Retrocausality

reply to post by MikeDeVries


It has to do with Precognition

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by MikeDeVries

 

It has to do with Precognition

...a gift, and a curse...

The question of 'involvement' vis-a-vis observation is a much discussed topic in theoretical circles...evolution, requires the 'unit' to deal with more and more conflicting information...that personally affects the individual 'unit', to question (and hopefully sublimate) its individuality to the whole...

A99

reply to post by Kashai


Duh, I send messages into the past all the time Srsly though, has anyone else been getting weird dreams that come true?

Originally posted by Kashai

People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. -- Albert Einstein, 1955

Retro-causality is inherent to Physics and in respect to Psychology. If anything causality as it is commonly concluded, seems more a function of development in relation to consciousness.

My thought is you are the second ATSer to cite that Einstein quote in your OP apparently without understanding the meaning. Einstein's theory does constrain causality which is usually represented by light cones in space-time diagrams. Within these light cones the sequence of events can vary depending on the reference frame of the observer, which is what Einstein's quote refers to. This is discussed at the following source:

Relativity Theory and Causality

Among the many interesting consequences of the Special Theory of Relativity (see the exercises) one is that nothing that carries energy and momentum can travel any faster than light does in the vacuum. This immediately sets a limit on causality and it clearly requires us to be very careful when we talk about simultaneous events.

The restriction on causality is set because the only way that a "cause" at location x = 0 and time t =0 can be responsible for an "effect" at location x = L and time t is that c t > L, where c is the speed of light in vacuum. So, two events that are separated in space far enough can have no causal connection. (Some people prefer to refer to this consequence as the breakdown of locality; i.e. two events that are far enough in space may be causally connected, but are non-local. But so long as we understand what is that we mean, the rest is terminology). Similarly, two events can be regarded as simultaneous, or not, depending on their space-time locations! In fact, different observer may view the "same two events" in a different order in time.

In a similar consideration, this theory now allows us to check causality (or rather the lack of it) by separating events in space such that the light from one cannot reach the other within the time period of their occurrences. This is in fact how Einstein's theory of relativity relates to quantum measurement.

So, please don't pretend Einstein's quote endorses retro causality, because it doesn't. It's an acknowledgement of simultaneity issues from different frames of reference.

Originally posted by charles1952
Would you please summarize and explain for those of us not trained in quantum entanglements and other aspects of modern physics? Thank you.

Above is my more complicated response. My simpler one word response is that it looks like "woo"

n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo".(See Russell's definition of woo woo)
Shirley believes that in a past life she was the Jolly Green Giant of Rainbowland. Shirley is very woo.

However this doesn't stop scientists from publishing papers on this topic, as discussed at this link:

Bem's Psi Research

This is an involved topic and that link is long, but in short, scientists are very skeptical of these claims and they have many reasons to be skeptical.

To Daryl Bem's credit, his paper states that his results should not be accepted by the scientific community until they have been successfully replicated. To my knowledge this has not occurred, though I haven't seen Bem's follow-up paper, which may not have been published yet (if he publishes a follow-up at all).

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by MikeDeVries

 

It has to do with Precognition

...a gift, and a curse...

The question of 'involvement' vis-a-vis observation is a much discussed topic in theoretical circles...evolution, requires the 'unit' to deal with more and more conflicting information...that personally affects the individual 'unit', to question (and hopefully sublimate) its individuality to the whole...

A99

The conflict being in relation to some standard, this being in respect to convincing oneself that there is a difference. That information is in conflict only relates to some standard, again just because the sum total of our knowledge suggesting something is random does not make is so in some arbitrary way.

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by MikeDeVries

 

It has to do with Precognition

...a gift, and a curse...

The question of 'involvement' vis-a-vis observation is a much discussed topic in theoretical circles...evolution, requires the 'unit' to deal with more and more conflicting information...that personally affects the individual 'unit', to question (and hopefully sublimate) its individuality to the whole...

A99

The conflict being in relation to some standard, this being in respect to convincing oneself that there is a difference. That information is in conflict only relates to some standard, again just because the sum total of our knowledge suggesting something is random does not make is so in some arbitrary way.

'Conflicting', as in, act - or do not act...on information...I'm sure this is an issue for you personally

The 'standard', (in the way I understand, you have framed it) becomes a democratised version...made up of individualised perceptions...understanding how the two fit together is where I say, there can be conflict...

I do not believe 'randomness' in the true sense of the word, exists...I believe it is a word used to mitigate 'paucity of consciousness'...as you describe...

A99

Here is a hypothetical analogy to our dilemma....

I am sure we can all take seriously the idea that Dragons do not exist and have never existed. The problem is when taking into consideration that birds and mammals, came into existence before amphibians and reptiles.

Please explain why amphibians or reptiles never developed the ability of flight? Fish which are a pecurser to amphibians and reptiles, effectively fly through water. One cannot mistake there ability of propulsion as anything else, so is it that there were no dragons? The error in science is in suggesting that reptiles are incapable of flight, despite the fact there is no real justification to suggest otherwise. Practically all indigenous cultures suggest that there were lizards capable of flight, though conservative science has insisted this is impossible. this without providing any evidence as to why such animals cannot fly.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


en.wikipedia.org...

I am speaking of sustained flight, there is no real reason there should not be a small, or one the size of an eagle, that is a lizard, capable of that, all things considered.

reply to post by Kashai

Sorry I don't understand the analogy of the dilemma. What dilemma, and what does this have to do with retrocausality?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The idea that conservative science ignores facts in its conclusions.

reply to post by Kashai

I don't understand the analogy, but in some sense dragons did exist. Some scientists went into the China outback, and asked the local man where the dragon bones were. The man took them to the spot where he found the dragon bones, and the scientists recognized them as dinosaur remains. And of course some of the dinosaurs flew. So what that man called a "dragon" was a misidentified remains of a dinosaur, which really did exist.

Ancient flying reptile found
www.sciencealert.com.au...

An international team led by Dr Wang Xiaolin from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, described the new pterosaur, Guidraco venator. Its name means 'Dragon Ghost Hunter' - 'Gui' means ghost in Chinese, 'Draco' is dragon in Latin and 'Venator' is Latin for hunter.

Even the scientists call it a dragon, so there's your scientific proof for existence of a "dragon".

Here's another example.

news.medill.northwestern.edu...

The skull of a woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) on display at the Field Museum’s Mythical Creatures exhibit through Sept. 1 was once kept in the town hall of Klagenfurt, Austria. It was said to be the remains of a dragon slain before the city was founded around AD 1250. Many cultures based their myths of dragons on wooly rhinoceroses or dinosaur bones.

So from my perspective, dragons most certainly did exist as dragon bones were found to prove it, but in modern times, we have renamed the dragons to "dinosaurs" and stripped them of their more mythical attributes like fire-breathing, but NOT the ability to fly, as the "dragon ghost hunter" aka "Guidraco venator" could definitely fly.

Ofcourse I am presenting that after the event that reuslted in the death of Dinosars, lizards and/or amphibians should have been capable of sustained flight.

With resepct to analogies that is apparent

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
Ofcourse I am presenting that after the event that reuslted in the death of Dinosars, lizards and/or amphibians should have been capable of sustained flight.

Look at the lizard-like claws of birds:

www.etsy.com...


Compare to lizard claws:
courses.washington.edu...


You don't think birds are a modern form of flying lizards/dinosaurs?

Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs.

www.britannica.com...

dinosaur=the common name given to a group of reptiles

We do have flying reptiles. They are called birds.

I think you are geting a little wierd on me...the ananlogy is apparent

Originally posted by Kashai
I think you are geting a little wierd on me...the ananlogy is apparent

Maybe you could explain it better then because I still don't understand your analogy. You said something about not having flying reptiles and I was just pointing out that in essence, there are, so I'm not sure why you think that's weird.

I was referring specifically to the Mythos related to dragons is recent history. That literally spans the planet, despite there was little if any real communication between the cultures involved.