing entropy. In this sense, entropy is defined as the law of cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Simple question: In what way is memory different from simple causality? For instance; A photo of a solar eclipse and a memory of one. I don't think there is a difference.

Memory is different from a usual entropy because it also has the state of loosing entropy. In this sense, entropy is defined as the law of cause and effect.

Say again? Memory gives a decrease in entropy, as do a photo. But anyway. The question still stands: How is memory different from the simple effects of a cause? Timescale? Certainly not the involvement of consciousness.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Simple question: In what way is memory different from simple causality? For instance; A photo of a solar eclipse and a memory of one. I don't think there is a difference.

Memory is different from a usual entropy because it also has the state of loosing entropy. In this sense, entropy is defined as the law of cause and effect.

Say again? Memory gives a decrease in entropy, as do a photo. But anyway. The question still stands: How is memory different from the simple effects of a cause? Timescale? Certainly not the involvement of consciousness.

You are asking me for a difference. Let me do this again.

Consciousness has a memory which can and does increase in time. This cause and effect principle of how memory increases can be considerably different to a photo. Memories can be lost and can be defined as a loss in ''the enrtopy of knowledge and memory,'' whilst the photo may sit there and not spark the memory again.

Fine. Take a tape recording then. It certainly does degrade with time.

The question actually is how conscousness and memory is different from information contained in a dynamic system. To put a finer point on it: Is conscousness and memory an emergent property of the physicality of a brain or is it somehow removed and independant. If it is not independant, as you surely would agree, how can it then be special at all? If it is not special, then the retroactive interdependancy of future and present "knowledge" would be rampant all over the place. That is, there would be a constant cause-effect-cause loop, or am I misunderstanding?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Fine. Take a tape recording then. It certainly does degrade with time.

The question actually is how conscousness and memory is different from information contained in a dynamic system. To put a finer point on it: Is conscousness and memory an emergent property of the physicality of a brain or is it somehow removed and independant. If it is not independant, as you surely would agree, how can it then be special at all? If it is not special, then the retroactive interdependancy of future and present "knowledge" would be rampant all over the place. That is, there would be a constant cause-effect-cause loop, or am I misunderstanding?

Well, another difference is, is that we are ultimately ''aware'' of our memory, whilst matter (innanimate matter) does not have that type of reference or referral if you like on itself. That is the saving grace of what makes our memory (which is a type of information) unique to the information contained within the dead particles of a video tape.

Another point i would like to make, is that: There is no set equation that will determine us to loose a thought, due to how powerful that thought may be. However, information on a video tape will decrease because it is inexorably made from a system which is nothing but material averages that are always within the laws of physics, meaning it is a natural effect that a video looses the information on it, because the particle contained on the film are always changing, moving, and decreasing the order of that information.

Well, another difference is, is that we are ultimately ''aware'' of our memory, whilst matter (innanimate matter) does not have that type of reference or referral if you like on itself. That is the saving grace of what makes our memory (which is a type of information) unique to the information contained within the dead particles of a video tape.

The thing about memory is that it is arranged in an associative way. You cannot recall a memory without something relevant to it being fed into your consciousness first. In fact, a very large part of a recalled memory is reconstructed by the brain from scratch using a relatively small amount of actual stored information. Memory then is nothing more than a feedback system. This is very similar to how a computer uses memory. A simple table of numbers can give you a vivid picture after processing. The brain is simply more efficient in terms of storing only enough information to be able to recreate a memory with only enough fidelity to be useful. Also, a very large part of our memory we are not "aware" of. A computer program can then provide much more fidelity and also refers to information of its own creation. Following from this, consciousness can legitimately be referred to as an operating system. How is it different then?

The above points invalidate your second point also. Why are degrees of degradation of information relevant? Non-life dynamic recall-action feedback systems can easily be made to simulate that of a living system in a qualitative sense at least, IMO.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well, another difference is, is that we are ultimately ''aware'' of our memory, whilst matter (innanimate matter) does not have that type of reference or referral if you like on itself. That is the saving grace of what makes our memory (which is a type of information) unique to the information contained within the dead particles of a video tape.

The thing about memory is that it is arranged in an associative way. You cannot recall a memory without something relevant to it being fed into your consciousness first. In fact, a very large part of a recalled memory is reconstructed by the brain from scratch using a relatively small amount of actual stored information. Memory then is nothing more than a feedback system. This is very similar to how a computer uses memory. A simple table of numbers can give you a vivid picture after processing. The brain is simply more efficient in terms of storing only enough information to be able to recreate a memory with only enough fidelity to be useful. Also, a very large part of our memory we are not "aware" of. A computer program can then provide much more fidelity and also refers to information of its own creation. Following from this, consciousness can legitimately be referred to as an operating system. How is it different then?

The above points invalidate your second point also. Why are degrees of degradation of information relevant? Non-life dynamic recall-action feedback systems can easily be made to simulate that of a living system in a qualitative sense at least, IMO.

The thing about memory is that it is arranged in an associative way. You cannot recall a memory without something relevant to it being fed into your consciousness first.

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever. Of course, you could also argue that dreams are a collection of memories in the consciousenss... but what about dreams that are not associative to actual events that are real?

Memory then is nothing more than a feedback system.

In the long run, many memories can be. But i think i've shown above not all memories can be applied with such a crystal clear response.

...So i am not sure how it invalidates the use of the examples i have given. If memory on a tape recorder disappears naturally through entropy, when compared to a single memory which can last for the rest of someones life, then there is a difference, as much as you sought a difference, i provided many.

Originally Posted by Manynames

No, i will cease this until you admit string theory is not a falsifiable theory to date. A theory to be falsifiable is a theory to date which has no proof of current experiments which can proove or disprove. String theory has none of that, only hypothesized experiments which have never been testable so far simply because technology sucks.

Sorry, but technology sucks does not equal not falsifiable and your intense hatred or fear of string theory isn't going to change that.

The point is, string theory makes predictions that are theoretically testable. That is, it makes predictions that would have a concrete effect on the universe. Just because we are currently incapable of finding these effects doesn't mean string theory is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, you have yet to show how your theory is falsifiable.

Originally Posted by Manynames

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever. Of course, you could also argue that dreams are a collection of memories in the consciousenss... but what about dreams that are not associative to actual events that are real?

Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time. If you want to argue this point, find some references and I'll do the same.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

No, i will cease this until you admit string theory is not a falsifiable theory to date. A theory to be falsifiable is a theory to date which has no proof of current experiments which can proove or disprove. String theory has none of that, only hypothesized experiments which have never been testable so far simply because technology sucks.

Sorry, but technology sucks does not equal not falsifiable and your intense hatred or fear of string theory isn't going to change that.

The point is, string theory makes predictions that are theoretically testable. That is, it makes predictions that would have a concrete effect on the universe. Just because we are currently incapable of finding these effects doesn't mean string theory is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, you have yet to show how your theory is falsifiable.

Originally Posted by Manynames

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever. Of course, you could also argue that dreams are a collection of memories in the consciousenss... but what about dreams that are not associative to actual events that are real?

Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time. If you want to argue this point, find some references and I'll do the same.

Look, if techology sucks is not good enough to validate the unfalsifiable nature of string theory, which is surely purely mathematical so far with no detection of hidden dimensions or the graviton seeping between differential universes, then i hardly see how my theory could be any different. Though it is really... it has experimental means. We have experiments that seem to back it up quite well, and yet... several prominent scientists have come foward to say string theory is unfalsifiable... i think my thought experiment when compared is wrapped up in gold.

''Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time.''

I was merely stating it is not as clean cut as bringing in associative experiences. Whether or not DeJa vu is a real phenomena or not, it certainly is linked to the event during that time, or the experience of it would not be real. Also, you never took in respect also the dream analogy... dreams are certainly made up most of the time by associative memories with actual events, but what about when those associative respectiveness breaks down when we take into consideration dreams which have no reality to the person when they are awake?

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

No, i will cease this until you admit string theory is not a falsifiable theory to date. A theory to be falsifiable is a theory to date which has no proof of current experiments which can proove or disprove. String theory has none of that, only hypothesized experiments which have never been testable so far simply because technology sucks.

Sorry, but technology sucks does not equal not falsifiable and your intense hatred or fear of string theory isn't going to change that.

The point is, string theory makes predictions that are theoretically testable. That is, it makes predictions that would have a concrete effect on the universe. Just because we are currently incapable of finding these effects doesn't mean string theory is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, you have yet to show how your theory is falsifiable.

Originally Posted by Manynames

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever. Of course, you could also argue that dreams are a collection of memories in the consciousenss... but what about dreams that are not associative to actual events that are real?

Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time. If you want to argue this point, find some references and I'll do the same.

Look, if techology sucks is not good enough to validate the unfalsifiable nature of string theory, which is surely purely mathematical so far with no detection of hidden dimensions or the graviton seeping between differential universes, then i hardly see how my theory could be any different. Though it is really... it has experimental means. We have experiments that seem to back it up quite well, and yet... several prominent scientists have come foward to say string theory is unfalsifiable... i think my thought experiment when compared is wrapped up in gold.

''Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time.''

I was merely stating it is not as clean cut as bringing in associative experiences. Whether or not DeJa vu is a real phenomena or not, it certainly is linked to the event during that time, or the experience of it would not be real. Also, you never took in respect also the dream analogy... dreams are certainly made up most of the time by associative memories with actual events, but what about when those associative respectiveness breaks down when we take into consideration dreams which have no reality to the person when they are awake?

Also, by your reasoning and logic, since it doesn't matter if we have the technology now to distinguish string theory as a falsifiable theory, then my answer before that it is until certain experimental apparatus evolve could we really test my own theory, should yield no different opinion whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Originally Posted by Manynames

No, i will cease this until you admit string theory is not a falsifiable theory to date. A theory to be falsifiable is a theory to date which has no proof of current experiments which can proove or disprove. String theory has none of that, only hypothesized experiments which have never been testable so far simply because technology sucks.

Sorry, but technology sucks does not equal not falsifiable and your intense hatred or fear of string theory isn't going to change that.

The point is, string theory makes predictions that are theoretically testable. That is, it makes predictions that would have a concrete effect on the universe. Just because we are currently incapable of finding these effects doesn't mean string theory is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, you have yet to show how your theory is falsifiable.

Originally Posted by Manynames

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever. Of course, you could also argue that dreams are a collection of memories in the consciousenss... but what about dreams that are not associative to actual events that are real?

Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time. If you want to argue this point, find some references and I'll do the same.

Look, if techology sucks is not good enough to validate the unfalsifiable nature of string theory, which is surely purely mathematical so far with no detection of hidden dimensions or the graviton seeping between differential universes, then i hardly see how my theory could be any different. Though it is really... it has experimental means. We have experiments that seem to back it up quite well, and yet... several prominent scientists have come foward to say string theory is unfalsifiable... i think my thought experiment when compared is wrapped up in gold.

''Deja vu has been the subject of much research, none of which has come to the conclusion that it has no connection at all with what is going on at the time.''

I was merely stating it is not as clean cut as bringing in associative experiences. Whether or not DeJa vu is a real phenomena or not, it certainly is linked to the event during that time, or the experience of it would not be real. Also, you never took in respect also the dream analogy... dreams are certainly made up most of the time by associative memories with actual events, but what about when those associative respectiveness breaks down when we take into consideration dreams which have no reality to the person when they are awake?

You might also want to read this:

http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/weird/string.htm

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever.

Really? That is a speculation and an extraordinary one at that. The most probable answer is that we are wired to be able to predict a sequence of events by using past experiences of similar events. As already discussed, most memories are reconstructed from a group of associated titbits. There is also a quick analysis made in a variety of situations where it is determined if the experience is familiar or not. Throw all of these processes together and the probability that our recollection and reactive processes are not perfect and I'd say you have a much more reasonable explanation than being connected in some way to the future, no?

False memories most certainly exist.

So i am not sure how it invalidates the use of the examples i have given. If memory on a tape recorder disappears naturally through entropy, when compared to a single memory which can last for the rest of someone’s life, then there is a difference, as much as you sought a difference, i provided many.

The differences, if any, are very subjective. There are close analogues to human memory in a qualitative sense all over the place. Some kind of connection between past, present and future is not required for any of it to work.

I just can't understand why you give special significance to memories. They are simply the result of a complex system, which do not differ in any significantly fundamental way from normal causality. The differences you have given are arbitrary and specious IMO.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever.

Really? That is a speculation and an extraordinary one at that. The most probable answer is that we are wired to be able to predict a sequence of events by using past experiences of similar events. As already discussed, most memories are reconstructed from a group of associated titbits. There is also a quick analysis made in a variety of situations where it is determined if the experience is familiar or not. Throw all of these processes together and the probability that our recollection and reactive processes are not perfect and I'd say you have a much more reasonable explanation than being connected in some way to the future, no?

False memories most certainly exist.

So i am not sure how it invalidates the use of the examples i have given. If memory on a tape recorder disappears naturally through entropy, when compared to a single memory which can last for the rest of someone’s life, then there is a difference, as much as you sought a difference, i provided many.

The differences, if any, are very subjective. There are close analogues to human memory in a qualitative sense all over the place. Some kind of connection between past, present and future is not required for any of it to work.

I just can't understand why you give special significance to memories. They are simply the result of a complex system, which do not differ in any significantly fundamental way from normal causality. The differences you have given are arbitrary and specious IMO.

Look at what you said though...

...If false memories can exist, then there is a non-associative method behind them as well. As i said, the arguement is not as clear cut as is trying to be made out here. Conscious memories cannot always be associative, and taking into respect that all memory is a type of information, then the kind of information related to atomic energy transferral for instance, must always be associative to rest the case of quantum conservation.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That greately depends, ever had deja vu? This is when the brain recalls an event which has no associative properties to a previous experience whatsoever.

Really? That is a speculation and an extraordinary one at that. The most probable answer is that we are wired to be able to predict a sequence of events by using past experiences of similar events. As already discussed, most memories are reconstructed from a group of associated titbits. There is also a quick analysis made in a variety of situations where it is determined if the experience is familiar or not. Throw all of these processes together and the probability that our recollection and reactive processes are not perfect and I'd say you have a much more reasonable explanation than being connected in some way to the future, no?

False memories most certainly exist.

So i am not sure how it invalidates the use of the examples i have given. If memory on a tape recorder disappears naturally through entropy, when compared to a single memory which can last for the rest of someone’s life, then there is a difference, as much as you sought a difference, i provided many.

The differences, if any, are very subjective. There are close analogues to human memory in a qualitative sense all over the place. Some kind of connection between past, present and future is not required for any of it to work.

I just can't understand why you give special significance to memories. They are simply the result of a complex system, which do not differ in any significantly fundamental way from normal causality. The differences you have given are arbitrary and specious IMO.

Also, if feel you are intentionally ignoring many of my finer point... here when you said;

''I just can't understand why you give special significance to memories. They are simply the result of a complex system, which do not differ in any significantly fundamental way from normal causality. The differences you have given are arbitrary and specious IMO.''

I have shown that it is not the same as a fundamental causality at all. Causality at the fundamental level never almost never decreases in a complex system of particles but always increases. Memory of the human being however can decrease, and thus so does the entropy.

I have shown that it is not the same as a fundamental causality at all. Causality at the fundamental level never almost never decreases in a complex system of particles but always increases. Memory of the human being however can decrease, and thus so does the entropy.

I don't think you have shown this at all. When memory decreases, entropy increases by the way.

Standard causality in this context means that a macroscopic event happens and it is recorded, either in humans, in an animal or in an artificial recording device. There do exist non-human systems where the local entropy decrease, increase or stay more or less constant over a variety of time scales. Human memory is not special in this sense. The variables are outside influence, quality of the recorded information and rate of decay. Choosing the particular human arrangement is an arbitrary one and is ignoring the possibility of it occurring in other systems.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I have shown that it is not the same as a fundamental causality at all. Causality at the fundamental level never almost never decreases in a complex system of particles but always increases. Memory of the human being however can decrease, and thus so does the entropy.

I don't think you have shown this at all. When memory decreases, entropy increases by the way.

Standard causality in this context means that a macroscopic event happens and it is recorded, either in humans, in an animal or in an artificial recording device. There do exist non-human systems where the local entropy decrease, increase or stay more or less constant over a variety of time scales. Human memory is not special in this sense. The variables are outside influence, quality of the recorded information and rate of decay. .

Oh i am not completely sure about the first part. The knowledge of a person can dissipate, and thus memory goes away. In a subliminal sense, this is a complex nature actually decreasing in its complexities. Just like any good definition, something which decreases in its complexities must be resolving the entropy in some way, especially when we are talking about the ethereal nature of memory to humans. Remember, entropy is the measure of disorder, or the increase of a particular order, and if memory can be lost to an observer, then the complexity decreases, not increases.

''Choosing the particular human arrangement is an arbitrary one and is ignoring the possibility of it occurring in other systems''

Other systems? Whenever it happenes to atomic systems and macroscopic systems which are made of atomic systems, then there is always the nature of entropy and hardly ever decreases. It's easy to have a container with two atoms and expect them to return to their orientations of original positions, but on a much larger gas of let say particles in a small container is actually vansihingly small to expect their entropy to ever decrease or even orientate back to their original positions.

The human arrangement of memory is much different to the physical entropy. We loose memory all the time, and this is evidently a decrease in the knowledge of the system, and thus ultimately the complexity or arrangement of memory.

Remember, entropy is the measure of disorder, or the increase of a particular order, and if memory can be lost to an observer, then the complexity decreases, not increases.

Look HERE. As information is lost, entropy increases. As a memory fails, the entropy related to that memory increases. A brain constantly loses and gains information during its lifetime and similarly other local but not isolated systems lose and gain information over a certain time. The brain is not unique in this way. So whether you are looking at it from a perspective relating to a single effectual memory or from the total amount of information contained in the local but open system, there are analogues to the human brain. The choosing of the particular set of variables of a human brain is then an arbitrary one from this perspective. You understand what I mean?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Remember, entropy is the measure of disorder, or the increase of a particular order, and if memory can be lost to an observer, then the complexity decreases, not increases.

Look HERE. As information is lost, entropy increases. As a memory fails, the entropy related to that memory increases. A brain constantly loses and gains information during its lifetime and similarly other local but not isolated systems lose and gain information over a certain time. The brain is not unique in this way. So whether you are looking at it from a perspective relating to a single effectual memory or from the total amount of information contained in the local but open system, there are analogues to the human brain. The choosing of the particular set of variables of a human brain is then an arbitrary one from this perspective. You understand what I mean?

Are you referring to Maxwells Demon's part? If not, could you show me where it refers to human entropy of memory?

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Remember, entropy is the measure of disorder, or the increase of a particular order, and if memory can be lost to an observer, then the complexity decreases, not increases.

Look HERE. As information is lost, entropy increases. As a memory fails, the entropy related to that memory increases. A brain constantly loses and gains information during its lifetime and similarly other local but not isolated systems lose and gain information over a certain time. The brain is not unique in this way. So whether you are looking at it from a perspective relating to a single effectual memory or from the total amount of information contained in the local but open system, there are analogues to the human brain. The choosing of the particular set of variables of a human brain is then an arbitrary one from this perspective. You understand what I mean?

Are you referring to Maxwells Demon's part? If not, could you show me where it refers to human entropy of memory?

I've just read the article and i see nothing damaging.

You know, information of memory, and the increase of memory is not the same as talking about the physical nature of information. Our information is completely incorporeal, so you can't put it in a box or a container and say that over time the loss or increase of thoughts are a physical relation or indestinguishable to the fundamental meaning of entropy.

If we loose memory, as far as the complexity of a system is referring to in my posts, then entropy surely must decrease. If memory however was able to completely refer to each other in a relative sense, then yes, this would not work, but memory does not physically relate to each other this way. The fundemental, physical entropy would be quite weird if it acted like human information. On one hand, you would have gas atoms disappearing but not only this, you would have new atoms also appearing. But the physical nature never works like that at the atomic level.

I still hold to what i said. In fact i abide by it quite strongly, and i feel the points i've made have either gone right over your head, or you fail to see them completely.

Originally Posted by Manynames

You know, information of memory, and the increase of memory is not the same as talking about the physical nature of information. Our information is completely incorporeal, so you can't put it in a box or a container and say that over time the loss or increase of thoughts are a physical relation or indestinguishable to the fundamental meaning of entropy.

Our memories are corporeal. They are stored in our brains by means of changes to neurons. I believe the details have not been entirely worked out yet, but there is no doubt that they are a physical thing.

As such they are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Manynames

If we loose memory, as far as the complexity of a system is referring to in my posts, then entropy surely must decrease.

You are completely mistaken in this statement. We have reduced the order of the system by loosing memory.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

You know, information of memory, and the increase of memory is not the same as talking about the physical nature of information. Our information is completely incorporeal, so you can't put it in a box or a container and say that over time the loss or increase of thoughts are a physical relation or indestinguishable to the fundamental meaning of entropy.

Our memories are corporeal. They are stored in our brains by means of changes to neurons. I believe the details have not been entirely worked out yet, but there is no doubt that they are a physical thing.

As such they are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Manynames

If we loose memory, as far as the complexity of a system is referring to in my posts, then entropy surely must decrease.

You are completely mistaken in this statement. We have reduced the order of the system by loosing memory.

''Our memories are corporeal. They are stored in our brains by means of changes to neurons. I believe the details have not been entirely worked out yet, but there is no doubt that they are a physical thing.

As such they are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Not according to doctor wolf who is an extensive psychphysicist. In all his years he can honestly say that ''self'' has never been found to any material unit of the brain. Candace Pert a Neurobiologist would argue against the brain idea and say that consciousness is rather in each and every cell of the body. Until we can pin ''memories'' and the ''mind'' to the body, i'm afraid there is more speculation here than even maybe what i am producing.

I will also make it clear that saying memories are physical must be non-sense to a degree. There is no set amount of particles in a particular order which holds a memory, because we can have totally new physical brains. In five years we can have entirely new bodies, so the question of pinning the self down to a material explanation is not entirely stable.

I just finished reading Rene Descartes on wiki, and it shows how ''self'' and the 'mind-body problem' in relation to self is still one of the biggest mysteries in science; the reason why is because self, and that must also mean thoughts and memories are very much non-corporeal, yet there is a relationship which hasn't been scientifically solved.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

If we loose memory, as far as the complexity of a system is referring to in my posts, then entropy surely must decrease.

You are completely mistaken in this statement. We have reduced the order of the system by loosing memory.

How do you order memory? Again, memory is not a physical thing which we can put in a container and watch intentively as it's order decreases or increases. That is a subliminal, and i hence a non-material phenom.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

If we loose memory, as far as the complexity of a system is referring to in my posts, then entropy surely must decrease.

You are completely mistaken in this statement. We have reduced the order of the system by loosing memory.

How do you order memory? Again, memory is not a physical thing which we can put in a container and watch intentively as it's order decreases or increases. That is a subliminal, and i hence a non-material phenom.

And to that I also add Doctor Hawkings arguement that if even if time started to move back (a point raised in the OP), then we would notice things going back. This requires a memory; but your physical arguement now falls apart ''as a type of mediator'' to memory, because quantum systems would then start to reduce the way they began. But somehow, according to Doctor Hawking, we would be aware of these things happening, despite any chemical reduction of entropy within the brain (Hawking, a Brief History of Time.)