Comments for True Nature: Notes on Spirit and Science http://integralscience.wordpress.com Reflections on science, spiritual teachings, and mystical philosophy, by Thomas McFarlane Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:40:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The Imaginary Collapse of the Wavefunction by integralscience http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-32 integralscience Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:40:31 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-32 As far as I know, there is no experimental evidence that the collapse of the wave function provides a physical basis for simultaneity. The nonlocal correlations of quantum mechanics can not be used to send signals faster than the speed of light. Although their measurements are correlated, one observer can not determine when the other observer made their measurement. As far as I know, there is no experimental evidence that the collapse of the wave function provides a physical basis for simultaneity. The nonlocal correlations of quantum mechanics can not be used to send signals faster than the speed of light. Although their measurements are correlated, one observer can not determine when the other observer made their measurement.

]]> Comment on The Imaginary Collapse of the Wavefunction by KatGoesMiow http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-31 KatGoesMiow Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:55:28 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-31 Is this 'collapse of a wave function' experimental evidence that can confirm the condition of Simulatineity for Special Relativity? Im young and so easily lost. Is this ‘collapse of a wave function’ experimental evidence that can confirm the condition of Simulatineity for Special Relativity?
Im young and so easily lost.

]]> Comment on Symmetry, Invariance, and Objectivity by integralscience http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/symmetry-invariance-and-objectivity/#comment-30 integralscience Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:25:55 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=164#comment-30 It is an interesting topic indeed. John Baez has discussed the subtle aspects of applying Noether's theorem to symmetries in special relativity here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/boosts.html It is an interesting topic indeed. John Baez has discussed the subtle aspects of applying Noether’s theorem to symmetries in special relativity here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/boosts.html

]]> Comment on Symmetry, Invariance, and Objectivity by John http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/symmetry-invariance-and-objectivity/#comment-29 John Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:02:35 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=164#comment-29 One of the most fascinating aspects of symmetry and invariance is that each symmetry suggests a conservation law. The result of Lorentz invariance is the "conservation of the centre of energy". This is the most intriguing of the conservation laws. Its pre-relativistic analogue, the "conservation of centre of mass", applies to a finite rotating system but "conservation of centre of energy" must apply to an entire reference frame. The analogy with the pre-relativistic case is also highly misleading because a boost is not a simple rotation, it is a relative tilting of a hyperplane of simultaneity. The law is largely ignored for lack of clear interpretation. I think physics might be missing a trick by failing to properly explain the conservation law due to Lorentz invariance. One of the most fascinating aspects of symmetry and invariance is that each symmetry suggests a conservation law. The result of Lorentz invariance is the “conservation of the centre of energy”. This is the most intriguing of the conservation laws. Its pre-relativistic analogue, the “conservation of centre of mass”, applies to a finite rotating system but “conservation of centre of energy” must apply to an entire reference frame. The analogy with the pre-relativistic case is also highly misleading because a boost is not a simple rotation, it is a relative tilting of a hyperplane of simultaneity.

The law is largely ignored for lack of clear interpretation. I think physics might be missing a trick by failing to properly explain the conservation law due to Lorentz invariance.

]]> Comment on The Empirical Emergence of Time and Space by John http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-empirical-emergence-of-time-and-space/#comment-28 John Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:31:31 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=160#comment-28 Time and space are important because of their <b>interdependence</b> via the extended 'Pythagorean' metric. An observer who exists in an environment that has observables that correspond to this metric will observe qm phenomena that obey the metric. Now here's the twist, as Plato spotted our conscious experience is a 'form', it is a geometrical entity that is extended in time and space and as Berkeley spotted this form is passive so the geometrical nature of conscious experience selects the environment that constitutes this experience. (See <a href="http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-and-conscious-experience.html" rel="nofollow">Time and Conscious Experience</a> for a deeper explanation). I am enjoying reading your work and will read most of your other posts when I have time. Thank you for sharing your ideas. Time and space are important because of their interdependence via the extended ‘Pythagorean’ metric. An observer who exists in an environment that has observables that correspond to this metric will observe qm phenomena that obey the metric. Now here’s the twist, as Plato spotted our conscious experience is a ‘form’, it is a geometrical entity that is extended in time and space and as Berkeley spotted this form is passive so the geometrical nature of conscious experience selects the environment that constitutes this experience. (See Time and Conscious Experience for a deeper explanation).

I am enjoying reading your work and will read most of your other posts when I have time. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

]]> Comment on Quantum Consciousness by John http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2005/08/05/quantum-consciousness/#comment-27 John Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:58:13 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=13#comment-27 The role of conscious observation in the appearance of classicality depends upon whether the conscious observer is passive or active (See Zeh (2000)). Zeh is the founder of modern decoherence theory so deserves close study. My own hunch is that conscious experience is passive (See <a href="http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-and-conscious-experience.html" rel="nofollow">Time and Conscious Experience</a>) in which case it may be a selector of the basis for our particular quantum reality. Zeh, H.D. (2000) The Problem of Conscious Observation in Quantum Mechanical Description http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908084 The role of conscious observation in the appearance of classicality depends upon whether the conscious observer is passive or active (See Zeh (2000)). Zeh is the founder of modern decoherence theory so deserves close study. My own hunch is that conscious experience is passive (See Time and Conscious Experience) in which case it may be a selector of the basis for our particular quantum reality.

Zeh, H.D. (2000) The Problem of Conscious Observation in Quantum Mechanical Description http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908084

]]> Comment on Symmetry, Invariance, and Objectivity by integralscience http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/symmetry-invariance-and-objectivity/#comment-24 integralscience Wed, 27 May 2009 04:12:10 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=164#comment-24 Symmetry is built into the very notion of objectivity. So, whenever one has something that is objective, there is an implicit symmetry there. One might say that objectivity is symmetry plus something extra, namely, the act of positing existence upon the invariant of the symmetry. Symmetry is built into the very notion of objectivity. So, whenever one has something that is objective, there is an implicit symmetry there. One might say that objectivity is symmetry plus something extra, namely, the act of positing existence upon the invariant of the symmetry.

]]> Comment on Symmetry, Invariance, and Objectivity by Joel Morwood http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/symmetry-invariance-and-objectivity/#comment-23 Joel Morwood Wed, 27 May 2009 02:24:33 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=164#comment-23 I am not sure about the meaning of your conclusion. Are you saying that symmetry is a result of objectivity, or that objectivity results from symmetry? Please clarify. I am not sure about the meaning of your conclusion. Are you saying that symmetry is a result of objectivity, or that objectivity results from symmetry? Please clarify.

]]> Comment on The Imaginary Collapse of the Wavefunction by Lorrin Barth http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-22 Lorrin Barth Wed, 27 May 2009 00:28:24 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/the-imaginary-collapse-of-the-wavefunction/#comment-22 What I've never heard anyone ask is, "What is a particle?" Are photons and electrons made out of some sort of elemental dust? If electron dust does not exist, if the collapse of wave function does not occur, then all you are left with is waves, waves that are described completely by the mathematics of QM. Why is there no good explanation for the measurement problem after all of these years. It is because the collapse of the wave function does not occur. Remove collapse of the wave function and you don't need interpretations, the moon is there whether you look or not, a new universe is not created every time a photon delivers its energy to the screen and all this goofy stuff books are written about is gone. Occam's Razor is needed here. What I’ve never heard anyone ask is, “What is a particle?” Are photons and electrons made out of some sort of elemental dust?

If electron dust does not exist, if the collapse of wave function does not occur, then all you are left with is waves, waves that are described completely by the mathematics of QM.

Why is there no good explanation for the measurement problem after all of these years. It is because the collapse of the wave function does not occur.

Remove collapse of the wave function and you don’t need interpretations, the moon is there whether you look or not, a new universe is not created every time a photon delivers its energy to the screen and all this goofy stuff books are written about is gone.

Occam’s Razor is needed here.

]]> Comment on Integral Ontology by Glisten http://integralscience.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/integral-ontology/#comment-20 Glisten Sun, 17 May 2009 10:22:11 +0000 http://integralscience.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-20 Very interesting, thank you for sharing such profound wisdom :) Very interesting, thank you for sharing such profound wisdom :)

]]>