h a l f b a k e r yQuis custodiet the custard?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I am part way through Tom Holt's Doughnut and had the
thought that if all possibilities exist (Multiverse) then
imagination does not. Imagination implies thinking up
something that does not exist.
What really is happen is that people are reading from another
Universe. Better writers read
more completely from the
alternate Universe.
There is of course a real Universe where perpetual motion
exists and halfbakers and there conceptions run everything.
*sorry,facade
R A Heinlein - The Number of the Beast
http://en.wikipedia...e_Beast_%28novel%29
Distributed Solipsistic Metafictionalism - annoyed the crap out of me the first time I read it. [FlyingToaster, Nov 08 2014]
Finbarr Saunders
http://allatsea55.f...finbar-saunders.jpg
And once again the Halfbakery takes me to new places... [normzone, Nov 08 2014]
Any relation to (house) Facarde?
http://www.pinteres...kins/house-facarde/
....like the House Atreides, but not so spicy [not_morrison_rm, Nov 08 2014]
Fame, of a sort
http://www.edlin.or...books/doughnut.html
"hilarity at Halfbakery after someone mentioned ...I am part way through Tom Holt's Doughnut" [not_morrison_rm, Nov 09 2014]
green dragony thing
http://www.youtube....watch?v=5qFKEqf-03s
[not_morrison_rm, Nov 12 2014]
Japanese people baffling Londoners
http://r5---sn-nv4u...nt&c=web&cver=html5
[not_morrison_rm, Nov 13 2014]
http://xkcd.com/808/
[MechE, Nov 14 2014]
Indicators of a delusion
https://en.wikipedi...ators_of_a_delusion
[tatterdemalion, Nov 15 2014]
Delusional disorder in DSM-V
http://psychcentral...-disorder-symptoms/
[MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2014]
Million Dollar Challenge
http://web.randi.or...llar-challenge.html
Just one reason why, if psychic phenomena exist, they would have been demonstrated conclusively. [MechE, Nov 17 2014]
Hamish is vocative, not a name in its own right
http://en.wikipedia...ase#Scottish_Gaelic
[calum, Nov 18 2014]
Not even wrong
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Not_even_wrong
[hippo, Nov 18 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
//Imagination implies thinking up something that does not exist// |
|
| |
Not necessarily. When I phone someone, I often *imagine* them in their house (or wherever), taking the call. My image of them may be inaccurate - probably is in at least some respects - but it does not imply their non-existence. |
|
| |
So if I do not invent, who do I channel from another universe ? What's there name ? |
|
| |
//I am part way through Tom Holt's Doughnut.. |
|
| |
<Joseph McCarthy voice>Are you now, or have you ever been, a writer for the Finbarr Saunders page team</JMv> |
|
| |
//I am part way through Tom Holt's Doughnut// |
|
| |
… and an ugly one, at that … |
|
| |
"infinite possibilites" does not necessarily mean "all possibilities". |
|
| |
What if imagination is writing into, instead of reading from, other universes. |
|
| |
Perhaps it's the sign of a true halfbaker that even halfway through someone's doughnut, they rush off to type a post? |
|
| |
//I am part way through Tom Holt's Doughnut// |
|
| |
I know some of Tom Holt's friends, but I've never
penetrated his intimate circle. |
|
| |
Also, what is a "facarde"? |
|
| |
I believe it's a property company...see link. |
|
| |
//but I've never penetrated his intimate circle. |
|
| |
It might be an intimate hexagon, depending on the number of very close friends.. |
|
| |
I wonder about this quite a bit. If there are multiple realities;
how would the 'me's differ? how many me's didn't live this long? how many me's lived better? what is the technology like in these other me's realities? do any of those me's work in any of those areas? can those me's communicate with this me? |
|
| |
If time is cyclic and eventually all matter becomes singularity, then overlapping realities occupy the same space but are offset only by time.
Since time is not a one-way arrow... it might be possible for this me to glean information which another me has learned. |
|
| |
Then there's the whole previous incarnation me's thing to consider, but that gets a bit messy to contemplate... |
|
| |
...aand about that time I figure it's gotta be noon in at least one of these realities and usually crack a beer so as not to think about that crap so much. |
|
| |
//If time is cyclic and eventually all matter becomes
singularity, then overlapping realities occupy the
same space but are offset only by time.// |
|
| |
There is no connection between your "If..." and your
"...then". |
|
| |
//Since time is not a one-way arrow...// |
|
| |
//... it might be possible for this me to glean
information which another me has learned.// |
|
| |
//There is no connection between your "If..." and your "...then". // |
|
| |
At the center of every galaxy is a singularity right? If matter and energy entering the singularity exceed C then this material travels backwards in time. Since space and time are one and the same, the distance between singularities becomes a non-issue to the recombination of this material at the beginning of time, minus whatever radiation escapes, restarting the Big Bang as it attains critical mass, over and over again. |
|
| |
/Since time is not a one-way arrow.../
//Says who?// |
|
| |
Me. No idea if I'm right or not, it's just the only explanation that fit trying to make sense of the premonitions and deja vu growing up. Apparently this Einstein fellow thinks so too and I have no clue if he's right either. |
|
| |
/... it might be possible for this me to glean information which another me has learned./ //Why?// |
|
| |
Because it's there... or then. |
|
| |
//it's just the only explanation that fit trying to make
sense of the premonitions and deja vu growing up.// |
|
| |
It's a long way short of being the only explanation.
Given the amount of stuff we don't know about the
human mind, I'd look there rather than physics, about
which we know a little bit more. |
|
| |
It's a bit like walking into a room with a humming
noise, a big black box, and a pencil. It's possible that
the pencil is humming, but it's not a promising
assumption. |
|
| |
It's been more of a process of elimination than a scientific method. |
|
| |
step 1: Reject no explanation until disproven.
step 2: Keep whatever works. |
|
| |
When you hold your hand up in front of your face, do
you see your hand? |
|
| |
Still available, real rock chippings from Plato's Cave, guaranteed 100% genuine.... |
|
| |
It's so tempting to put that on ebay... |
|
| |
<twitches ears>
<shakes tail> |
|
| |
So... nobody here experiences premonitions or deja-vu? None of you have questioned these things? |
|
| |
Do you think that these phenomena are just hallucination? or is it just taboo to even go there? |
|
| |
Is thinking a subset of imagination or is imagination a subset of thinking? Either way, even thinking could be channel surfing the parallel lines. |
|
| |
Does this mean 'widely known to exist' should be 'known to exist widely' |
|
| |
This would make the Multiverse voids all that can't be thought or imagined. |
|
| |
Not really a Multiverse fan. I believe a lot of volume is needed to support our marbled existence. |
|
| |
Isn't "farcarde" Italian for facade. |
|
| |
//*sorry, facade// - did you mean "façade"? |
|
| |
FAQ aid? like Live Aid, but with less Bob Geldolf... |
|
| |
//to support our marbled existence. |
|
| |
Mine's more striated, or with fewer marbles, depending on perspective. |
|
| |
//So... nobody here experiences premonitions or
deja-vu? None of you have questioned these things? |
|
| |
Do you think that these phenomena are just
hallucination? or is it just taboo to even go there?// |
|
| |
Everyone has 'premonitions'. However, given the
number of possible premonitions, everyone should
expect to have them from time to time. Can you tell
me how many times you *didn't* have a premonition?
How many times you thought of someone and they
didn't phone five minutes later? Coincidences are
sometimes spooky, but that's the way the world is. |
|
| |
Everyone also has 'deja vu', and it's an interesting
phenomenon. However, as far as I know, 'deja vu'
only gives you the feeling "I knew that was going to
happen" - not "I know what's going to happen next". |
|
| |
If you think deja vu is weird or strange, there are
much, much stranger things that the brain does
routinely. |
|
| |
I don't think it's a taboo subject, it's just that people
who are convinced of something spooky cannot be
convinced otherwise by any means, so there's not
much point in discussing it and after a while it's not
interesting. |
|
| |
If you can pick lottery numbers (and if you win two
jackpots), lots of people will be interested. |
|
| |
Indeed, it would be incredible if incredible coincidences didn't happen pretty regularly. Another thing to think about is the human brain's very fluid concept of 'now'. For example, a continuous noise is going on outside the window, such as a car alarm. This starts off being annoying, but soon you become habituated to it and don't notice it any more. Then it stops, and you think you hear the moment when it stops, despite the fact that you can only have noticed the change in noise at the point that it stopped, and not before. Your brain's concept of 'now' covers not an instant in time but, depending on circumstances, a few seconds. This sometimes allows you to think that you have thought about things before they happen. |
|
| |
//How many times you thought of someone and they didn't phone five minutes later? |
|
| |
Very often. I don't have a phone. |
|
| |
Did once wake up and think, there's an email for me from [redacted] and when I turned on the pc, lo and behold there was an email from [redacted]* |
|
| |
*it's an old Hebridean name, the square brackets indicate the inflexion. |
|
| |
Ah yes, Hamish [redacted] |
|
| |
//How many times you thought of someone and they
didn't phone five minutes later? // |
|
| |
Having asked that question, here's an attempt at
answering it. |
|
| |
I would guess that I think about a few tens of people
per day - I mean, I think about maybe 20-50
friends/colleagues/relatives per day. Let's be
conservative and say 20. |
|
| |
Let's also suppose that, on average, I hear from each
of those people once a month. Let's also assume
we're in the same time-zone (ie, we're awake at the
same time, more or less). |
|
| |
So, for each of those 20 people I think of per day, the
probability that he will call me in the next 5 minutes
is about 1 in 6000. And there's 20 people, so there's a
roughly 1/300 chance, in any one day, of my thinking
of someone and them calling within the next 5
minutes. |
|
| |
So, this "within 5 minutes" thing should happen to
me, or anyone, once a year. If it's "within the hour"
or "that same day", then it should happen about once
a month, or once every couple of days. |
|
| |
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 2 8 and B/d |
|
| |
the date, the 4 is three more yeses than would be convenient and a couple x s (0) in there 2 |
|
| |
I was about to say the same thing myself. |
|
| |
Or, put another way, there are 7 billion (short scale) people
in the world. If the chance of something occurring is one in
a million in a given day, 7000 people are going to have that
experience. |
|
| |
If a coincidence is only going to happen one time in a billion,
you've still got 7 poor sods who are going to be hit by it. |
|
| |
I can think of 100 people a day, and still no calls. |
|
| |
On the other hand, no double-glazing or cable tv sales-people call me either, so there is an upside. |
|
| |
// quite often I'll say or type a word and have it
repeated by the tv// |
|
| |
Assume you type 10 words/minute. Assume 1 word in
10 is uncommon enough to be "noticeable" (like
"sheep" or "chocolate", as opposed to "the" or
"again"). |
|
| |
Assume also that the word on the TV has to happen
within 10 seconds for you to notice. Assume also that
the speaker on the TV is speaking at 3 words per
second (reasonable), and that 1 in 10 of those words
is 'uncommon'. Suppose also that there's a repertoire
of 3000 'uncommon' words (reasonable). |
|
| |
So you type "sheep". In the next 10 seconds, the guy
on the TV says 30 words, of which 3 are 'uncommon'.
Given the 3000-word repertoire, there's a 1/1000
chance of him saying "sheep" in that 10 seconds. |
|
| |
But suppose you're typing for 1 hour. That's 600
words, of which 60 are 'uncommon', each with a
1/1000 chance of being spoken on the TV in 10
seconds after you typed them. That gives you a 1/17
chance. |
|
| |
In other words, for every 17 hours of typing while the
TV is on, you'd expect to notice one of these events
by chance alone. |
|
| |
I could be out by an order of magnitude either way in
my calculations, but I'd say I notice that phenomenon
myself somewhere between once every couple of
hours and once every couple of days. |
|
| |
I can see how not having a tv, a radio or a telephone does limit my chances of deja vue. |
|
| |
Sounds about right - there's probably an adjustment you'd have to factor in which would vary the probability of a 'match' based on the relative intellectual level of what you're writing and what's on television. Matches are likely to be less frequent if you're writing your doctoral thesis on theoretical physics with Jeremy Kyle on in the background. |
|
| |
And my current understanding of theories on Deja Vu is that
the best theory is that it is a hiccup in memory formation,
such that the brain attempts to log the information before
the impression is complete, and then when the complete
memory is logged, that incomplete version already exists. |
|
| |
//And my current understanding of theories on Deja
Vu is...// |
|
| |
Another interesting case is the second-hand effect.
You look up at a clock, and the first tick of the
second hand will (often) seem to take longer than
usual - as if the clock had stopped and then started
just after you looked at it. |
|
| |
In fact, what happens is that your visual system
blocks everything out while your eyes are moving,
and for the fractions of a second it takes them to
stabilize on the clock. Then, to avoid an unnerving
sensation of momentary "blindness", it fills in the
missing time
with the current image of the clock - in other words,
it fills in gaps in the past with the image from the
present. |
|
| |
What's spookiest about this is that the brain can edit
the past so perfectly. Actually that's not the
spookiest thing, but it's pretty spooky. |
|
| |
//as far as I know, 'deja vu' only gives you the feeling "I knew that was going to happen" - not "I know what's going to happen next". If you think deja vu is weird or strange, there are much, much stranger things that the brain does routinely.// |
|
| |
Yes, I've been reading quite a lot of the publications written by Oliver Sacks and Ramachandran after their TED talks about hallucination and tricks the mind can play. Fascinating stuff. |
|
| |
Our definitions of deja vu and premonition differ.
While experiencing deja vu, for me it's not, ''I knew that was going to happen", its; "I've lived this exact happening before", and yes, I do know what is going to occur next while experiencing the sensation, sometimes for minutes at a stretch.
Total strangers and places I've never been to before as familiar as though it all had just happened, or like I dreamt it all that previous night. |
|
| |
I don't consider; thinking of a past acquaintance and then they phone, or having the song in your head playing when you flick on the radio to be premonitions. I don't know what those are, probably just coincidence. Although if you've not thought about the person who phones for many years I think the odds are a little bit more than one in a million.
...but that's just 'tuning' in, not 'knowing ahead'. |
|
| |
Premonitions are close to deja vu in feeling but you remember farther ahead instead of remembering the now.
So... I could not use premonition to pick winning lottery numbers unless I was already going to win the lottery soon. |
|
| |
This used to cause me all kinds of angst growing up because it seemed to deny free-will. If I am remembering things which have yet to happen, does it not then mean that the future isn't changeable? Like were all frozen in glass and just don't know it? |
|
| |
That would suck!
Caused me to do the whole existential crisis thing at like twelve or thirteen years old. |
|
| |
So I came to the conclusion that for the future to be both set-in-stone and yet still changeable, then there must be more than just this one. |
|
| |
Because if there aren't multiple realities, and this one's fixed... then what the hell's the point? |
|
| |
//yes, I do know what is going to occur next while
experiencing the sensation, sometimes for minutes at a
stretch.// |
|
| |
Or your brain tricks you into thinking that you believed
that at the time, even though you didn't. |
|
| |
As far as a premonition, why not? If you weren't going to
win the lottery, but were going to look at the winning
lottery numbers, if you were truly getting information in
advance, you'd be able to change what was going to
happen by playing those numbers. Not in an alternate
universe, but in the one you are actually experiencing. |
|
| |
That is assuming that a person could control what they were going to pre-cog.
The information is of little use though when the premonitions tend towards; "Hey, I've eaten this exact meal in this exact restaurant in this exact place I've never been to before, and that waiter over there is just about to drop a glass, and that guy is going to pick is nose thinking nobody is watching, and that woman is going to get mad and storm out of here in, three... two..." |
|
| |
I've spent my entire life trying to make sense of it.
Waiting for the next occurrence to see if I can stretch them out farther, or change them, or be fast enough to share them with others prior to them happening so as to rule out whether I am delusional or not. |
|
| |
Like I've said before, there's a whole lot of freaked out people in my wake.
The pre-knowing doesn't freak me out. I just want answers. |
|
| |
//"I've lived this exact happening before", and yes, I
do know what is going to occur next while
experiencing the sensation, sometimes for minutes at
a stretch.
Total strangers and places I've never been to before
as familiar as though it all had just happened, or like
I dreamt it all that previous night.// |
|
| |
That doesn't exactly answer my point. To feel that
you've experienced something before is quite
common, and interesting but not unusual. You say
you "know what's going to occur next", but I would
wager that you instead feel "I knew that was going to
happen", _after_ it had happened. |
|
| |
If I'm wrong, then it's pretty easy for you to prove me
wrong. Next time it happens, write down what
someone is going to say next, _before_ they say it.
You should be able to get it word for word. That is a
completely different thing from thinking "I knew they
were going to say that". |
|
| |
//Total strangers and places I've never been to before
as familiar as though it all had just happened, or like
I dreamt it all that previous night.// Again, all that
proves is that you experience a false sense of
familiarity. If you can make any genuine prediction,
which you couldn't have made without previous
experience of that situation, that would be different. |
|
| |
I think you're suffering from what is a fairly common
and interesting illusion, but you're perhaps more
prone to it, or more conscious of it. |
|
| |
I think we've had this discussion before (not deja vu -
I remember it!). The problem is that you and I
disagree. I am pretty sure that you cannot conceive
of anything which would prove you wrong to your
own satisfaction (tell me if I'm wrong about that),
which makes
the disagreement difficult to resolve. |
|
| |
However, there are very definite things you could do
which would prove me wrong, to my own
satisfaction. My email address is on my profile page,
so if you have a premonition, email it to me. If it
then comes true, and if it's not something that could
have been guessed or foreknown, then I'll be
convinced. Examples would be: (a) Person X is going
to die in the next week, where Person X is not
already known to be sick or about to embark on a
spaceflight. (b) A significant earthquake is going to
hit City X, in this week. Or anything like that. |
|
| |
If the odds against your predicting something like
that are 1/1000, I'll be impressed and half-convinced
by your prediction. Pull off a 1/1000,000 or two
1/1000s and I'll take you seriously. |
|
| |
Or are you going to tell me that your premonitions
only work in a way that can't be verified? |
|
| |
I'm prone to relatively routine jamais vu on waking. I'll
wake up in my bedroom and recognize it, but not have
any sense of where it is (or I am) in the world, and expect
completely a completely different environment outside. |
|
| |
That doesn't mean that I've been transported in my sleep,
it just means my brain is playing tricks on me. One
interesting thing is that during these events, I'm pretty
sure my time sense is fairly messed up. I'm guessing that
they are accurately measured in seconds, but it seems
longer. |
|
| |
As [Max] said, if it really happens for a couple of minutes
at a time, grab a pad and start writing. Check off the
events or phrases that occur after you write them (I'm
not going to ask for word for word, a few words that are
indicative will write much more quickly). |
|
| |
I'd be willing to bet that any attempt to record the
events in advance breaks the feeling, as I suspect that
what's happening is your brain is essentially producing a
"double exposure" of the time period in question. I'll
freely admit, however, that this is just my hypothesis. |
|
| |
Can't find a reference for Narrator's disease, is it anything like Munchausen's? |
|
| |
// Sorry, I just can't believe your stories. Have you ever been wrong in your visions ?// |
|
| |
Heh, you and everybody else... right up until I prove my words.
No, I've never had a vision prove false. |
|
| |
//You say you "know what's going to occur next", but I would wager that you instead feel "I knew that was going to happen", _after_ it had happened.
If I'm wrong, then it's pretty easy for you to prove me wrong. Next time it happens, write down what someone is going to say next, _before_ they say it. You should be able to get it word for word. That is a completely different thing from thinking "I knew they were going to say that".
If you can make any genuine prediction, which you couldn't have made without previous experience of that situation, that would be different.// |
|
| |
You'd lose that wager.
Unless I am alone when I am remembering the future I make a point of telling whoever is around what I am seeing for just that reason. To rule out the possibility of my own delusion.
That's kind of 'why' they freak out. |
|
| |
//The problem is that you and I disagree. I am pretty sure that you cannot conceive of anything which would prove you wrong to your own satisfaction (tell me if I'm wrong about that), which makes the disagreement difficult to resolve.
Or are you going to tell me that your premonitions only work in a way that can't be verified? // |
|
| |
Of course I could be convinced that I am mistaken. I am quite rational, that's why I keep trying to disprove it on my own.
It 'is' difficult to resolve because the evidence keeps pointing to the premonitions being genuine... not because I 'want' them to be. There were many times growing up I would have given almost anything to make them go away or chock it up to mental illness.
I'm just resigned to it now and saying my piece. I have no real desire to convince anyone else that I'm telling the truth, and the premonitions don't stretch far enough into the future for me to contact anyone not already standing there with me.
<shrugs> |
|
| |
//I'd be willing to bet that any attempt to record the events in advance breaks the feeling, as I suspect that what's happening is your brain is essentially producing a "double exposure" of the time period in question. I'll freely admit, however, that this is just my hypothesis.// |
|
| |
You'd lose your money too. I do attempt to record events in advance by telling others at the time they occur.
It doesn't break the spell. |
|
| |
Just tired of being easterbunny I guess. Shit's real y'all.
Deal with it... don't deal with it, either way I still gotta live it. |
|
| |
//You'd lose that wager.// |
|
| |
Well, I didn't actually make a wager. But why not take it in
good spirit, and do what I suggested. Seriously - it'll only
cost you the price of an email, and you might amaze me. |
|
| |
// I have no real desire to convince anyone else that I'm
telling the truth// Well, I don't think that's a true
statement, but maybe it is. But, as you don't mind, I state
that I don't think there's anything unusual going on here.
That's not to say you're a liar - I presume you honestly
believe in this. In any case, given the choice between
doubting the last couple of centuries of physics and biology,
or doubting you, I hope you'll understand why I doubt you. |
|
| |
How does that get me answers? |
|
| |
I gave you the best answers I've got already. I'm
pretty sure that nobody else is going to give you
answers you'd be happier with. |
|
| |
Your best answers aren't good enough.
Maybe you are mistaken about the answers of others and the unassailability of my happitude. |
|
| |
That's entirely possible. What sort of answers are
you looking for? |
|
| |
Does the number 42 bear any unusually special place in your heart? |
|
| |
There was a time in my life where I could seemingly set my watch by the occurrence of strange but more-or-less insignificant coincidences which I derived a significant amount of coy joy from; a few which I derived a significant amount of vague dread. |
|
| |
Had I paid attention to the part of myself that entertains the rabbit-holes they lead to, I might've not bought my house in the ill-timed way in which I did. |
|
| |
These days I'm much more skeptical, much more busy, and either I miss them completely or they simply don't occur much anymore, I suspect there's a strong correlation between my skepticism and my tendency to notice these weird coincidences. I do miss them. Maybe I'm just focused on too many other things. If you were to plot noted coincidences or deja vu experiences happening with the marital statuses and/or personal busyness factors I'd bet you'd note a significant uptick in the unmarrieds. But that seems to be a chicken/egg problem in deducing cause / effect. |
|
| |
//nobody here experiences premonitions or deja-vu?// |
|
| |
Sometimes - though not as much as when I was young. And my own experiments on them suggest that that the premonitions, at least, are a result of selective memory; that is, I tend to forget the false ones, until I recheck what I wrote. |
|
| |
The deja-vu is more frequent, but implies nothing weird about the nature of time - only about brains. |
|
| |
My main delusion when I was young was that there were actually not very many people in the world, but that each of them impersonated many others, in order to mess with my head for inscrutable reasons of their own. With hindsight, I put that down to really poor facial recognition - and the fact that sometimes people *did* mess with my head for reasons which were, at the time, inscrutable to me. |
|
| |
With the proper training, one can learn to scrute
most things. |
|
| |
// Given the 3000-word repertoire, there's a 1/1000 chance of him saying "sheep" in that 10 seconds. |
|
| |
Not to mention the increase one would expect to hear on the television machine if there was a sheep influenza pandemic underway, or one lives in New Zealand. |
|
| |
// So... nobody here experiences premonitions or deja-vu? None of you have questioned these things? |
|
| |
I have questioned, and the answer is "confirmation bias". |
|
| |
Richard Feynman told the story of how he once had
this sudden strong feeling that his grandmother had
died. A moment later, the phone rang... it was
nothing to do with his grandmother, who was fine. |
|
| |
I guess I'm asking what any of you would do if you were me?
Suspend disbelief for a second and imagine that you consistently reaffirm the veracity of near future glimpses by informing whomever is around at the time of what is about to happen to the point where you, as a scientist have ruled out your own delusion as a cause... where would 'you' look for answers? |
|
| |
If I'm telling the truth then there must be a logical explanation as to how it is possible. |
|
| |
Is there any evidence that matter disintegrated by a singularity does not exceed the speed of light? |
|
| |
// I guess I'm asking what any of you would do if you were me? |
|
| |
Why do you trust that what you say is happening is actually happening? Human perception is completely unreliable and very easy to fool. Don't trust it. |
|
| |
The human psyche is easily fooled as well. You've got yourself deluded into believing something is going on. It's not. You're not a special snowflake who has been imbued with the gift of foresight. No offense. |
|
| |
If you think it is really happening, prove it. James Randi has a check for a million bucks with your name on it. Otherwise it's really just the same sort of psychic babble you get from supermarket rags, and you can't honestly expect people to take it seriously. |
|
| |
//psychic babble you get from supermarket rags |
|
| |
sp. stock tips you get from finance newspapers |
|
| |
// Human perception is completely unreliable and very easy to fool. |
|
| |
Green dragony thing. link. |
|
| |
// Why do you trust that what you say is happening is actually happening? // |
|
| |
Because of the reactions of others. I have no choice but to discard the premonitions I've had alone and don't trust my own perception in these instances.
Unfortunately James Randi is never around when he's needed. |
|
| |
I could try counseling, but if I end up freaking the therapist out enough that they need therapy themselves, I doubt that will help me find any answers.
Thanks for the advice though. |
|
| |
I also have a range of lovingly hand-tooled Morton's Fork replicas, not to mention the stainless steel Eratosthenes's Sieves, ideal for draining pasta... |
|
| |
Hmm, Japanese people slightly re-arranging reality in London, link. |
|
| |
// Why do you trust that what you say is happening is actually happening?
// Because of the reactions of others. |
|
| |
So you should stop hanging around with these people who feed your fantasy. |
|
| |
They wouldn't know unless you said something, yes? (Or do they have premonitions that you are about to have a premonition?) Next time this happens, get your phone out and start recording. |
|
| |
Do you have a reason why this can't be done also, as you've had for every suggestion thus far? Amazing how this trick that amazes your friends resists all attempts to be documented. |
|
| |
I find that when I'm in the mood to do my taxes, document things, and be a general bookkeeper, I'm generally not terribly creative or living in the right hemisphere, which might explain the situation here. |
|
| |
//So you should stop hanging around with these people who feed your fantasy.// |
|
| |
If you haven't noticed, talking about this stuff doesn't exactly make someone a social butterfly. |
|
| |
The people I tell what's about to happen are usually strangers, not even acquaintances of mine let alone enablers. The premonitions are completely random and I just tell whoever is around at the time. I inform them for my own verification, not for attention. |
|
| |
//I guess I'm asking what any of you would do if you
were me?// |
|
| |
Ideally, you'd find someone who was doing research
into this stuff and who was sufficiently honest and
skeptical. Get tested. Turns out you're not psychic
or precognitive or whatever. End of problem. |
|
| |
However, I suspect that it's very hard to find people
who research this stuff who aren't whacko
themselves, or who don't have a strong interest in
finding positive results, coupled with a willingness to
bend the results. |
|
| |
So, your best option is probably just to quit worrying
about it. It will not be possible to convince you that
you're wrong. If you believe it, it's fine since it's not
(as far as I know) doing anyone any harm. Plenty of
people go through life believing in all kinds of stuff -
it's only a problem if you end up blowing your savings
on some precognited lottery result or whatever. |
|
| |
If it can't be tested under any set of circumstances,
then there's no point worrying about it. For instance,
I can levitate, but not when there's anyone around,
and not when there are cameras, and my levitation
doesn't allow me to see anything I can't see from
ground level. Can I levitate? |
|
| |
Anyway, as noted, I invited [2fries] to email me any
premonitions he has. I promise to check my email
while I'm not in a lab. |
|
| |
My point was that if my levitation (which, itself,
would be hard to explain, given my physique) is so
fickle that it refuses to happen under conditions that
allow proof, then a reasonable assumption is that I
cannot, in fact, levitate. |
|
| |
It would be far more likely that, in claiming to be
able to levitate, I am either (a) slightly nuts but
honest (b) not nuts but lying (c) both of the foregoing
or (d) the victim of some sort of hoax. The fifth
possibility - that I can, in fact, levitate - comes quite
a long way after (d). |
|
| |
I think you've made a mistake which is, fortunately, only fundamental. |
|
| |
Quantum phenomena are easily observed and confirmed. Even the fact that some phenomena only happen when "unobserved" (such as the classic twin-slit experiment) is also thoroughly confirmed. |
|
| |
As far as I know, people who do quantum mechanics for a living are no more prone than anyone else to claim that they can levitate or see into future. The only near-exception that I'm aware of is that nice gentleman who levitated a frog; but he used a magnetic field which many would consider cheating. |
|
| |
But ultimately - whatever. Discussions where one person believes they have magic powers, and another person does not believe them, really never resolve to the satisfaction of either party. |
|
| |
//You should have said that before wasting some
annos.// |
|
| |
It's OK. I've been here so long I get them at a big
discount. |
|
| |
// I inform them for my own verification, not for attention.
// Wouldn't you? |
|
| |
Au con, as they say, traire. |
|
| |
I think a multidisciplinary approach is the _only_ way
to understand [2fries]
thoughts. |
|
| |
First you need enough mathematics and statistics to
decide whether the things
he regards as "uncanny" are actually uncanny as
opposed to coincidences. |
|
| |
Then you need a good grounding in neuroscience and
neuropsychology to at
least get an idea of how things like deja vu might
work. |
|
| |
Then you need some psychology to understand things
like confirmation bias,
attentional bias and other factors that may play a
part. |
|
| |
All of these are very interesting areas of research,
and have much to offer, as
many of the above annotations (mine and others')
have alluded to. The main
problem is that people who believe in this sort of
thing don't like answers given
by these disciplines, and would like other answers. |
|
| |
If, instead, you insist that there's "just something
spooky" going on which is
inaccessible to any of these disciplines, then you're
not achieving much. |
|
| |
If you want to apply the scientific method (you don't
have to, but if you want to), you first need a
phenomenon that you can observe. Nobody is
shouting "witch". I'm suggesting that [2fries] account
can probably be explained by what we know about
brains and humans; and that nobody has convincingly
shown that there's anything inexplicable going on;
and that nobody has been able to demonstrate these
"spooky" phenomena in any way that would allow
their scientific investigation. |
|
| |
Of course, science is not the only discipline, but
[2fries] seems to want advice, help or an explanation
from science. |
|
| |
// Next time this happens, get your phone out
and start recording. // |
|
| |
That seems like a reasonable suggestion, but
assuming the duration is normally on the order of
10 seconds (which can seem like a long time when
something strange is happening), getting a camera
phone recording might be too slow. I'd invest in a
small standalone video/audio recorder that can be
activated with a single button press. Ideally you'd
have a black-box type recorder that would record
continuously and be able to be stopped after the
event, but then you'd have battery life problems.
Maybe an audio-only recorder would be good
enough. When you experience this, start making
predictions with the recorder running. When you
go home and review the recording you can verify
that you predicted it before it happened. |
|
| |
If you are successful, don't expect me or anyone
else in the world to believe that you didn't fake
the recording with a few paid actors or by
overlaying some audio. People will always come up
with explanations that fit their world view. If you
do prove your perception to be wrong, I'm sure
we'd all be interested to hear about a successful
experiment with a negative result. |
|
| |
About how often does this happen? Once a day?
Once a week? Also regarding all of the strangers
that you've freaked out by making random
predictions: do you have any sort of conversation
with them afterwards to verify that they
experienced you making a real prediction, or do
you just note that they are freaked out? |
|
| |
For example, if [MechE]'s description is correct,
then maybe when you are experiencing the de-ja-
vu, it is actually after the event has occurred. In
your perception, you say your prediction to a
stranger before an event occurs. Maybe what
really happens is that when a mildly traumatic
even occurs (waiter dropping a glass, etc), possibly
combined with some other mental trigger, your
brain goes into some kind of instant replay mode
where you experience it again in great detail.
Since it's actually after the fact, while you think
you are saying the prediction before the event,
the stranger see the waiter drop the glass, then
some guy (you) freezes with a deer-in-the-
headlights look, points and says "The waiter is
going to drop the glass." If I was the stranger and
someone did that, my first impression would be
that he's maybe a few fries shy of... Um.. yeah.
Sorry. |
|
| |
Anyway. So, even if they did then ask me if they
made a real prediction, I may or may not answer,
or I might just say, "sure your prediction came
true", since I wouldn't want to upset someone
who might be a little bit mentally unstable.
Unfortunately, even if someone made a real
prediction to me, my reaction might not be that
much different. My first rationalization would be
that they are playing a prank by paying off the
waiter ahead of time, so I would try to quickly exit
the conversation. So basically my point is that
using a stranger instead of a good recording device
might not be that reliable. |
|
| |
So anyway, I'm hoping that a recording could help
you succeed in refuting these perceptions you are
having. If it turns out that you actually are making
real predictions, I recommend that you start
purposefully putting yourself in situations where
they might be of use, and ideally try to figure out
what sort of events (possibly mildly traumatic
ones) can trigger it. Ideally you could find
situations where you could do something directly
useful, but the only thing I can think of at the
moment is to use this skill to make money in the
stock market. Set yourself up to do instant stock
trades. Find a very volatile stock and watch the
instant quotes. In order make trigger your de-ja-
vu (or to avoid complete boredom), maybe you
would need to develop a narrative around the
stock price action. When you experience de-ja-vu
and see that the stock is about to take a big jump,
trigger a buy, then sell as soon as you reach the
top of the price spike. This could be tricky since
you need a stock that has regular large jumps up
and down in any particular 10 to 20 second time
period, but with a stock that volatile, your trading
system needs to be fast (or at the least have a
fixed lag time if you can accurately predict that
the spike will occur in x seconds). Start out with
small amounts of money. be sure to always get
out of the market when you can no longer see the
future, and make sure to video-tape yourself, the
stock ticker, and a running dialog of what future
action you are seeing. That, combined with the
time stamp of your trades (verifiable with your
stock brokerage) should be enough to convince
someone that either your gift is real or that the
SEC needs to investigate you for hacking into the
trading system. Therefore, if this works, keep it a
secret. You're welcome. Please use your gift only
for good. |
|
| |
If you can find some other way to use your gift to
help others, perhaps you can then prove its
effectiveness in a way that doesn't get you
thrown in jail. In that case you might be able to
go public to provide new insight into the nature of
time and space relative to human consciousness,
but unless you can make your de-ja-vu occur
reliably, the only people who will believe are those
that experience it directly themselves. Just like
"faith healers". Since they don't heal 100% of
people who come to them 100% of the time, there
is the distinct possibility that the ones who are
"healed" are actually just shills and/or people that
are deluded into thinking that they are healed. |
|
| |
//It seems we have made progress then.// |
|
| |
Gosh thanks. That's a huge relief. |
|
| |
Yes, everything [scad mientist] just said. Plus hire some people to always hang around and be strangers, since it seems to occur only when they are around for you to tell them about it. |
|
| |
Hm. [2 fries] maybe you should pay more attention to the crowd, perhaps it's not as random as you think. What about that one neckbeard guy with the funny hat, he's always there. Maybe he's using you for experiments, projecting you with precog powers. |
|
| |
Incidentally, my experience with deja-vu is rather
mild, and possibly fairly typical. Maybe once every
month or two I have a distinct feeling that I've
lived an event before. It's generally very short
lived and not very detailed. Also it has no
predictive aspect that I've noticed. I've attributed
it mainly to an emotional memory effect linking
the current events to a memory of similar events.
It is known that smells and emotions can trigger
intense memories. If an emotion is triggered that
is the same as an emotion I previously had while
performing a similar activity it can sometimes
trigger a memory of a previous event that I would
otherwise probably have never thought about
again for the rest of my life. In some cases I will
remember enough detail to actually connect that
feeling to a real memory that is different than the
current activity. For example, watching a movie
while having difficulty biting the stiff crust of
bread that was dipped in a certain soup (smell plus
annoyance an similar circumstances). Other times
I am not able to make a connection to a real
memory. I would call those ones deja-vu. The
feeling between those two types of events is
somewhat different for me, and when I have the
deja-vu type, it seems like the similarity between
the events is greater. So either the deja-vu
events are simply the same type of event but one
where I couldn't place the memory, and the fact
that I couldn't place it makes it feel more
mysterious, or else the deja-vu events are a
separate type of brain anomaly that causes a
similar feeling for me. I do have some doubt about
the hypothesis that [MechE] discussed, because it
seems like I usually have some initial impression
about how long ago I remember experiencing this
before, and quite often I remember having a
previous deja-vu about the same thing. Of course
that doesn't mean it couldn't just be a memory
storage error that results in one or more apparent
echos of the same event with various perceived
time delays. I guess if I really cared I'd take notes
every time I had a deja-vu, but it never seemed
worth the effort. |
|
| |
//the only thing I can think of at the moment is to use
this skill to make money in the stock market.// |
|
| |
Roulette. 35 to 1 payout in about 30 seconds. |
|
| |
And I don't swear by the version I mentioned, it's just the
currently best accepted hypothesis as I understand it.
And
given how screwed up the human brain is, it's probable
that there is more than one explanation for slightly
different versions. |
|
| |
One other very real possibility, and this one is pure
speculation, would be based on the apparent fact that
we at least partially
rewrite a memory every time we recall it. Therefore, it
would be a relatively simply hiccup for the brain to start
recalling a similar event in the past and overwrite part or
all of the new experience onto it. |
|
| |
Roulette's a good idea. You don't need a very big
edge to win overall, and you don't need a big stake to
start with. People have made money just by noting
slight imbalances on smaller wheels - a very small
margin. So, any degree of actual precognition would
be enough to turn a steady profit. |
|
| |
It's also a good source of strangers. |
|
| |
I don't think roulette would work well. Assuming
there is a short period of precognition even once
a day, he would have to sit by the roulette wheel
all day waiting, and the chance that the table
would still be open for bets when the precognition
started yet have the precognition be far enough in
the future to see the winning number seems
rather unlikely. If he sat there all day making
occasional single chip even/odd bets with his pile
of 1000 chips next to him, then at some apparently
random time, suddenly with no apparent buildup,
dumped his whole pile of chips on a single number
that paid off big time, it seem like the casino
would get rather suspicious and accuse him of
cheating. |
|
| |
The nice thing about playing the stock market is
that no one knows that he is watching it all day
long for a single 10 to 20 second window of
trading. Any strangeness to his pattern of trading
doesn't mater because of all the computerized
trading that is normal now days. |
|
| |
I guess the downside of the stock market is the
very short term volatility isn't that high, and when
you get into derivatives that magnify your risk and
reward, it may be harder to execute the trades as
fast. |
|
| |
Of course the casinos would get suspicious, but they aren't
not going to pay out, even if the win is a few million. It's
bad publicity. (And unlike, say blackjack, roulette wheels
are really hard to tamper with without an inside person). |
|
| |
Just as it's hard to be creative on demand, I
suspect that it would be hard to be precognitive on
demand, if it were possible. |
|
| |
My own hypothesis is that the world is boringly
repetitive much of the time, even in unusual
circumstances, and so the mind uses any sort of
pattern it can find to its advantage. I would suspect
that some of these precognitions are of in the
realm of the lower incidence of occurrence but not
exactly off the chart improbable. Paying attention
to these occurrences only strengthens the lateral /
right-brained sort of brain circuits that entertains
them. |
|
| |
//find someone who was doing research into this stuff and who was sufficiently honest and skeptical. Get tested.// |
|
| |
I'll see if I can find any ongoing research.
Honestly though, I can't even get my legitimate verifiable medical mysteries taken seriously let alone my mental mysteries. Quick example; A few years ago I was diagnosed with Dupuytren's contracture when a large lump started to grow in my hand. A couple of months later it had raced completely across my right palm, (supposed to take years or decades to progress that far), jumped my index finger, (impossible sir Dupuytren's never reaches the index finger), and made a beeline for the thumb, (nope, no documented history of anyone ever having their thumbs affected, sorry sir), and then a lump started growing in my other hand, which then followed suit and raced for my thumb.
Since then all of the growths have shrunk from near marbles down to about the size of grains of rice and appear to be getting reabsorbed by my body. My brother has and is going through the exact same thing with both of his hands. |
|
| |
I can't get a single medical professional or even anyone from the Dupuytren's society to so much as acknowledge my case let alone consider that there may be a genetic factor which allows the bodies of people in my family tree to cure themselves of this debilitating disease and might point the way to cure for all of these other peoples' suffering. |
|
| |
Now, I know that is quite beside the point, but it is only one of 'many' quirks that run in my family and it is extremely difficult to get medical or scientific professionals to consider anything outside of their comfort zones, even with documented iron-clad proof to wave under noses let alone just my observations on my own mental states. |
|
| |
//Do you get 2 types of premonition ?// |
|
| |
Didn't know there were two types. It's the same as deja vu... just stretched farther forward. It feels exactly the same as a regular memory, but just running a few seconds in front of reality for as long as I can hold onto the sensation. |
|
| |
/I inform them for my own verification, not for attention. // Wouldn't you?/
//No I would not.// |
|
| |
How would you ascertain the veracity of the visions then? It's not like I've had a lot of other tools at my disposal.
What would 'you' do?
...and it's not 'always' strangers, just a majority of the time. Sometimes it's other contractors, sometimes family members or friends. |
|
| |
//About how often does this happen? Once a day? Once a week?// |
|
| |
Completely random. Sometimes several months go by without any. Sometimes days apart. Usually I'm alone.
|
|
| |
Everyone reacts differently.
Neck-beard buddy is a relative. |
|
| |
// How would you ascertain the veracity of the visions then? |
|
| |
I wouldn't, as being an intelligent person, I would understand that such things are explainable using known failures in human perceptive abilities, and as previously stated, most often attributable to confirmation bias. |
|
| |
If, however, there was a slightest chance that I was wrong and there actually was some sort of miracle of visions occurring, I would sacrifice myself to science, considering I would be the only known example of such phenomenon in the history of human evolution. |
|
| |
//failures in human perceptive abilities// There's
also the fact that human perceptive abilities are
often greater than we acknowledge. For instance,
peripheral vision can direct our attention to a moving
object, without our being aware we've seen it.
Likewise, we can make many predictions of behaviour
and events based on subtle clues (and remembered
patterns) that we're barely aware of. The brain has
had tens of millions of years to attune itself to subtle
cues and make predictions from them. So, I think
[2fries] is a combination of poor perception of
probability and confirmation on the one hand; and
good perception of subtle cues on the other. |
|
| |
//If, however, there was a slightest chance that I was
wrong and there actually was some sort of miracle of
visions occurring, I would sacrifice myself to
science// Exactly. Over the hundreds of years that
people have been claiming various exotic abilities,
those that have been subjected to rigorous testing
have been found wanting. Of the remainder, it is
curious that none of them has ever done anything
very noteworthy with abilities that should give them
tremendous potential. It's a bit like the rumours that
the Nazis invented flying saucers toward the end of
WW2 - flying saucer deveopment in Germany does
not seem to be significantly ahead of that elsewhere. |
|
| |
//flying saucer deveopment in Germany does not seem to
be significantly ahead of that elsewhere// |
|
| |
Sp. Russia (or possibly the US, depending on who dragged
off the relevant scientists) but otherwise, exactly. |
|
| |
It's the economic argument, as covered by XKCD 808
(linked). |
|
| |
//being an intelligent person, I would understand that such things are explainable using known failures in human perceptive abilities, and as previously stated, most often attributable to confirmation bias.// |
|
| |
So... you are already biased against the possibility. How is that science? |
|
| |
//I would sacrifice myself to science, considering I would be the only known example of such phenomenon in the history of human evolution.// |
|
| |
There are many accounts of seers and the like, and it hasn't exactly done me much good so far. I think I'll pass on the whole sacrificing myself to people who knowingly admit to already being prejudiced about the subject matter. |
|
| |
// it is curious that none of them has ever done anything very noteworthy with abilities that should give them tremendous potential.// |
|
| |
In what way, (other than saving my own hide numerous times), does remembering the future sporadically a few seconds in advance gain me tremendous potential?
I can not change what I see.
I just get glimpses. |
|
| |
Seriously guys, as far as the list of (supposedly) impossible happenings I've witnessed and things popping into my head goes, the occasional few seconds of fore-notice is the least of them. |
|
| |
I think of many of you as friends and I don't lie to my friends, so... I think you'd all best get to work on losing your biases because if society tries to suppress that next generation I'm always going on about as much as I have been supressed, then they are not going to like you homo sapiens as much as I do and, (unlike me), they are going to be able to control their abilities and it's going to get real messy. |
|
| |
I would like to see that prevented. |
|
| |
// people who knowingly admit to already being prejudiced about the subject matter. |
|
| |
That's not an accurate statement. |
|
| |
I am not prejudiced on the topic. I accept that there is no scientific evidence that such things are possible. I don't know why you would consider that prejudice against. Such evidence would be groundbreaking and would open up whole new areas of scientific investigation. |
|
| |
Provide this evidence and I will be your most vocal supporter. But as I said earlier, otherwise it's just National Enquirer fodder. |
|
| |
You are claiming to be able to do something which heretofore has never been shown to be possible. Prove it. Or no one will believe you, and you cannot blame them. Don't expect people to just accept your word for it. |
|
| |
//has never been shown to be possible// |
|
| |
Correction. Is not possible under our current
understanding of physics. |
|
| |
It is entirely possible that said understanding is wrong,
and in fact one bit of concrete contrary evidence is all it
takes to do so. That being said, anyone make a claim
that our current understanding is wrong should probably
realize that they are going to be the subject of
skepticism, and be expected to show that bit of concrete
evidence. |
|
| |
It may very well be possible, and I was careful to allow for this in my observation. But it has never been shown to be so. |
|
| |
[2 fries] Based on your experience, do you think
the suggestion of using a recording device would be
effective to more solidly confirm or refute your
perception? |
|
| |
I think we need to more clearly delineate between the impossible and the unexplained. Your case of Dupuytren's is unexplained and unseen by the larger medical community, or possibly even misdiagnosed, but obviously not impossible. |
|
| |
A photon possibly doesn't experience time, but it also
doesn't record information. Therefore it can't be said to
see anything. |
|
| |
And that sort of "it doesn't happen until we observe it"
interpretation of quantum mechanics simply isn't correct.
It's not so much that observation causes anything, it's
simply that events on the quantum scale are inherently
probabilistic, and the exact outcome is unknowable until
it is observed. |
|
| |
Regardless, your supposition would be identical to
random thoughts or daydreams, since it would be
impossible to differentiate futures that didn't happen
from speculation about what might happen. |
|
| |
// Any useful or provable dissemination of
information from the future would collapse the time
probability waveform and stop the premonition from
happening.// So, the best proof of precognition
would that none of the things you predict actually
happen. |
|
| |
Not really, unless you have some strange view of
quantum prognostication whereby neurons are free to
fire within the brain, but somehow cause a collapse
as soon as they activate the muscles of the arm
holding the pen that picks the lottery numbers. |
|
| |
One of the basic issues here, I think, is that this is all
bollocks in the first place. Therefore, any detailed
analysis becomes detailed bollocks. |
|
| |
//Consider the statement "Anything is allowed so
long as it doesn't break causality// Yes, fair enough.
I could also consider the statement "Unicorns are not
allowed in London taxis". |
|
| |
However, a premonition would break causality - it
would set up very real events in the very physical
brain. |
|
| |
It's easily argued that, if the universe runs entirely by known physical laws, then everything could be known 'til the end of time, though it might take a computor larger than the universe to do that kind of predicting. So precognition could work as advertised, "free will" is an illusion. |
|
| |
On the other hand, if free will is real then, for precognition to work, it's only necessary to ensure that there's no possibility of intelligent interference: the reason future-visions are generally rather spotty is because most of the time things could get bunged up. |
|
| |
On the other hand, if the multiverse is a thing, then it doesn't really matter one way or the other and, perhaps, the perfect prophet is merely making their own way through the m'verse in some respect, cognizant of their own timeline and anybody else's dragged along with them, while the ones left behind simply think of him or her as a random mouthpiece. |
|
| |
You've missed an option. The universe may operate
according to fixed physical laws, and may not be part
of a multiverse, yet not be predictable. |
|
| |
Indeed, quantum mechanics says just that. Its laws
are the most precise we yet have, but the moment
that (say) a radioactive nucleus decays cannot be
predicted. The moment of decay is acausal. And,
since there are consequences of that
decay, very little can be predicted accurately over
long times. |
|
| |
Quantum mechanics really has nothing to do with human sub consciousness or precognition other than being the building block of matter. I don't see the usefulness of the analogy, frankly, other than a way to add weasel words to the discussion. |
|
| |
Until it proves some utility the multiverse model is a
religion not a science. Believe whatever you like but do not
pretend that it is anything but a personal indulgence. |
|
| |
The multiverse theory also stipulates a limited set of
possible outcomes and thus a finite number of universes. |
|
| |
^^Perhaps, but there's no compelling reason for there not to be a multiverse: after all it's just another dimension. |
|
| |
^ The set of Natural numbers is still an infinite set, even if it's a subset of all numbers. |
|
| |
What can you possibly mean by "just another dimension"?
The multiverse concept isn't another dimension of this
universe that we could come to explore it is a mathematic
solution in which such explorations are impossible. As the
size of the proposed infinities multiverse theory does not
allow us to rewind in the state of the universe that we see
now and fast forward to a point where the entire universe
is stuffed with elephants. The whole point is that the
outcomes are limited, and in reality more limited and
mundane than our imaginations. |
|
| |
////I am not prejudiced on the topic. I accept that there is no scientific evidence that such things are possible.// |
|
| |
I did not mean you personally. It was to science that you said the sacrifice was to be given. The recipient should be worthy of the sacrifice, not contradictory to its own dictates. |
|
| |
//claim that our current understanding is wrong should probably realize that they are going to be the subject of skepticism, and be expected to show that bit of concrete evidence.// |
|
| |
There's the rub. The only reason you are even considering my words is the fact that the only thing I stand to gain from writing them is the loss of any shred of credibility I may once have had. I have no reason to lie and I have no proof. Just my word. |
|
| |
//do you think the suggestion of using a recording device would be effective to more solidly confirm or refute your perception?// |
|
| |
If I had been wearing a recording device at any of the other times the feeling stretched out far enough to involve others then the camera would have seen the same things they did.
I like the idea of wearing a recording device about as much as I like the idea of plucking my eyelashes though...
With all of the Chris Angel's and such walking around, would you really believe what you saw even if you did see recorded precognition? Kreskin made a pretty good career out of faking that one. |
|
| |
//Your case of Dupuytren's is unexplained and unseen by the larger medical community, or possibly even misdiagnosed, but obviously not impossible.// |
|
| |
True, it just illustrates the difficulty of having even legitimate atypical traits taken seriously by professionals let alone fringe abilities. As far as I can tell their rationale seems to be; if it has not already been written somewhere else by someone else... it must not exist in this enlightened day and age. |
|
| |
//It would be a really crap superhero skill.// |
|
| |
//"Unicorns are not allowed in London taxis".// |
|
| |
Hahaha, how about Scottish taxis? |
|
| |
//However, a premonition would break causality - it would set up very real events in the very physical brain.// |
|
| |
Not if there are infinite realities and this one is... atypical. |
|
| |
//Believe whatever you like but do not pretend that it is anything but a personal indulgence.// |
|
| |
It's not that simple. I don't have any beliefs, just a lifetime of mental images popping into my head. Sometimes those images come in the form of stretched out deja vu coupled with a feeling of depersonalization and for as long as that state lasts I see a few seconds or more in advance of reality.
I am very familiar with the signs of mental illness and have no problem admitting the possibility in myself, so I have done my best to rule out delusion as the cause of this mental visual bombardment and I am only seeking answers.
|
|
| |
I'm not the one with a bias. |
|
| |
// just a lifetime of mental images popping into my head.// |
|
| |
I think that's the problem. Given the choice between discarding most
of physics and biology, or taking your mental images at face value...
it's not a hard choice. |
|
| |
If you want people to take you seriously, you at least need to make
an effort to provide some kind of evidence other than your own
anecdotal statements. That's not to say I think you're lying, just that
the easiest person to fool is yourself. |
|
| |
My honest opinion: you might be more perceptive than most people,
and therefore able more easily to pick up on subtle clues and cues; or
you may not. Either way, by letting yourself be convinced that you
have these powers, you have biased your perception and
interpretation of events that are fairly commonplace, if weird. |
|
| |
That sounds extremely condemnatory, but it is not meant to be. It is
an easy trap to fall into, and a very difficult one to get out of. You'll
tell me that you're not biased and that this stuff is real - the only
possible way forward from your perspective is to provide some
objective evidence, which you must surely see is needed if anyone is
to take your claims at face value. |
|
| |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary insurance. Or something. |
|
| |
I'm no troll, I'm the same guy I was when I stumbled in here, just a little less shy is all. |
|
| |
/ just a lifetime of mental images popping into my head./
//I think that's the problem. Given the choice between discarding most of physics and biology, or taking your mental images at face value... it's not a hard choice.// |
|
| |
I can't.
I didn't choose this shit, I didn't ask for the opportunity to explore all of these wonderful rabbit-holes, but I have and it all stems from the same place in my head where the ideas and visual acuity and spatial relations and mechanical reasoning and... and... |
|
| |
...you've just basically told me I need to stop being everything that's ever made me 'me'. |
|
| |
Sheesh. No suppression there... |
|
| |
Thank you [tatterdemalion]. I've never seen that checklist. |
|
| |
"The following can indicate a delusion:" |
|
| |
1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
[check] got me there.
2.That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Well, my way of life hasn't altered. I've been this way my whole life, but alright [check]
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
No, I've never really been secretive about it. Ask me whatever you'd like. [no check]
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
The only thing I'm missing is the clown-car. [no check]
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
Oh I think 40 some odd years of trying to disprove a thing counts as "questioningly" [no check]
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
hmm that's a toughy, it does sort of piss me off being thought a liar but I wouldn't say I've ever been either violent or hostile without provocation and I am quite willing to entertain other notions so... [no check]
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
Ok, that's obvious. [check]
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
It's never overwhelmed me, I'm fairly zen about the whole thing and I'm running out of cheeks to turn so [no check] there/
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
<pats down> Nope. Same old me saying the same stuff I've been saying my whole life. [no check]
10.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
Well everyone who knows me thinks I must be part alien but this has been a characteristic I've displayed since childhood. [no check] |
|
| |
Give it to me straight doc. I can take it. |
|
| |
//Give it to me straight doc. I can take it.// |
|
| |
I think we (several of us) already have. The
consensus is that you're mistaken, and delusional in a
mild and probably harmless way. If that's not the
opinion you were looking for, you need either to go to
a
forum where you'll get a different opinion; or provide
some kind of evidence. Otherwise, it really is
trolling. |
|
| |
// you've just basically told me I need to stop being everything that's ever made me 'me'. |
|
| |
Nobody told you to stop being anything. Where did you get that idea? |
|
| |
You can't self-diagnose a delusion. You want it straight - ok, it's probably some form of grandiose self-delusion. Certainly you have a deep need to be seen as special or unique in some way, that's evident in most everything you've posted here, and absolutely blindingly obvious in this post's annotations. |
|
| |
We may not be exactly complimentary but at least we're still talking about you. If it means people will give you side-eye from now on, well that's the cost of attention. |
|
| |
Or it's trolling. The end effect is the same. |
|
| |
Well crap. Sorry about that. For once I was actually on topic.
So we have a consensus? No possibility I've been channelling alternate realities then? |
|
| |
The notion that, out of the aether, meaningful information would come especially to you. You; Why? Because the alternative is that you are forcibly entertaining feeling and images that are not helpful, that you cannot stop, that will sever you from others. I want to believe that the universe is benign but everything points to mortality, briefness and cruelty and madness. Even the most stable mind is a tangle of barely suppressed elegant and ugly nonsense. |
|
| |
//No possibility I've been channelling alternate realities then |
|
| |
It's possible..an ability to surf the probabilities of many worlds and pick the best one would be evolutionary advantage. |
|
| |
But natural selection seems terribly lazy, no invulnerable animals, no invisibility, etc. Damn this cheap and nasty DNA we get in this reality. |
|
| |
My apologies [wjt] I didn't mean to make this about me. I just wanted to discuss infinite realities and this is about my only contribution to that topic.
Fascinating link [MB]. If this has been a life-long delusion then the number of .oo ?% categories I fall into seem quite probabilistically high even to one of my limited math skills. |
|
| |
[WcW] That was poetry. Welcome to my childhood. Why me? Because necessity is the mother of invention, I had no teacher, and I needed to know.
You have to strap your own life-vest while the ship is sinking before you help the next guy strap on his. |
|
| |
//an ability to surf the probabilities of many worlds and pick the best one would be evolutionary advantage.// |
|
| |
I don't pick anything. I get to watch in advance sometimes. That's all.
It's not fun, it's mundane. I don't get a kick out of it. It's just always been that way and there's fuck all I can do about it except choose to talk or not talk about it. |
|
| |
Life would have been a lot easier if I had chosen not to talk about it, but I didn't get this far by going that way, and it's a very 'very' long way back to that fork in the road. |
|
| |
I yam what I yam, and I tell it like it be. |
|
| |
No apologies necessary. Learning and discoveries
have to be communicated or they were never made. |
|
| |
//I like the idea of wearing a recording device about as much as I like the
idea of plucking my eyelashes though...// |
|
| |
The fact that you're not willing to produce evidence that could convince
others (and perhaps yourself) is a bit reminiscent of those alien abductees.
Many of them have stories like "Yes, they implanted an alien device in my
nose, but when it came out I just threw it away" - as in, threw away
something that, if it existed and could be examined, would completely
transform our understanding of the universe, as well as vindicating the
alleged abductee. |
|
| |
It's a bit like saying "Yes, I can levitate, but I don't want to do it on camera
just now because I've got to tidy my sock drawer." |
|
| |
I see dead people, I'm an undertaker, and so on.. |
|
| |
//The fact that you're not willing to produce evidence that could convince others (and perhaps yourself)// |
|
| |
I've convinced lots of people over the years with the evidence I was able to produce.
They don't count either. |
|
| |
So... back to multiple realities;
Is there any evidence that matter converted to energy does not indeed time travel when entering a singularity?
...and if there are multiple realities which occupy the same space could gravity pertubations from these overlapping universes account for dark matter and energy? |
|
| |
//account for dark matter and energy? |
|
| |
I think we're heading back to dark bun territory. |
|
| |
//I've convinced lots of people over the years with
the evidence I was able to produce.
They don't count either.// |
|
| |
Ask them to get in touch, then. |
|
| |
I've convinced lots of people I can levitate. David
Blaine has convinced even more people that he can. |
|
| |
[2fries], no disrespect but this is all getting a bit
trollish. On the one hand you're saying you have
these amazing powers which most people would
dismiss as nonsense but which, if proven, would
overturn most of what we think we know about the
universe. |
|
| |
You ask us for our advice, and a few of us have given
our best shot at that. You aren't willing to make any
effort to provide what even the most generous
skeptic would think of as evidence for what is,
frankly, a fantastic claim which is much more easily
explained by either a common delusion or selectivity
with the truth. |
|
| |
So what exactly are you hoping for here, from us? |
|
| |
//[MB] do you dismiss the possibility of brain in jar /
simulated reality ? But if that's the case there is
plenty of scope to dick about with inputs for only one
individual. // Yes, obviously. However, on a day-to-
day basis I find it more useful to imagine that I'm not
a brain in a jar. And if [2fries] is a brain in a jar, he
or she has remarkably good connectivity. |
|
| |
//Talking about connections between worlds or
replicating meta level patterns of information, an
interesting possibility is that entropy is somehow
constrained such that pre-existing patterns naturally
form rather than new pure chaos. So if you're sitting
in a random low entropy zone, its a whole world of
deja vu.// That entire paragraph seems to argue
against the spontaneous emergence of information-
rich patterns from chaos. |
|
| |
With particular reference to //an interesting possibility is that entropy is
somehow constrained// it may also be pertinent at this point to mention
that
if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. (As it
happens, she has and she is, but that's not the point I
was trying to make.) It's an equally interesting possibility that parallel
universes are not allowed to have exactly the same physical constants.
it's an equally interesting possibility that, in some strange way, events
from the future of one universe affect the past of another. It's an
equally interesting possibility that I can, by sheer power of will, cause
glaciers to melt very slightly faster in Iceland. |
|
| |
There are many interesting possibilities. They are so abundant that they
can be picked up for free, in bulk. What are much more valuable are
possibilities that have some small shred of actually being possible |
|
| |
//You do realise science is expanding bubble of
knowledge... (etc)// |
|
| |
Yes. My job is to expand that bubble in one
particular area of science. |
|
| |
My point was that just making up statements that
sound nice, like //an interesting possibility is that
entropy is somehow constrained// is just random
noise. I (or anyone else) can make a gazillion such
statements. |
|
| |
The real world, so much of which we have yet to
discover, is much more exciting than mundane
mumbo-jumbo. |
|
| |
// candidates to explain e.g what [2 fries] has
experienced or some
other unexplained stuff// |
|
| |
If you wanted to get interesting science out of stuff
like [2fries]
claims, step 1 is to prove it happens. There is hugely
overwhelming
evidence that it doesn't, and huge amounts of time
and effort have
been made, both within and outside science, to try
to find any
shred of precognition, telepathy, telekinesis and
suchlike. |
|
| |
So, imagine for a moment that someone managed to
prove that
they did have genuine precognition. This would be
absolutely
fantastic from scientists' point of view. There would
be questions
like: |
|
| |
Is it genetically determined?
Which parts of the brain are involved?
Can it be blocked or enhanced?
Is there a limit on how far ahead it can see?
Is information from the future conveyed by particles,
or by
electromagnetic radiation, or what?
What exactly happens when precognition is used to
change the
future? |
|
| |
and so on. Science would be all over this. Funding
to the tune of
billions of dollars would appear almost overnight. |
|
| |
Just making random statements is, in general, not
helpful. I can say
"all living things have a special life-energy field", and
it means
nothing. |
|
| |
I guess my point is that I get sick of whackos telling
me that science
is a conspiracy to preserve some status quo and close
doors on
interesting phenomena. We love interesting
phenomena, but we
get sick of spooky anecdotal claims that, despite
some intensive
investigation, turn out time and time again to be
bogus. We get
interested in weird phenomena mainly when they
actually exist.
Very, very few physicists, for instance, don't like dark
matter or
dark energy, even though (or because) those
phenomena mean that
we understand only 10% of the universe. Just what
kind of people
do people think scientists are? |
|
| |
//again a lot of what was mumbo-jumbo is now science. |
|
| |
and a large amount of mumbo-jumbo is just mumbo-jumbo. |
|
| |
My own personal favourite was maxing x-rays from unrolling sticky tape. Phenomena observed, nothing done about it, Russians try it out and "hmm, interesting looks like x-rays" then give up, then somebody tries it out again in 2007, proves they are x-rays, and then give up. |
|
| |
I can see a lot of points of view here, and I don't have a problem with 2F's experiences, or MB's scepticism,,,we live in a very prosaic world and people like to see proof...basically until we read a human mind we're not going to know 100% one way or another. |
|
| |
If you claim to possess abilities that have never before been demonstrated by anyone in history, I don't think asking for a demonstration of said abilities is an unreasonable request. |
|
| |
No one is asking for proof. Let's just see the trick. Show, don't tell. Anybody can make shit up. |
|
| |
Maybe we can figure it out. Possibly we can't, and there's something extraordinary going on. That would be tremendously interesting and exciting. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] it's great to theorize about possible explanations but I think you're ahead of the game. We should first determine that there is something about which to theorize. |
|
| |
Look, I just wanted to say my bit on why I wonder about alternate realities.
I'm not forcing my opinion down anybody's throat, just saying my piece and hoping it registers.
Chock me up as another nutter if you wish, but before you do, take [tatterdemalion]'s delusion indicator link with the subject of precognition as the topic and substitute the word 'patient' with the word 'society', or 'science' and see how many boxes get checked. |
|
| |
I didn't grow up with the luxury of bias. I just know that things have always popped into my head without my ever being able to figure out where those things were coming from and have spent my entire life trying to figure out how? where? Why?
I don't have any answers, just questions. I see those questions dismissed by science and I... think these questions are why science was developed in the first place, and for those questions to be abandoned is... wrong.
It just is.
Forget my own personal drama. Pretend I asked for help competing the plot for a sci. fi. script I'm writing. |
|
| |
Where would the protagonist, (assuming mental stability), seek answers once he/she had plumbed the depths of released public knowledge without results? |
|
| |
Think of it as a thought experiment. |
|
| |
// You ask us for our advice, and a few of us have given our best shot at that. You aren't willing to make any effort to provide what even the most generous skeptic would think of as evidence for what is, frankly, a fantastic claim which is much more easily explained by either a common delusion or selectivity with the truth. |
|
| |
So what exactly are you hoping for here, from us? // |
|
| |
I have no evidence. I just asked for advice without it.
You don't have to believe me to give advice and I did not ask for belief only the suspension of disbelief.
Big difference. |
|
| |
//I see those questions dismissed by science// |
|
| |
They're
not "dismissed". Over the years and decades, large
amounts of time and money have been invested in
trying to confirm that any of this stuff actually
happens. Nobody has demonstrated these "powers"
credibly. Moreover, there is no obvious mechanism
for these things to happen. If there were a plausible
mechanism, then the scientists would keep looking
and digging to find evidence that this stuff happened.
Or if anyone demonstrated these "powers", then the
scientists would keep looking for a mechanism. |
|
| |
But in the absence of either a demonstration of these
powers _or_ a plausible mechanism, are you
surprised that scientists have for the most part
stopped taking an interest? Try to be reasonable. |
|
| |
//I have no evidence. I just asked for advice without
it.// |
|
| |
And I (and others here) have given you advice. My
advice is that the phenomena you observe are
common tricks of the mind coupled with confirmation
bias; and that if you want to take it further you need
to provide objective evidence to the contrary. I and
others have also suggested how you might obtain that
objective evidence. |
|
| |
What else do you want or expect? Again, be
reasonable. Otherwise this becomes just trolling. |
|
| |
//Nobody has demonstrated these "powers" credibly. |
|
| |
Well, no one's ever come up with an explanation of the stock market...but I am giving up.. |
|
| |
NB looking at the delusional bit, if you weren't delusional, but thought you were would that be a delusion? |
|
| |
//no one's ever come up with an explanation of the stock market// - Yes they have - greed, misinformation, crowd behaviour - nothing very remarkable about that. On the other hand, phenomena which, if true, would violate quite a lot of known and rigourously tested physics are much harder to explain. |
|
| |
[2fries], perhaps we're talking at cross porpoises here. What *kind* of
answer/advice would make you happier? Here are some examples but, if none of
them fits, suggest your own. Which of these *kinds* of answers/advice would you
be happy with: |
|
| |
(a) You have genuine precognition. It works because of [X]. The reason you can do
it and others can't is [Y]. You should use this power to do [Z]. |
|
| |
(b) You have genuine precognition. We have no idea how it works, but we'd like to
find out if you're willing to help us. Meanwhile, you should use this power to do
[Y]. |
|
| |
(c) You don't have precognition, but you genuinely believe you do. However, there
are good reasons for your experiences, and those reasons are [X],[Y] and [Z]. We
can prove that you don't have precognition by doing [Q]. |
|
| |
(d) We don't know if you have precognition, though you genuinely believe you do.
You can help us to find out by doing [X], [Y], and [Z]. If it turns out that you do,
then we'd be interested in finding out how it works. |
|
| |
(e) We don't believe you have precognition, and we don't believe your statements
of precognition. You can prove us wrong by doing [X], [Y] and [Z]. |
|
| |
So, [2fries], are any of (a)-(e) moving in the direction you want? If not, can you
provide an (f)? |
|
| |
//So what exactly are you hoping for here, from us?// |
|
| |
The benefit of the doubt. |
|
| |
//if [2fries] is a brain in a jar, he or she has remarkably good connectivity.// |
|
| |
Thank you. That took a lot of work.
I don't know anything about being a brain in a jar, I just know that when other people were getting to be kids I was touring my own mind, and while other people were getting educated I was touring my own mind, and while other people were planning their futures I was touring my own mind.
I am atypical in that my formative years were spent locked in my own head, through no doing of my own other than self preservation, so my mental development has been unique. There's a place I go to in my head that's really hard to get to because you forget yourself there, so the mind shies away from it because there is always the chance it might not remember itself and become lost.
That thousand-mile-stare place. It's where I grew up. I went there out of necessity, it was extremely hard to get out of, there's a big 'ol chunk of me still wedged in that hole and I go back there sometimes when my mind starts to wander.
When I am there and I forget myself, things pop into my head. I share them with people to see if they are real. So far that seems to be the case but I am willing to admit the possibility that it is a mental illness.
I just haven't been able to disprove the legitimacy of the things I see there, and it's not for lack of trying.
So I look for other alternatives.
I've narrowed it down to; I'm bat-shit crazy, time is unchangeable with no free will, or there are other realities. |
|
| |
I'm kind of hoping it's that last one. |
|
| |
//The benefit of the doubt. // |
|
| |
The benefit of the doubt, in this case, is accepting that you
honestly believe you have precognition. Anything beyond
that requires discarding my complete, and reasonably
science based, world view. Which I'm willing to do if there is
concrete evidence, but not on someone's unsupported
recounting of anecdotal evidence. |
|
| |
This is my last comment. I feel like we're just feeding a center-of-attention special-snowflake headcase now. |
|
| |
[2 fries] as of today, throughout the whole history of the human race, the people who claim to have the ability you claim have been either liars, scam artists or mentally ill. If you are not one of those - and you want people to know you are not one of those - then you are going to have to prove it, it's that simple. Otherwise they will think you are one of those, and it is completely reasonable for them to think this. |
|
| |
The reason why you would have to prove it is because, as has been mentioned to you multiple times by many people in this thread, this ability has never been shown to be possible. So you claim to be able to do something that, as far as we know, cannot be done. |
|
| |
Do you recognize the importance of that statement? Do you understand how earth-shaking it would be if what you say is true? If you really can do this trick, you have an obligation to prove it and share it with the world. |
|
| |
How is it reasonable for you to expect people to give you // the benefit of the doubt // on a heretofore-impossible claim? It is not reasonable to expect that, so you are not going to get what you want from us. |
|
| |
If you are halfway as intelligent as you otherwise seem to be, you would understand the implications of someone on this planet being able to do what you say you can do. |
|
| |
If you cannot prove you can do this, then you should stop claiming to have the ability. If you continue to make the claim after refusing to show you can do it, then you're a troll. If you don't understand the implications of this claim, then your intelligence is questionable. If you can't do the trick you claim, then you're a liar, scam artist, or mentally ill, or some combination. |
|
| |
// I am willing to admit the possibility that it is a mental illness. |
|
| |
I'll reiterate: seek counseling. |
|
| |
//This is my last comment// I bet it isn't. There's
something compulsive about this type of discussion,
where most of think someone is loopy but want to
have a rational discussion. It's very hard to walk
away. |
|
| |
Anyway, [2fries], I put some effort into coming up
with my (a) to (e). From what you've said, is (a) your
favourite option? |
|
| |
//The benefit of the doubt, in this case, is accepting that you honestly believe you have precognition.// |
|
| |
I can't answer your (a) to (e) [MB]. Those questions are all based on your perception of what I am saying... and not 'what' I am saying.
I say what I mean. I don't make it a multiple choice exam. Please don't put words in my mouth. |
|
| |
// The reason why you would have to prove it is because, as has been mentioned to you multiple times by many people in this thread, this ability has never been shown to be possible. So you claim to be able to do something that, as far as we know, cannot be done.
Do you recognize the importance of that statement? Do you understand how earth-shaking it would be if what you say is true? If you really can do this trick, you have an obligation to prove it and share it with the world.// |
|
| |
Sure I recognize the importance, just not that this ability has ever been shown to be impossible or that I am the first to do so. I dispute what you've been taught. I've been trying to share it with the world for almost a half a century now but it's been like screaming into a windstorm. |
|
| |
//I feel like we're just feeding a center-of-attention special-snowflake headcase now.// |
|
| |
That is also a possibility. |
|
| |
..how 'bout them alternate realities eh?
Ain't they a bitch? |
|
| |
Actually there's no way [2 fries] can prove it to us.
Even if he recorded the interaction and sent us
the recording. Recordings can be faked. My point
was to help him verify it for himself (and to help us
better understand the details of this effect. |
|
| |
// If I had been wearing a recording device at any
of the other times the feeling stretched out far
enough to involve others then the camera would
have seen the same things they did. // // I've
convinced lots of people over the years with the
evidence I was able to produce. // |
|
| |
From this I conclude that interaction with people
during these events was detailed and long enough
that a recording would do nothing more to help. |
|
| |
// Give it to me straight. // One other possibility
that wasn't thoroughly explored was the possibility
that those other people weren't actually real,
meaning this is a much more elaborate delusion.
Have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?
I don't know how accurately it portrayed the the
actual perceptions, but the main character had an
elaborate delusion with non-existent people. The
weird thing was that these people were for the
most part separate from his primary delusion. |
|
| |
And regarding the check list, it's possible that
more of those boxes are checked. You say that
you aren't secretive, but maybe the only people
you share it with are completely anonymous on
the internet (us), and people that you are only
imagining. You may think that you have
attempted to disprove this, but if these attempts
were done inside the scope of your delusion, then
you weren't actually trying to disprove it, you
were reinforcing it by convincing yourself that
you're being scientific about it. |
|
| |
I think the way he finally dealt with it in the movie
was by getting help from those he knew for sure
were real to identify what/who was and was not
real. Near the end he is approached by a stranger,
so he asks one of his students (who he had
apparently verified earlier) to verify the existence
of the stranger. |
|
| |
If it is some very complex delusion, recording and
sending the recording could actually be helpful
since inside the delusion he could think the
recording says one thing, but 3rd party evaluation
may interpret it differently. |
|
| |
//I've been trying to share it with the world for almost a half a century now but it's been like screaming into a windstorm.// - but the problem is, so far in these annotations you haven't said anything which couldn't much more easily be explained by someone fooling themselves and using a good amount of confirmation bias, and which hasn't frequently been shown in similar cases in the past to be caused by someone fooling themselves and getting carried away with confirmation bias. So none of what you've said proves anything and, with claims this extraordinary, no one's just going to take your word for it. |
|
| |
//you haven't said anything which couldn't much
more easily be explained by someone fooling
themselves and using a good amount of confirmation
bias// |
|
| |
//I can't answer your (a) to (e) [MB].// |
|
| |
Well, OK. You said you want //advice//. So if you
actually want advice, rather than this just being a
forum in which to demonstrate your specialness,
what *kind* of advice do you want? What, in short,
are you expecting? |
|
| |
I had no expectations. I'm just telling it like it is and wanted to talk about alternate universes and this is my take on it.
You people are the smartest people I know with the widest range of backgrounds I've ever come across. The chance exists that one or more of you can either relate to what I have written and may provide some insight, or have access to... esoteric knowledge I am not privy to and may provide some insight. |
|
| |
//You say that you aren't secretive, but maybe the only people you share it with are completely anonymous on the internet (us), and people that you are only imagining. You may think that you have attempted to disprove this, but if these attempts were done inside the scope of your delusion, then you weren't actually trying to disprove it, you were reinforcing it by convincing yourself that you're being scientific about it.// |
|
| |
Well, that is also a possibility. I don't just get glimpses of what's next though, I also sometimes get glimpses of the past, (this happens far less often than glimpsing forward and is the main reason I think time is not a one-way arrow), and I share these glimpses with people they pertain to as well in order to determine the veracity of the visions.
So far these people have certainly not been imaginary and I even married one of them.
I know that doesn't prove anything either other than she is quite real, but she is one of the most down-to-earth people I've met and I told her the things I saw of her past more than fourteen years ago now.
'She' knows I'm not delusional, but I bet dollars-to-doughnuts that this just reinforces the opinion that I surround myself with enablers.
It's a real catch 22. |
|
| |
I can not have proven myself to any 'real' people, and if I have convinced 'real' people then obviously they must also simply be delusional and wanting to be convinced. |
|
| |
While I am very willing to admit the possibility that the visions are delusion I am also willing to consider the possibility that they are not. |
|
| |
Us special little snowflakes don't have that bias. |
|
| |
I'm with Max (not sexually), when he says that the human brain itself is a powerful and deep mystery. Hyperaware or hyperfocused people are likely to have exceptional insights. There's every reason not to ignore it, but even if you developed a conscious control, could you teach it or make it better? |
|
| |
//While I am very willing to admit the possibility that the visions are delusion I am also willing to consider the possibility that they are not.// - and there's the rub. Both explanations are possible, but they are not equally probable. Scepticism of your assertion is therefore driven by a sort of Occam's Razor argument in which people are reluctant to believe a very improbable and complex explanation (which would also require changes to soundly established theories about physiscs, time,
cause-and-effect, thermodynamics, etc.) where a more probable and simpler one exists. |
|
| |
(Of course (and this applies to parties on both sides), it's worth being aware that [hippo]'s First Law of Internet Discourse applies here: "No one has ever changed their firmly held belief or opinion as a result of participation in an online conversation".) |
|
| |
I don't see why "magic" is any less of an explanation for phenomena than "science". <insert Clarke quotation> |
|
| |
Anyways, [2f]'s example is postcognitive, so no paradoxical elements. |
|
| |
Precognition, in the sense of seeing the future through one's own future eyes, could be due to a parallel universe discontinuity, where the next one over, for that individual's consciousness, is running ahead of schedule. Leakage provides the information. Also no paradox since, by definition, there's a chance of being wrong. |
|
| |
Of course changing "the future" would probably result in the universes moving away from each other for the individual. |
|
| |
//I had no expectations. I'm just telling it like it is
and wanted to talk about alternate universes and this
is my take on it.// But you asked for advice: |
|
| |
// I just asked for advice without it.// |
|
| |
So, what kind of advice did you want? Advice on
whether it's real or not? Advice on what to do with or
about it? Or what? |
|
| |
//Precognition, in the sense of seeing the future
through one's own future eyes, could be due to a
parallel universe discontinuity, where the next one
over, for that individual's consciousness, is running
ahead of schedule. Leakage provides the
information.// But that is not an explanation. None
of the words you have used relate to anything known
to be possible. How, for example, does information
"leak" between universes? As photons? As gravity
waves? And if it's "leaking" from another you in a
parallel universe, does that mean we need to add
telepathy? Or what? |
|
| |
It's easy to come up with any number of
"explanations" that would make precognition
possible. However, they are not "explanations" in
terms of providing any kind of mechanism - there's
always one step in the chain* of reason that involves
arm-waving (like "leakage" in your example). If I'm
allowed that kind of leeway, I can explain everything
- including things that don't exist. |
|
| |
(It is possible to have a step in a chain? I guess what
I meant was that there is always one weak link in the
staircase.) |
|
| |
Well for this scenario, "leakage" would be due to the discontinuity. |
|
| |
For contiguous universes an atom in one universe would most likely be in the same spacetime location as the next universe, and the one after that, etc. . So would molecules; so would patterns of molecules. You're thinking the same thoughts as your doppelgangers at the same time, etc. There's leakage between universes but nobody notices because what's leaking out is the same as what's leaking in. |
|
| |
But when there's a discontinuity of sorts, what's leaking in isn't the same of what's leaking out. |
|
| |
Like if you have strands of freshly dyed threads next to each other, touching. If they're all the same colour then there's no perceptible leakage. But if a bunch of red ones are next to a bunch of blue ones, then the threads at the interface will be violety. |
|
| |
[FT], your fingers are moving, and words are
appearing on the screen, but information is not. |
|
| |
If I were to replace the word "discontinuity" with
"portal", "bezel", "nun" or "parmesan"; and the word
"leakage" with "insecticide", "scalpel" or "gust", the
content would not be altered. |
|
| |
I am not saying that what you are saying is wrong,
merely that it makes no sense. |
|
| |
Perhaps, but I saw a quantum physicist on the tube the other day. He giggled a lot. |
|
| |
Postulated is that "parallel universes" aren't discrete: they're simply say 4-dimensional slices of a 5 dimensional metauniverse. Like 2d cross-sections of a 3d body. |
|
| |
Most of the slices will look the same as the ones close to them. But occasionally there's areas where there's a sharp change over a short segment along the "u" axis, even total discontinuities. |
|
| |
But just saying things like "leakage" and
"discontinuity" doesn't add any information. If I talk
to you, information is "leaking" as pressure waves in
air. If I email you, information is "leaking" as coded
patterns of electrons. |
|
| |
If stuff "leaked" between parallel universes, we'd be
able to detect them. |
|
| |
I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that a theory
of how information could "leak" from one universe to
another is not trivial, and saying the word "leakage"
explains nothing. |
|
| |
******
"So-called parallel universes are not parallel, but are
orthogonal in the 4th dimension. The 3-dimensional
line along which they intersect allows energy, but not
mass, to flow in accord with the second law of
thermodynamics. Hence, energy will flow from the
higher-energy region to the lower energy region. If
the other universe has a higher energy density at that
point, energy will flow from it into ours. If that
energy is modulated, the flow will be modulated.
This allows information, but not mass, to pass from
one universe to another. |
|
| |
The apparent time in any universe depends on its
angle relative to the time axis. If the other universe
is more tilted, it will appear to be ahead of ours.
Hence, modulated energy (information) can travel
from the other universe's 'future' into our present. |
|
| |
If the energy levels at the intersection fluctuate in
both universes, then energy will alternately flow
back and forth. If this energy is modulated, it allows
communication to be two-way - a memory in one
universe, or a precognition in the other."
****** |
|
| |
Now, all the foregoing is complete bollocks (I know
because I made it up as fast as I could type). It
sounds like it should make sense, but it actually
contributes nothing whatsoever, except possibly to an
episode of Star Trek. |
|
| |
...but, critically, whilst remaining complete bollocks, it is
slightly closer to describing a complete bollocks
*mechanism* that can be tested and falsified. |
|
| |
That is true. I am also pleased that you acknowledge
its bollockness. |
|
| |
The theory is enthalpic in nature, not anthropomorphic which is the usual fare of sci-fi mummery. A particle has a u-axis component to its existence, an electron, atom, molecule. A person's brain, a rather large enthalpic construct, will be the same across the u-axis. |
|
| |
But if the memories are different, it isn't: some molecules are in different places. Postulated is crosstalk or stress of some sort between slices that are close on the u-axis but different in spacetime arrangement. |
|
| |
"non-scientific" <> "bollocks": there's plenty of tangibles that science doesn't yet explain; doesn't make them untrue. |
|
| |
//there's plenty of tangibles that science doesn't yet
explain; doesn't make them untrue.// |
|
| |
Yes, obviously. And the way that science makes
progress on explaining more things is by discarding
the utter bollocks and thereby not wasting time. |
|
| |
As has been pointed out by others here, precognition
along with telepathy, telekinesis, astrology, levitation
and perpetual motion have been shown over and over
and over and over and over again to be complete,
total, undiluted bollocks. |
|
| |
Therefore, to avoid wasting any more time, we
generally ask for some kind of evidence. If it's
forthcoming, we're happy to take an interest again.
Is that so
unreasonable? |
|
| |
[FT] 'Bollocks' in this context can be taken as
shorthand for 'It's not even wrong' - see link |
|
| |
//So, what kind of advice did you want? Advice on whether it's real or not? Advice on what to do with or about it? Or what?// |
|
| |
I'm not picky. Your advice is your advice. What do you think about the possibility of overlapping universes accounting for dark matter? I guess I'm looking for a plausible scientific explanation for the phenomena I've experienced my whole life, instead of being left to puzzle it out for myself in case I'm not nuts. I don't seem to be nuts and that word precognition didn't invent itself. |
|
| |
// How, for example, does information "leak" between universes? As photons? As gravity waves? And if it's "leaking" from another you in a parallel universe, does that mean we need to add telepathy? Or what?// |
|
| |
Like 'I' know right? I only know my perception of reality and it seems to differ from... everybody else. Always has. I don't know why. I don't know how I'm 'supposed' to be, I just know how I am.
Apparently I don't exist... so I've got that going for me. |
|
| |
// even if you developed a conscious control, could you teach it or make it better?// |
|
| |
No clue if it could be taught. 'Better' or 'worse' doesn't really compute, it just is. If I'm right about these things springing from that null state in my head then I know you 'really' don't want to learn to go there the way that I did unless you've got a couple of decades to spend getting back out.
It's my guess that this place where you forget yourself exists in every human mind, but there must be much better ways to get to it than the way I was taught.
...and that's assuming it isn't delusion. |
|
| |
<later edit>
//Both explanations are possible, but they are not equally probable. Scepticism of your assertion is therefore driven by a sort of Occam's Razor argument in which people are reluctant to believe a very improbable and complex explanation (which would also require changes to soundly established theories about physics, time, cause-and-effect, thermodynamics, etc.) where a more probable and simpler one exists.// |
|
| |
Probability and I have issues [hippo]... I don't know what to tell you man. We just do.
I fully recognise the enormity of the disbelief I am asking you to suspend. Now try to imagine actually living it and not being a liar. |
|
| |
It's not a whole lot of fun if that's what you were thinking. I suppose I could shut up about it but... I honestly think that you all might be wrong and there is some existing precondition dictating that no good deed goes unpunished and I'm just a hard-ass. |
|
| |
What I am not though is a liar. So delusion or reality, it is what it is. |
|
| |
//I'm not picky. Your advice is your advice. What do
you think about the possibility of
overlapping universes accounting for dark matter? I
guess I'm looking for a plausible
scientific explanation for the phenomena I've
experienced my whole life// |
|
| |
My advice (which, as you point out, is my advice) is
that you should first seek objective
proof for these "powers" - because I am confident
that they are a delusion. Proving
them to others would prove them to yourself (of
course, my belief is that you will fail
to prove them to others). The best "plausible
scientific explanation" I can offer is that
they are a delusion, of the type we've already
discussed - this is far more likely (and
common) than the possibility that you are the first of
all humans to do something which
seems contrary to everything we know about the
universe. |
|
| |
If you want "explanations" in terms of parallel
universes or whatever, I can't help. It's
like someone asking me for an "explanation" of how
they can levitate - I don't believe
they can actually levitate in the first place.
Therefore, the best "explanation" is that their brain is
playing tricks on them. |
|
| |
As you said, my advice is my advice. You may get
better advice elsewhere. |
|
| |
//What I am not though is a liar. So delusion or
reality, it is what it is.// I think the
consensus here (my opinion at any rate) is that you
are not a liar but that this is a
delusion. |
|
| |
[2 fries shy of a happy meal] If I was in your situation, I would be investigating when these mental states occur. Trying to pin down some physical common factors, mental, emotional and environmental that can chart the situation. Put the large magnifying glass on the time just before the state. |
|
| |
If it turns out to be a higher degree of brain functioning, can I call it Sherlock syndrome? |
|
| |
You win, [MaxwellBuchanan]. |
|
| |
// What I am not though is a liar. So delusion or reality, it is what it is. |
|
| |
You can't rule out being a liar. Your ability to determine that may be inhibited by the delusion. You could believe your own lies, and therefore not be able to recognize them. Probably the best you can say for sure is that you are not consciously lying. |
|
| |
(To be clear, I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying you can't know you're not one if you are having delusions. Literally you cannot know what is true, delusions bring everything into question, hence the recommendation to seek counseling. I'm not kidding about that btw, unless you are a troll, this requires attention.) |
|
| |
//unless you are a troll, this requires attention// |
|
| |
Not necessarily. Plenty of people have mild delusions
which do no harm. There are huge numbers of
people who believe that they see ghosts. I would
also argue that religion is a very common delusion
which has a far greater impact on people's lives. And
so many people believe they have been abducted by
aliens that it's practically mainstream. I don't think
[2fries]'s delusion needs any treatment unless it
bothers him. |
|
| |
No harm in having a professional look under the hood. We don't know the effect on his day-to-day. |
|
| |
// I would also argue that religion is a very common delusion |
|
| |
Agreed, a low-grade mass hysteria. |
|
| |
When it comes to person belief statements, that I have no data to check, I tend to error on the side of hope. |
|
| |
It is better to put a simile on someone even if they know they are trying to delude me. The true marks either way will usually show themselves with more interaction. |
|
| |
Be good to everyone , subtle is far reaching. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] What about a perfect mass to mass swap between touching Universes like masses on either side of a playground roundabout. No change no foul. If course everything costs energy. |
|
| |
An interesting discussion, but I think if it was limited to just the posted idea not much discussion would be necessary. I don't know if there are multiple universes, and no conclusion in that regard will be drawn by the end of this annotation. The main problem is the assertion that imagination means thinking up something that doesn't exist. That's only partly true to begin with. Certainly the imagined object is not a real object whether it reflects an existing object or not. However, just because the imagined object is not actual doesn't mean it is completely imaginary. For example A Einstein reportedly imagined many of his physics principles, such as relativity of objects in space, and his imaginings were better than reality, meaning they helped uncover new laws. Whereas reality alone would leave us all for dead without a second thought. So your premiss 1) imagine implies thinking something that doesn't exist, is faulty. If this is the central tenet of each of your other statements including musings on the multiverse, then each of those are faulty. |
|
| |
In my opinion an acceptable presentation of this idea would read 1) Imagined objects may reflect reality but exist solely in the mind 2) If all possibilities exist in the multiverse then all imagined objects may reflect reality. 3) People are not reading from another universe but simply anything they can imagine exists in another universe. 4) Better writers can imagine more of the possibilities from other universes. 5) Therefore all halfbaked ideas already exist, and halfbakers rule everything and everything else that can be imagined is true. |
|
| |
// imagination means thinking up something that doesn't exist // |
|
| |
For me, thinking is the ability to make a virtual representation of our reality. We all approximate it the best we can. This model can then be manipulated to give real world solutions. |
|
| |
Imagining is the next step, a leap of logic faith. Imagining allows something that is not real to be taken in the model, temporarily as real, so extrapolation of thoughts may lead somewhere. |
|
| |
[rcarty] From what you are saying, it sounds like the difference of opinion of whether you think of a solution to fix the tap or imagine a solution to fix the tap. It is a pretty grey transitional area. |
|
| |
<Imagining> It could be that the deep ability of the mind is derived from dimensionally backing on to a common interaction space of all Universes.</imagining> :-) |
|
| |
Whatever I said a lot further up the page. |
|
| |
sorry... <side note> finally contacted dupuytren's doctor able to conceive of abnormailites, talked brother into participating in future freak studies, physical-scale faith in humanity equilibriuminized.
mental/emotional-scale pending. |
|
| |
[2 fries shy of a happy meal] That's great, hope all goes well. |
|
| |
[pertinax] spelling: scruté All we have to make things a bit more deep and meaning full. Hopefully it wasn't the other meaning, although... |
|
| |