Mid-morning. Policed the bedroom and kitchen, breakfast and the paper, the usual routine. . . . A little after noon and you and Doug G. have been sending useful notes to one another.
We found some stuff that peaks our long time personal interests. Here are our notes:
Dick,
The book [An Equation That Changed the World: Newton, Einstein, and the Theory of Relativity] is on its way. To answer your question about space and time you will soon understand that space and time are dependent on each other even though they are independent and will change depending on your speed and the speed of the thing you are observing and that is why they call it space-time. Changing one( time or space) will cause a change in the other. Likewise mass and energy are tied together. The article you sent yesterday makes it clear that there is probably no such thing as empty space. Also I learned from a science program that according to that program, Einstein's theory of relativity and the time line implies that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. They were very unhappy about this as it conflicts with quantum mechanics. This unfortunately is not in the book and makes things really freaky if the program is correct. I just cannot make sense of this.
Doug
**
Very interesting, Doug. If the past, present and future all exist simultaneously, then our 'mental' presence (observation) fractionalizes them with the present being enormously small. ;-) Dick
**
Dick,
It is as you say. But when did the future happen? It must have happened at the moment of creation.
Doug
***
Doug,
That's true. Our life rhythms (perspectives/our relativity) slow it down. However, QM says nothing is predictable, isn't that right? However, Chaos Theory, shows predictability. (I think.) This is good stuff to ponder. I saw something on [online (?)] news just a couple of minutes ago about a scientific study showing ESP is real. This is in a medical journal supposedly. It didn't give the background.
Dick
***
Dick,
Yes, you have the essence of the problem with relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity is entirely deterministic.
I have had a few ESP experiences myself and have often felt that it was more than a coincidence. Would be good if we can find more about this study.
Doug
***
Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage
By Benedict Carey
Published: January 5, 2011 [New York Times: Science]
One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.
The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.
The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects.
Some scientists say the report deserves to be published, in the name of open inquiry; others insist that its acceptance only accentuates fundamental flaws in the evaluation and peer review of research in the social sciences.
“It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”
The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. “Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript,” he said, “and these are very trusted people.”
All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though “there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.” . . .
***
The last sentence contains “the rub” – the problem, and the rest of the article deals with this as scientific inquiry demands a mechanism for understanding the results of the experiment. As for the science program that shows that relativity implies the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, I see no problem with this in terms of a perspective as a one dimensional being as far as the books are concerned. I know the ultimate conclusion of the books whether you write them or not. Variances are allowed but the conclusion stays in place. I know the conclusion if you are the writer. I do not know the conclusion if you were not the writer. – Amorella.
The reader of the first three books thinks of the time it takes herorhim to read the books. The writer sees this perspective from the time it took him to write the books. The writing and the reading take different essences of time. The time leap reading between the lines is enormous and impossible to calculate. ESP falls into the level of reading between the lines. Potential and understanding are two different things. In the books the attempt of better understanding of the basic human condition is the focus not the potential of selling the books. Human beings have ‘flashed’ the future, coincidences not withstanding. How does a scientist measure ‘depth of reading between the lines’ unless she or he has measured the depth? What is the depth of intellect, of potential as far as human beings are concerned? This is my sense of space-time. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. Enjoy the goose. – Amorella.
[Amorella's comments were] Not expected at all. Funny none the less. Doug has not replied to the article.
I made the point here, not you or Doug. Post. – Amorella.
I should get Doug’s okay first. . . . Okayed.
Very late lunch at Potbelly’s in Kenwood. Waiting for Carol at the Kings Mill Road Kroger’s near I-71 (Kings Island exit). Bustling about as there are to be three to five inches of snow tomorrow. For once you will be home to use the snow blower.
Twenty-two hundred hours. Carol is watching 'Law and Order' upstairs and you are wondering if you should be blog writing as you have little in your head at the moment. – Amorella.
[Suddenly] . . . . I am thinking about ‘simultaneous time’ and how, if this is true, that past, present and future happen at once, then how is it that the Dead in the first Rebellion don’t realize the outcome and the second Rebellion in book six? . . . . . [Out of the blue.]
They are not as intimate with the Supervisor as you are, old man. And, though the conclusion and book six are in your head you are not aware of them except as I allow it, little pieces, almost like ESP in a sense as it is not intuitive. I have told you tidbits, and you have written them down in your notes. – Amorella.
Those tidbits could easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, could the conclusion, boy. You foresee the potential of six books having only written half of book four. Potential is not knowledge of the words, characters, plots, etc. And, even if you had the conscious knowledge it would not mean you would know what is between the lines. That realization only comes with understanding which you cannot have before you read the words and see the bigger picture. You do see how this is. Nothing is self-fulfilling here.
I have the future of the books in my head in the present.
Yes. Your past allows you to exist ‘now’. Now contains the rest of the books, the future, but only if the ‘present now’ becomes the past first. In this way from the books’ series perspective, you are the past, present and future simultaneously. – Amorella.
I don’t know if this (what you say above) is reasonable.
It is not a matter of reason, orndorff, it is a matter of understanding, of reading between the lines. Post. – Amorella.
No comments:
Post a Comment