"But after the momentary exaltation of lifting the rock I saw clearly that such acts were in no sense the goal of the spirit, but just a by-play of its true life, amusing, and sometimes useful, and often dangerous, but never themselves the goal."
That being said, I do still manage to have some fun here is Smearland... :) Especially when I can isolate myself from competing observers and get into the 'zone' where synchronicities are immediate and abundant. I like to call it 'surfing the waves of probability'. It's difficult to explain to someone the sheer joy that you can feel when you throw yourself into the ocean that is the multiverse, find a wave, get into the zone and ride it to a spectacular result? This is a metaphor, of course, but it is most appropriate.
It takes a certain amount of skill to find the universe where your favorite song plays back-to-back on three different radio stations, or to find a universe where something materializes in front of you that perfectly captures your thoughts or feelings. Or to find a universe where the item that you've been looking for, the one that wasn't there a second ago, is now right in front of you (and on sale).
These may seem like trivial examples, and certainly much more spectacular feats have been achieved, but things like this give you a strange sense of oneness with the Universe while allowing you to stretch your wings and soar. So this is what I do for fun - I surf the waves of probability. Some of my most prized possessions are the 1-in-incaluable-odds 'trophies' I've collected after an awesome ride. And some of the greatest opportunities I've had have come about because I rode a wave to that universe.
This was the good part of my vacation, and these are the things I cling to when it seems like I will never succeed in establishing this idea as a valid paradigm for scientific study. You tell me how I can do these things, and I'll let it go. :)
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Dueling Observers
"Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?"
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Friday, July 13, 2007
A Tale of Two Universes
(In light of yesterday's post, this seemed like an appropriate story for today.)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Still Skeptical of The Secret
"A new scientific revolution is new scientific knowledge that satisfies at least one of the following two criteria
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Outside the Gates of Science
Outside the Gates of Science, by Damien Broderick (2007).
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Psychic Grid
"It is a fearful thing to set out to determine truth for oneself."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)