Help me to understand this what this is saying.

I was reading this book i found on my computer called Freedom Of Choice and it linked me to this page.

Is chance or choice the essence of Nature?

nujournal.net...

I was interested in the section:

College experiment

On the outskirts of a large metropolis, a group of highly intelligent college students was given a project: to investigate the "strange" behaviour of electromagnetic (EM) waves in the frequency range around 1.9 GHz, without being told that this frequency range is used for the digital mobile phone network. To quantify their observations students have chosen two parameters: the frequency and the intensity of EM oscillations. Using receivers, scanners and spectrum analysers they soon concluded that the EM waves in the above frequency range behaved in an unpredictable random way. They found that at any particular frequency the intensity of EM oscillations was highly uncertain. They also noticed, that there was a high degree of certainty that at "some" frequency a particular intensity level actually occurred at any given time. The problem was that it was impossible to predict at "which" frequency it happened at any given moment. They also encountered serious problems with the accuracy of their measurements. For example they noticed that their frequency estimates appeared "blurred" because the EM waves appeared in "lumps" or "bursts" that were very brief. Inspired by "quantum mechanics", highly promoted in the 20-th century, students decided to adopt a similar approach. They defined their own "uncertainty principle", established bounds for their "uncertainty" and adopted a clever statistical approach, focusing on predicting the "probability" of observable events. After a few months of work, the students had become very proud of their "theory", because it could actually predict probabilities of many events in their frequency band. They had become quite convinced that their theory actually "described the Reality". Statistically speaking - it DID... Did you notice, however, that by adopting a statistical approach our students have completely MISSED millions of very real intelligent conversations? Isn’t it obvious that their conclusion has been determined and limited by their imagination? Our students just couldn’t imagine that what appeared to them as "random" was actually the consequence of a very intelligently encoded information transfer. As a result - they didn’t even try to decode anything. Let’s analyse in more detail why and how our students developed their belief in a "random process". The primary reason for their belief was that they couldn’t make any deterministic predictions about the EM waves they observed. Note that there was nothing "random" in the EM waves. In reality, millions of people were making billions of intelligent CHOICES in their individual conversations every hour. For the purpose of the information transfer, all these choices were being continuously encoded into EM waves several thousand times per second. Our students had failed to imagine and explore this possibility, so they concluded that they had observed a "random" process. Don’t you feel uneasy about the fact that the entire science on Earth in the 21-st century is built around the "uncertainty principle"? Aren’t we missing something truly important about the Universe? "Not appearances, but what is behind them is the most important".

Now I can not wrap my head around what this is saying to me. Can anyone please help me to understand? I have a feeling it's telling me something that I already know. I just want to make sure.

Thank you

What it tells me is that the cutting edge of today's science is still limited.

In this particular field of science the students are asked to observe a phenomena (the EM fields) and attempt to interpret the observations they had received. In a sense, to explain it or to come up with an explanation for it.

What the researchers failed to realise was that this phenomena was a direct result of an intelligent species communicating with each other. The author of this article is making the point that the researchers were limited in interpreting their data because they couldn't think outside the box.

If you cannot conceive of it, how could you possibly imagine it to be true?

a group of highly intelligent college students ...

So, we are to assume here this means they managed to graduate from high school and stay out of prison long enough to start classes at an accredited university ...

ok, so what ...

this is meaningless !

reply to post by azurecara


What is the phenomena exactly when viewing EM waves in this frequency? The simple fact that it fluctuated in this range that they didn't know belong to cell phones? I still don't quite get the point.

Sorry if I'm being difficult. I'm just missing a very important piece of this puzzle it feels.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by SeeingBlue]

reply to post by SeeingBlue


When people in the area used their cell phones to call someone then it caused the fluctuations.

I believe it is saying that we as humans are often limited to exploring only one aspect of the reality around us. Meaning that although the students created a theory that worked to describe the pattern of what was happening they failed to explore the reasons why/behind them happening at all. By making an assumption that it was random and natural as supposed to intelligent and created they completely ignored to explore that possibility.

Had they been explorers of the universe listening in to the 'sounds' of earth and applied their theory a they would have potentially missed the fact that there are intelligent life on this planet. And also missed an opportunity to break the code to listen in and understand what we were communicating.

Had the students decided to try to understand why and who instead of how often. Then they would have learnt something of value.

That's my understanding of the text. I hope that makes sense. Good luck.

My guess is that the students assumed that the frequencies would fall within an acceptable range. Their precision was probably not comparable to that of the signals that they observed.

For the record, mobile phone signals are encrypted, not encoded.

Encrypted data streams appear like a random string of nonsense, because the encryption is designed not to yield any noticeable patterns. Deriving a workable substitution cypher for an encrypted datastream is usually unfeasible. Even if the students had logged the signals, they couldn't do anything with it.

People have made this claim about SETI, that they don't consider the possibility of seemingly random radiation being encoded or even compressed.

reply to post by IAmD1


I understand now. Thank you. How do we make sure that we aren't making this mistake daily?

I believe that is the point of this article.

The ultimate point is that we very possibly, are misinterpreting the world around us.

If a group of college students can misinterpret data to the degree that they did in this experiment, then by that standard what are we as a human race also misinterpreting?

This article is illustrating one example of something that could be occuring daily, could have been occuring for years. When you get down to the bottom line, we are human beings. On the spectral range of things we know we could possibly be seeing, we are very limited with our vision.

How do we make sure we don't repeat this mistake? Just about impossible. But to attempt it?

First: Assume that you do not know anything for certain. Anything.
Second: Most truths are just general consenus. We all agree that grass is green - those of us who don't are "color blind".
Third: Ask yourself what the difference is between the possibility of an idea and the probability of an idea. (Do not close your mind).

Peace

reply to post by IAmD1


This is also what I was thinking.

We have to omit certain things to get a clearer view of other things. How do we know which part of the signal is important, or a broader question, how do we know it isn't ALL important?

I love perspective, and the fact that there are more than a few college kids "listening to the waves."

I think that the problem with any theory is that you have to start with an assumption.

All data inputted or “discovered” will be placed into some category or another. Any data that does not fit the paradigm is either rejected or placed in a variant category.

In the end we only succeed in creating a model of our own design.

Like a blind man examining an elephant we often walk away proud “knowing” that we have discovered a new species of snake.

Originally posted by azurecara
I believe that is the point of this article.

The ultimate point is that we very possibly, are misinterpreting the world around us.

If a group of college students can misinterpret data to the degree that they did in this experiment, then by that standard what are we as a human race also misinterpreting?

This article is illustrating one example of something that could be occuring daily, could have been occuring for years. When you get down to the bottom line, we are human beings. On the spectral range of things we know we could possibly be seeing, we are very limited with our vision.

How do we make sure we don't repeat this mistake? Just about impossible. But to attempt it?

First: Assume that you do not know anything for certain. Anything.
Second: Most truths are just general consenus. We all agree that grass is green - those of us who don't are "color blind".
Third: Ask yourself what the difference is between the possibility of an idea and the probability of an idea. (Do not close your mind).

Peace

I didn't quiet wrap around my head exactly what you were trying to say. What should we do to improve ourselves? Don't assume anything is what you see or know it to be? Can I have any example? lol