Bitcoin Forum

Some people claim that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena. For example, scientists like Robert Lanza and his Biocentrism Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe), and the (IMO less convincing) "new age guru" (pseudoscientist?) Deepak Chopra with his idea that quantum entanglement creates consciousness.

While these seemingly philosophical ideas make for very interesting reading, they seem to be speculations that are profoundly unscientific, and therefore shouldn't be described as scientific theories.

They tend to rely on misinterpretations of quantum phenomena, eg using the double-slit experiment and the "Observer Effect" to try and prove that conscious beings can influence quantum effects in a specific way (when in fact the collapse of the wave-function in the double-slit experiment is not dependent on the act of observing, it is due to the necessity of interacting photons with other particles so they can be measured, which subsequently change their state. Consciousness, or even life itself is not required to collapse the wave-function - just interaction with any other particles will do this just fine).

A popular theory by Chopra misinterprets quantum entanglement and claims that it can cause the future to affect the past, and can transmit information faster than light. No experiment yet conducted has shown that these phenomena are true, in fact they all seem to show the opposite.

I appreciate that quantum effects undoubtedly affect the mind, after all our brain is merely a collection of neural connections powered by electrons/molecules that all exhibit random quantum phenomena, which could likely change our perceptions/decisions in real life. I like to theorise that these phenomena give us true free will - the innate randomness of quantum effects means human behaviour could never be predicted to 100% accuracy.

But this is a different hypothesis to consciousness being a product of quantum phenomena, which as far as I'm concerned is pseudoscientific.

I'm not a quantum physicist, but I'd like to hear some other peoples thought on this matter - is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?

No, it is incredibly dumb stuff peddled to the ignorant.

Also in a sense, you could babble that since electro chemical and synapse interactions were ultimately based on quantum phenomena VOILA! 

But you use the phrase in a different sense, that of the heisenburg principle, cat in the box, etc.

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Really, it looks like more new age garbage to me....

".....The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !...."

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm.html

the only way to experience is to sit down and meditate. once your mind gets concentrated enough, you can feel the dissolution of matter (one of the states of subatomic particles). the buddha spoke of them, and termed them as "kalapas" during his time.

quantum physics does not prove any of this stuff, it only supports it.

Yeah I've read a bit about Penrose, I'm not sure about his idea that human thought and consciousness cannot be explained through known scientific effects, so he says it must be a result of unknown quantum effects. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim without some really good evidence (but I will read some more about his work, as I'm not very familiar with it.

Well that website is a big horrible mess.

Not only does it look like it was made in the mid 90s by a schoolkid who just found out about html color tags and MSpaint, but it just seems to be some guy ranting at quantum physicists because he doesn't believe them. From what I could read before I got a headache, he doesn't have many good arguments to prove them wrong. One section is dedicated to disproving Special Relativity, which has been shown to be accurate in real life situations multiple times (eg timing of GPS satellites).

I know what you mean, it's way out there and may turn out to be plain wrong. But Penrose is no slouch. He is one of the worlds top scientists. I am interested because there are so few theories to explain living things and this one at least has some explainable process. the basic idea is that all life is conscious at some level and that is what makes life different from non-life. Hameroff is a professor of anesthesiology and was initially interested in thought and consciousness. He points out that what you heard in school about thinking being an effect of neurons working together is know to be wrong. An amoeba can hunt, hide, move away from pain, etc. It is doing some thinking, but it is only one cell and has no neurons. Something else is happening and it could be a quantum effect in the cytoskeleton of living cells.

Whatever the real answer to life is it will be mindblowing. That is why I'm not writing this theory off yet. Even though some scientists are very skeptical of this work.

I don't know either. But I am a biologist and I also don't know what life really is?  ???

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

A scientific "theory" is testable, provable, and most importantly, disprovable.  Since none of these ideas meet these criteria, they are not scientific theories. 

"....Planck tried a mathematical trick.  He presumed that the light wasn't really a continuous wave as everyone assumed, but perhaps could exist with only specific amounts, or "quanta," of energy.  Planck didn't really believe this was true about light, in fact he later referred to this math gimmick as "an act of desperation."  But with this adjustment, the equations worked, accurately describing the box's radiation..."

source: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html

This is cool and all, but what's your point?

A lot of people explain things in a poor way. A lot of people understand things that are explained well in a poor way.

Suggesting that proof be confirmed by saying "prove it," doesn't necessarily mean that the proof exists or doesn't exist when the explanation fails to prove.

One simple example of this is the word "science." This word has taken on so many meanings among the various peoples, that without a detailed explanation of the meaning being used, it becomes very difficult to explain whether or not something is scientific.

In addition to this, many of us are deeply aware of several of the "meanings" of the word "science." Because of this, we sometimes accidentally go afoul of our own, stated definition when using it.

Proof was difficult when there were only a few scientists and a few scientific subjects. For example. You go to 5 different doctors with a problem. You explain the problem in exactly the same way to each of the doctors. They all examine you. And they all come up with differing diagnoses. Why? Because your symptoms can fit a thousand different maladies that have been discovered.

:)

Adding "quantum" to a book title increases sales ten fold.

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

"...If you are new to Mathematical Physics, you may also wonder what a relativist is.

A relativist is a disciple of the late Pastor Al Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of the
Church of Relativity. This sect is a branch of the religion of Mathematical Physics.

In a nutshell, Pastor Al was deluded into thinking that space is a physical object.
A schism in the Church later produced the two micro-world sects known as
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

I will refer to a member of any of these sects of Mathematical Physics as a

        relativist


because a person who believes in the poppycock of relativity usually believes in the
nonsense of Quantum Mechanics too. Many of them also believe in an even greater
idiocy known as String Theory.

So allow me to summarize who Pastor Al's followers are and what they believe in..."

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/


ha! ha! ha!!!    I love this site!!!

Submit to publisher.

I agree with your sentiments, but had to comment about the rather strong new-age taste of the Penrose article because of it's inability to form testable hypothesis, and in particular, the use of poorly defined terms to which effects were glibly attributed.   

It's certainly true that at many levels of inorganic and organic, sentient and non sentient systems we see what might be called "tendencies toward organization" which are pretty much unexplained.

This is a different question, though; it addresses the biological origin of consciousness.  I would comment that is secondary and of little importance.  We can model activity of a neuron or an amoeba.  Theoretically, given a large enough stack of paper punched cards (might exceed the atoms of the universe of course) we could model a conscious entity with punched cards.

So what would you have then, a conscious deck of cards? 

Just don't play poker with it and you'll be fine....

Good points. I can't really defend their work, I just posted it because it seems related to the title. I also have a bias. The intersection of Physics and biology is what I am most interested in. My Physics friends always want a "unified theory" that unites quantum and relativity. As I biologist I don't think you have anything until you can explain what life is. This was a rare attempt to explain how life works and so I'm a sucker for that stuff.

Whatever life is, it sure must be a harder problem than chemicals and electricity. By the 1950s most scientists thought we would be creating life from scratch by now. So far it seems life only happened once.

You guys are overthinking quantum mechanics into something complicated, which it is not.

Everything just is.  Labels do not change that truth that it just is.

Consciousness is all, quantum phenomena is constant.

They are one.  You are the creator, the source.

So then consciousness does not exist...

Tons of results from my err scientific image search...

I can confirm that googling retrieves relevant information.

the Big Bang Theory. “We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” - Terence McKenna.

The only valid definition I have found of the universe was offered by Buckminster Fuller, the Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

Once you come to realise that each of our existence, experience and interpretation has been, is and will always be unique, there can be no definitive definition of the universe or its meaning. This is the mystery of life and consciousness itself. While certain patterns are predictable and there there probability can be quantified by science. Science cannot be used to explain or refute that which cannot be measured, consciousness.

Magic is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others through art. With the skilful manipulation of the five senses and the combination of ritual the results are more profound and compelling. Science is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about these experiences, art is the creative means by which we convey meaning to the our experiences by evoking shared emotions in others by manipulating their five senses.

Imagine if our forefathers had thought like this.  We'd still be in the stone age.

These are not speculations, they actually comprise the best theory of consciousness available in science today.

Yes, you have to do a lot of reading; no surprise there:


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Deepak Chopra is mentioned...

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates the Orch OR theory.

Reply to Criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' - Orchestrated objective reduction is scientifically jusfiied.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Something can obviously exist without being a scientific theory.  I am holding a pen in my hand.  "pen" is not a scientific theory, and yet quite obviously the pen exists.  An example of what is a scientific theory would be if I attempted to explain something about the pen.  I could for example, hypothesize that the pen would have a certain displacement if a certain amount of force was applied to it for a certain amount of time, such that say, d= Vi * T + 1/2A * T^2.  This would be an example of a scientific hypothesis.  It is testable, and either correctly describes the displacement of the pen, or it does not displacement of the pen.  There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation, it is quite simply, either right or wrong.  If after conducting numerous tests to the best of our ability, and it passing every test we can come up with, it would then be called a "proven" hypothesis, aka a theory.  There is a bit more to it than that of course but I think that is a good beginning.

We would be in heaven.  When you see the fullness of the present, you gain control over manifesting your reality.

I hope to read through it a bit later.
In the mean time, I've got a couple of light-weight thoughts on the subject... ;)

It's easy for people who are just starting out on this topic to put their faith in science. Unless they ultimately re-do the experiments and interpret it for themselves then they're simply putting someone else's lessons on a pedestal. I'm not saying ignore everything you read, just be aware how pervasive the act of believing is. Beliefs crop up everywhere.

I've participated in a couple of discussions here regarding the role of science in studying consciousness. IIRC, I figured that there's something called a Demarcation Problem in this area, because although consciousness is a very interesting "something" that we might like to study, empirical science seems ill-equipped because it has the wrong category of tools to do it. In plain English, consciousness is a very personal, experiential, phenomenal "something", that I experience, manipulate, create, do, and make choices with. I also assume that other people have a conceptually similar consciousness of their own, even though its qualities might be entirely different and unimaginable to me.

When we focus on our a priori, 1st-person knowledge of consciousness, we can gain plenty of insights:
-we already know what our own sense of consciousness is like. We don't need other scientists to write their interpretations. In this case we are the scientist.
-we can sense a vast gap between cook-book methodology where we study behaviour, never really knowing if it's some philosophical zombie operating mechanically, versus the metaphysical idea of a telepathic connection between minds.


I've been curious about the idea of Leibniz's Monads lately. Antiquated idea, for sure, but to me it seems it was needlessly abandoned in that dark 19th-20th century era of Materialism and Positivism, and substance prohibition. AFAICT the idea of living atoms was never debunked. Instead, it seems science didn't find it very useful to incorporate metaphysical ideas into newer models. Now it seems we've come full circle: with quantum behaviour being so strange, it could be worth revisiting the idea that 'elements' also have elements of consciousness.

In my view, the essential question is whether the Universe as we understand it is "consciousness rich" or "consciousness poor".  In the one case, there would be a rich and diverse group of sentience, in the other it would be rare and possibly unique.

The far extension of the latter is that only humans are sentient, and life (and thus sentient life) is only C-N-O-H based.  I can think of no hypothesis that was testable which would prove that consciousness could only be CNOH based and many reasons why that could not be so.

The second layer of Penrose/Hammeroff's Orch OR theory, should you choose to understand it, is presented in these links:

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.html

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_mdg.html

See also here:
http://www.atmanprinciple.com/the-science-of-m-state-elements/

Unlikely such proof will ever exist.
You would need to have a complete understanding of the 'quantum' phenomenon. However, no theory can be complete and exist in and of itself without fitting perfectly into the bigger theory that explains everything.
The quest for the theory of everything, the holy grail of knowledge, is one that is bound to fail every time. The reason is simple, the observer/theorist can never incorporate himself/herself into the theory which means the theory can never be truly complete. This quest, while glorious, is akin to dangling a carrot ahead of a donkey to keep it moving forward.

Having said that the proof you seek could still exist sometime in the future, even without 'knowledge of everything'. The world humans have built clearly shows that it is possible to thrive on incomplete theories  :)  

All 'quantum weirdness' may be caused by interacting parallel worlds, physicist theorizes

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2014/11/141112131927-large.jpg

A Texas Tech University chemical physicist has developed a new theory of quantum mechanics that presumes not only that parallel worlds exist, but also that their mutual interaction is what gives rise to all quantum effects observed in nature.

The theory, first published by Professor Bill Poirier four years ago, has recently attracted attention from the foundational physics community, leading to an invited Commentary in the physics journal, Physical Review X.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112131927.htm

How would you describe Consciousness with an equation? The pen you are describing was born on the monitor of a CAD program, then mathematically fed to a machine tool, or a melting block of plastic. The pen was defined even before it was in your hand, even before it was created from a factory, even before the final CAD file was saved.

A black hole. We predicted it could exist. We can observe what it does. We are not sure what is inside. Consciousness is like that... kinda.

IMO when their is no hard evidence either way its important to keep an open mind, without falling prey to religious dogma.

Not so much a scientific perspective but more a philosophical and historical liturgy on the subject that is refreshing and thought provoking.

Graham Hancock, Exploring Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7PUssV9oNo
  

Consciousness is the best tool to apprehend reality.

I think you'll find more answers if you look at what some philosophers had to say about "the world". At least this approach seems helpful on my own journey. Some suggestions for research:

"5 minute hypothesis"
ask yourself:
What could the implications be for experiments that rely on collecting sequences of data and analysing them?
The world seems consistent and causal, but why should it be that way?
Could our actions in the present somehow seamlessly alter our memory of "the past" so that it fits our expectations?


The unresolved tension between causality and free will.
How can they co-exist? Surely, that would be a paradox?
Which one is the illusion:
-that life has some ability to interfere with the universe by exerting its will on it?
-the appearance that everything is locked to some causal cog?
Or maybe that's a false dichotomy, and there could be a bit of both?

Well I wouldn't.  Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want.  You have the hypothesis not me, so you tell me the equation and\or repeatable "test" which would prove or disprove your hypothesis.  That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, if you can't describe it specifically, unambiguously, and in a manner we can all independently test, then it isn't a scientific theory (being right or wrong is irrelevant). 

The pen isn't really relevant, it was simply a convenient example.  The kinematic equation I provided to you would apply to any object in any situation (this is not 100% but I think it is close enough for the purposes of this discussion).  If it only applied to that specific pen in that specific situation, it wouldn't be of much use to us.

Well correct.  We do not currently have any model that predicts what happens inside a black hole which is testable.  As such, it would be correct to say we do not have a scientific theory for the workings of the inside of a black hole.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming as far as consciousness goes. 




[/quote]

Your reality or mine?

 :)

[/quote]

As such, it would be correct to say we do not have a scientific theory for the workings of the inside of a black hole.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming as far as consciousness goes. 

I don't remember pretending knowing what consciousness is in this thread. I am saying we need to trust it exists to define what we observe through/withing it. We need to trust that consciousness is not filtering our measurements and observations. It could be that what we know and understand as The Existence of Everything is trapped withing some kind of an event horizon of a black hole we can never see or observe or measure.

Maybe our universe is trapped to an ultimate beyond imagination gigantic black hole. That could explain what Dark Energy is. What we observe as an acceleration of an expansion is in reality, Everything falling forever toward a black hole. If that is true we could calculate its size, etc. And yet we would STILL need to trust that our consciousness is not distorting what Everything is...

I feel like we are arguing in circles here.  The original poster asked " is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?"  and my response was no, and further more that none of the things mentioned even qualify as a scientific theory or hypothesis. 

You then declared that if that is true, "So then consciousness does not exist...".  This is of course patently false, and belies a complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method (which is what this thread was about, as far as it applies to one specific phenomenon) entails.  So I then attempted to explain in some further detail what a scientific theory is, and what it is not. 

You then one more time rephrased your initial declaration and asked me to define consciousness with a mathematical equation which of course I can't do.  I can't do it, because as I stated right in my very first post that is is not a scientific theory!
Again, I am trying to explain very simply how the scientific method works.  It is not the only method, many people subscribe to various forms of pseudoscience, and other things.  But the OP specifically asked from a scientific standpoint so that is what this topic is about.  Obviously though, it is difficult to discuss when you do not even know what it is.  For example:

This isn't true at all.  Science is fully capable of describing things that may or may not exist.  You even provided an example yourself, in black holes.  By now it is very likely that they exist, but for a long time no one really knew.  Science was quite capable of saying, "we do not know if these things exist, but if they do, this is how they will behave to an external observer".  It is very, very common for equations to have many possible solutions, and the ones that don't exist are simply ignored. 
We don't need to do anything of the sort.  Again, science is quite capable of measuring and dealing with this, we even have a name for it, the observer effect.  Just one example is an electron, it is physically impossible to observe an electron without effecting it.  Yet we are quite capable of developing fully functional models of how they behave.
No we don't.  And in fact, if any "theory" you come up with requires such assumptions without proof that they exist (thus making them not assumptions), then it is not going to be successful.

Not to derail the topic but the Scientific Method is just a modern-day bible. It's an adjunct to reason, a cookbook that lays down a history of scientific findings, lists best practices and acceptable ways to approach certain types of problems. It's not a substitute for reason or the curious inner child that wants to explore and experiment.

I loosely define consciousness as the 'ego' or the "first person experience" - the something that imagines all that stuff that we're aware of when we're awake or dreaming. Right off the bat it's difficult for the scientific method because it focuses on empiricism as the dominant way of doing things. We're supposed to observe and measure the outside world, not the inside world. And it's easy to get caught in a trap of making too many assumptions:
-that consciousness exists somewhere else as well.
-that it's likely to be tied to some physical location, such as clumps of neurons inside people's brains.
-that it belongs to the category of real things, such as matter or energy.
-observing other's behaviour is as good as experiencing it myself, because I assume that I'm fundamentally similar to everyone else. After all, the images that I see of other people seem similar to the images that I see when I look in the mirror.

Well, what if we're mistaken to assume those things?
In much the same way that in mathematics imaginary numbers have no location on a real plane (or we can think of a separate imaginary plane that is orthogonal or a different dimension), why should our imagination be located in a real location?
I'm reminded that information has no mass or energy either. As far as my computer is concerned, the words on the screen are just meaningless noise that it was forced to draw by a program. So where is the information located?

Not really.  The scientific method is evidence based.  In my experience the people who tend to have most trouble with the scientific method are adherents to things like astrology, numerology, mythology, various pseudosciences, etc.  In other words, things for which there is no repeatable evidence.  Obviously, if you have no evidence to support your claims you will take issue with a methodology that requires evidence.  As for the "inner child" you mentioned, well I mean, what it comes down to really is that the scientific method works.  We know this, as virtually all of our great discoveries were made following it.  I can't think of a single instance where a person abandoned the scientific method and just let their "curious inner child explore and experiment" and discovered anything of any use.

Ah, but see, this is exactly what I was just talking about.  You have already decided, before conducting any sort of investigation, just what all these things are and how they work (albeit perhaps not precisely).  No need to investigate really, if you have already decided what the conclusion will be regardless of the evidence discovered.

Well an adherent to the scientific method would not start with any of these assumptions.  You seem to want to dispute the scientific method as being effective, and then repeatedly list flaws that are found in pseudo scientific methods of study but NOT the scientific method, as your reasons for not liking it. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  No number exists on a real plane.  A number is a representation in the same way a word is.  The actual, "thing" the number represents does exist on a real plane, including "imaginary" numbers. 
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Information is simply the description of energy\mass in a given system.  This is a little bit like saying speed has no motion.  It is technically true of course, but not particularly useful. 

Both great points! Not sure if you have watched any of Jose Barrera's podcasts? he has done a very interesting series on :-

The Magical Foundations of Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxpMIGxNDQU&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxpMIGxNDQU&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f)
Alchemy, Mandalas, and the Gods  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovQII5yHUI&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovQII5yHUI&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f)
Jose Barrera "The Goddess Reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AEx_KaMrCs&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AEx_KaMrCs&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f)

All excellent perspectives, I'm not sure which one it is but he points out how the egyptians devoted their time to becoming immortal, and so they have, for as long as the human record remains their legacy will too ;) Besides the pyramids and artifacts like mummified pharaohs etc, the most powerful vessel is their hieroglyphs, which preserved their conscious apprehension and has transported it forward to today.

I also think the book/video by Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah is a brilliant look at how a meme crafted by warmongers has and still to this day grips humanity in a zombie trance of a war God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCMeQIB7Jg

The work of John Marco Allegro, http://www.johnallegro.org/ Like Jose Barrera, Allegro uses Philology to uncover starteling insights into human history and language. Besides decrypting the copper scroll, his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is an amazing thesis of how meme's apprehended by our primitive culture while high on psychoactive agents or hallucinogens have preserved this encoded in language and evolved alongside our culture all be it in somewhat a distorted form to this day dominates the human landscape.

Another great insight is Jan Irvin's  The Pharmacratic Inquisition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyQOeiY11RA&list=TLUBuY0jHlcHs

I then ask myself what is conciousness? That psychotropic compounds found in nature can imprint in us such profound perceptions that dominate our culture and hence our reality? Are we truly experiencing our reality or is it dictated by the entheogens found in our environment? Reality is truly stranger than fiction.

No, consciousness is not just a word.  It has been the subject of extensive study and definition.  This is within the domain of "cognitive psychology."

Not to be pedantic but it IS just a word.  The "thing" the word describes is what has been the subject of extensive study.  The word itself is just a word.  We could just as easily discard the word and choose something else to call it, and the underlying "thing" it describes would still exist, unchanged. 

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

:)

Quantum Cognition and Brain Microtubules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Mt9BoZ_M

That was a cool video. This scientist is trying to define consciousness with equations and the mechanism of the how, going beyond the no need to do the hard thinking as consciousness is nothing but a word.

I think we are on sound grounds to say that quantum effects are truly random.  If you speculate otherwise you need to do it at the level of the Uncertainty Principle and the math behind it, not on general philosophical grounds. 

Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5.  However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.

Just like "reality",
"consciousness" is a philosophical concept.
But reality itself is not a concept.
Reality is
(--and we won't give it a name)

Consider this:

Recent experimental evidence would suggest that the elusive zero point energy (ZPE) vacuum fluctuations can be detected using an electric field. (http://www.heliognosis.com/rd02.html#exp02)

The fact that people all over the place ask the question, what is it that makes quantum effects random, shows that there is cause and effect behind quantum? Why? Because people in their minds, souls and spirits act quantumly. Yet they ask the question.

:)

Well, I didn't mean disparage the aeons of cooperative development that went into creating today's scientific method from the ground up.

How can we investigate if we don't already have some idea of what we're looking for? 8)

Preliminary scientific aim: "find X" where X is consciousness.

But I've always had some rudimentary a priori knowledge that I'm an "experiential being".
So then I want to "learn more about X".

And so the process seems continuous.


Eventually we get to: "find other instances of X".
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation)

Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant)


Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.

There is a difference between saying "let's find X, and I bet it has abc properties" and "let's find x, which we know for a fact has abc properties".
The first is a demonstration of a rudimentary scientific hypothesis.  We expect it to have abc characteristics, but are willing to discard them if we discover we were mistaken.
The second is an example of psudeoscience.  We have decided it has abc characteristics, and if we discover it does not, we discard the contrary evidence and maintain that it does in fact have abc characteristics.  That is what an assumption is, assumed to be true.  This is why any fact based study tries to avoid them whenever possible.



That is a very poor example of what peer review is.  To continue with that analogy, you feel the elephant's toe and describe it as a certain way.  Everyone else then feels the exact same toe and either confirms your feeling, or says no you're nuts it feels like this.  The whole point is that everyone is testing the exact same thing, so that if you came to an erroneous conclusion we are much more likely to find it.

I addressed this topic from a logical point of view earlier in this thread. Now I'm gonna sidestep into the metaphysical realm  :D


You should maybe reconsider your last question/(wish?). If we take quantum physics to be a figment of consciousness (the grounds for this assumption [debatable] is that humans thought up the theory), then you're actually seeking to give a figment power over your very existence. The implications are far-reaching and should not be taken lightly. How does becoming a slave of your own creation sound?  ::)

Aristotelian ontology retarded us so much...

Consciousness is within, not without. There is nothing outside.

The United Nations, New York - September 11, 2008 - Consciousness Without Brain Activity: Near Death Experiences - Dr. Bruce Greyson



Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness

An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be

The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1

Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4

This is the exact reason that science has avoided the idea of consciousness. Scientists don't have any kind of a handle on it, yet.

The further we get into the quantum state of consciousness, the further we get away from a concrete, real-life understanding of it. But, we just may get some kind of a handle on it.

Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.

Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.

When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."

:)

The revolution is here, you can even see it in science. The world already has the www.quantumconsciousness.org/ website.

"The old enemy of religion and philosophy is science. But in fact, science will serve up the confirmation and science will be the one to bring this to the world.

Religion has tried to do it for 2000 years and has failed miserably. The world is no durned good, people are no durned good, they are greedy and selfish. The capitalist system has worn out, because it is based on the selfishness and greed of man. But science can take this to the world in 4 to 5 years. Once it is accepted and understood by scientists, the breakthroughs will be astronomical."

http://ormusforum.com/david-hudson.php#.VGPGXTTF8q4


http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.html

Religion hasn't exactly failed. Why not?

Religion has two purposes. One is to find a method to save people from death. The other is to offer people methods for right living. Bible religion fulfills both, although the salvation part is yet to be proven.

The only time science will start to prove its worth in the religion direction, is when it starts to become evident that scientific living is saving people from death - people living healthy lives to 200 and 300 years. So far, there is evidence that people from some scientifically backward lands live just as long or longer than people from scientific lands (Hunza, Vilcabamba).

As far as right living goes, science and engineering has provided much of the world with modern conveniences - hot running water, cook stoves, electronics communications. Yet, all of these, just like religions, are at times used to make life worse for the people than better. So, right living isn't necessarily centered in modern conveniences.

Will science do any better through quantum entanglement?

:)

Well, not really.   If you were to contract say, bubonic plague, you would find that modern medicine would cure you rather quickly.  If you were to use voodoo magic instead, you would find that your survival rate is about the same as it would be if you did nothing.  See the difference?

Let me put it in another way.  Say you contracted bubonic plague.  Would you rather be located in say, Mass General in Boston attended to by physicians using modern medicine gleaned from the scientific method, or some village in India where a "modern day witch-doctor" performed some traditional incantation?  Don't answer, it's rhetorical and we all know the answer. 

It is a well established fact that through various techniques of modern medicine all gleaned from the scientific method, people live substantially longer and healthier lives than at any point in history before (excepting of course, the people who do not have access to such medicine).  This is simply a fact and really I'm not sure how you can even debate it.


Naturally, we all have a choice.  You *could*, if you wanted to, forgo all modern technologies and ignore everything science has done for you.  You could do this if you chose to, and you would choose to do so if you honestly felt you would be better off.  And yet, you do not.  You sit there in your house, with heat, and electricity, and internet, writing on a computer, etc.  Why is that?  I would posit that despite all your protestations to the contrary, you rather like what science has done for you and enabled you to do.  Ironic, isn't it, that without modern science you would not be able to share your anti-science rant with all of us!

Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?

Yet, modern science finds it difficult to cure malaria, although they can do it. Yet drinking a simple bleach and water mixture cures malaria in one day.

http://mmsnews.is/

:)

EDIT: I'm betting this would cure bubonic as well.

Because it's a forum, and either the rules are not strict enough, or the moderators don't care to enforce them.

:)

I am not asking you to respond, I am asking you to think about it.

Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?

The ORMEs alter consciousness at a fundamental level.

Hey, the closest I ever came to getting high was about 8 bottles of beer one night. And I drove home without any trouble.

:)

For your consideration...

Bashar - Reality is in your consciousness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LLq96yzONo)

Some interesting data where many in science fear to tread

"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew


The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer

Published on Jun 13, 2014
Since 1981, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been researching morphic fields - his hypothesis about form-giving, immaterial fields which serve as a kind of blueprint for creation. Although he succeeded to find more and more evidence supporting his case, his hypothesis has been mainly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. In his lecture "The Science Delusion", Sheldrake points out several scientific dogmas which prevent science from overcoming its materialistic world view...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog

Circular argument: "methodical research is superior to alternatives because its results turned out to be superior".
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)

I've got a couple of problems with that:
-it deifies the Method and shuts down logical thinking (let us all bow down to the Great Book of Scientific Method! ;) )

-there's the placebo effect, which you seem to have failed to observe. Frustratingly, even the most bizarre rituals have had documented effects, rather than no effect. Hence, "placebo effects" where various unknown effects are lumped together and ignored.

Well it isn't circular reasoning at all.  Having superior results (which you don't dispute) is the proof of having a superior methodology.  What else are we measuring here but results?  One way of doing things works substantially better then the other.   If you didn't want results you wouldn't go to either a doctor OR a witch doctor you would just let yourself die of plague.  If you would prefer, I will concede the point and instead of labeling one way better than the other, I will simply state that the scientific method produces vastly superior results. 

It deifies nothing.  That is a label YOU supplied, I suspect because you simply don't like the method (though I hesitate to assume).  Nor does it shut down logical thinking (how would you even define such a thing even if it did?).  It is in fact derived from the same process.  Start with nothing, and simply observe and let the conclusion follow. 
I strongly suspect what is happening here is that you simply don't like it, but can't actually come up with a rational reason why and hence we've resorted to this.


Hence the thought experiment of which works better.  You can include any placebo effects you want and consider them a success.  It doesn't change the result.  700 years ago in Europe as I'm sure you are well aware, 1/3 of the population died of this disease despite trying all manner of religious and magical incantations, prayers, etc.  Today?  As long as you have access to a modern hospital it is easily cured, but you won't even get it in the first place because modern medicine did overnight what thousands of years of magic couldn't do and the disease has been virtually eradicated. 

Anyways, pleasure having this discussion with you, but I think we have both said pretty much all we can really say for our respective sides.  Cheers.

I think you guys are onto something... What do you think of this:

Imagining the Fifth Dimension (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN24Sv0qS1w)
Imagining the Sixth Dimension (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnhKE95AqM)
Placebos Becoming More Effective? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuv2eWJpG9o)

See what happens to any science professional that abandons standard science rhetoric? The scientific community cuts them off. Note Rupert Sheldrake in this TED Talk video that has been removed from TED Talks for being against modern science. He can't even afford shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

:)

This isn't completely accurate. Many things might be cured by the science of modern medicine. Yet, one of the things that isn't cured is greed.

People, by nature, want to stave off death as long as possible. They look to modern medicine. Yet it isn't modern medicine that has the longest living people in the world.

As an example, modern medicine can cure malaria, although it is difficult. MMS, for less than pennies on the dollar, cures malaria in one day. Yet modern medicine won't even test it, although it is curing all kinds of diseases around the world. http://mmsnews.is/

Could it be that placebo effect in the greedy helps them overcome the greed disease just long enough for them to figure out how to make more money?

:)

Banned from TED. The Streisand effect is in full force now...

I think you really need consciousness as another dimension.

1. Space being one dimension (with the aspects of h, w, and l)
2. Tme being a second dimensions (again with its aspects of past, present, and future)
3. And consciousness being the third dimension. (with its aspects of awareness or not awareness)

Remove anyone of these three things and no experiment to prove the others can take place.  

For all you really know and can prove, the whole universe turns into waves while you sleep and the moment you wake it reconstitutes to particles.  

Bingo! Except that space is the 3rd dimension, and the 4th dimension is not "time" but is rather a way of accounting for change in the 3rd. All dimensions can be thought of this way. Consciousness (or light) is thus the 5th dimension, which is orthogonal to spacetime.

Imagining the Fifth Dimension (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN24Sv0qS1w)

I said I wouldn't comment anymore but since you could potentially kill someone I will chime in one last time.  No, drinking bleach will NOT cure malaria.  It has been studied (though really, common sense should answer this question for you) and does not in any way cure malaria except in the cases where it kills the patient.  The ONLY study ever done that indicated it was a cure for malaria was does by the person selling the stuff (and you have the balls to mention greed lol).  This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier.  People like you start with the conclusion, and then any evidence that contradicts your conclusions are thrown out.  Obviously you won't get results that way (as evidenced by the complete failure of magic at curing disease) and this is why people like you hate the scientific method.  It isn't sufficient to simply declare something true, you have to be able to prove it, which is impossible when your entire premise is simply made up. 

Activated MMS is chlorine dioxide, a mild industrial bleach. It is often used in small quantities to disinfect water. This has been done for a hundred years or more. See what DuPont has to say at: http://www2.dupont.com/Chlorine_Dioxide_Solutions/en_US/index.html?src=gg_clo2_na_chlorine-dioxide-water-purification :


When you Google "chlorine dioxide" you will get all kinds of sites, most that have good things to say about it, and some that have bad things to say. As I said, MMS costs less than pennies on the dollar to buy when compared with modern medicine. Yet it does some things that modern medicine won't even touch. The interesting thing is that you can make it at home so inexpensively and easy, that any price for ingredients is virtually negligible.

Part of the point is that the guys who are promoting it aren't making any profit off it at all. They are working off donations. The charges that they have for seminars are to cover expenses.

I'm not going to go through lots of research stuff here. The little I have said is enough to get you off and researching if you want. There is one thing that I will mention, however. When you look up MMS in Wikipedia, the way it is explained is different than the way it is made and used. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wants to take the time to edit it. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to edit MMS in Wikipedia so that it looks bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement

:)

Hey! One of my earliest post here. Thank you for the reminder.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303271.0

I think that consciousness, when it is self-aware, is the only place in our universe where some semblance of pure randomness exists. When I say PURE randomness, I mean randomness. "Probability" and "random" as we generally use and understand them, don't really have anything to do with random. What they have to do with is our weakness, our inability to observe and record, except in a very, very small way, the multitudes of causes and effects going on in the world around us all the time.

:)

this is an amazing subject. will we ever be able to perceive and understand truth?
there are more things in heaven and earth, my friends, than are dreamt of in your philosophy ;)
i suggest you follow this chat:
http://oi57.tinypic.com/35n8zyq.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dAyQ6mO6Os)
and also Bohm Consciousness Seminar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9QUbR1nM8)

What? The Standard Model (of particle physics) says nothing about dimensions. That's where less-reductionist interpretations of QM come in, with superstring theories being by far the most advanced mathematical framework describing higher dimensions... but all under some silly assumptions about the nature of time.

A point is the "zero-th" dimension. It has nothing except existence... no size or anything else.

A straight line is the first dimension. It has an infinite number of points, but it could be a single point stretched out.

A plane is the second dimension. It is made up of any number of lines that are one point thick, but it could be a single point stretched out in two directions.

Space is the third dimension. It is any number (infinite) of planes sitting one on top of another. But it could be one point stretched out in 3 directions.

Time is the fourth dimension. It is variable occupancy of spacial objects (or points) in different areas or locations of space.

The fifth dimension has to do with the twisting of time so that any of the lower dimensions can occupy the same space at the same time.

That's as far as I go. The sixth dimension is beyond my simple thinking. Perhaps you can find a clear definition of it on the Net somewhere.

:)

EDIT: Let me add one other little piece of info. It is the 6th dimension and beyond that give substance to objects in space.

A brilliant mind shared this wisdom, ``Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller

He also goes on to described how all humans are born helpless naked, ignorant and without any instructions. Equipped merely with some built in cravings and emotions. We have developed language and been able to observe patterns that have given us insights into the workings of the universe and the realisation of our living home, the third planet from our sun star; in the Milky Way, a barred spiral galaxy 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter containing 100–400 billion stars. Containing at least as many planets……….

When you unpack this simple yet comprehensive statement the importance of the word “aggregate” becomes apparent. It’s significant because the universe is determined by what the majority “consciously apprehended and communicated”. This is also the basis of all humanities power struggle from the moment we learned to communicate. Simply put, he who can control the conscious apprehension of those around him is the master of his universe. The keys to power lie in the ability to control communication and must therefore be defended at all costs.

IMHO, Science is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about our experiences with the absence of emotion.

Art is the creative means by which we skilfully manipulate the five scenes of others to evoke shared emotions.

Magic is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others using art, with the combination of ritual to make the results are more profound and compelling. All organised religion is based on magic.

White Magic appeals to empathy and the interests of all.
Black Magic appeals to the selfish interests of a few at the expense of others.

As no two people can occupy the same time and space our individual perspectives are unique and therefore so too are our egos. Ego is the envelope of self-awareness that separates us from the conscious ether; empathy is our umbilical cord through which we can raise our awareness; bring us closer to the collective reality.  Once we accept this and the sovereign rights of others to have their own perspective of the universe we can find common meaning and peace. IMO there are only two rules to live by: -
1) The mutual right of all humans to hold a unique perspective of the universe, this is the fundamental mystery of life.
2) When contemplating any action or position, first ask ourselves if every other human did the same thing would the world we share be better off or worse for it.    

Homers man who escapes the cave of light and shadows, is killed upon his return for his inability to share the wonders of the world outside; he has no common language reference to communicate the experience or to influence the others aggregate apprehension. The fellow troglodytes’ lack of empathy for his right to hold a unique perspective of the universe sadly is not only the result of his death but also diminished quality of their own existence.

My comments are made in the context of the human perspective, that said all matter and life have a unique positions in time and space thus hold unique perspectives. It is most likely given the vast number of galaxies stars and planets that there are not just multiple fractal expressions of life permeating the universe, but consciences as well.

IMO there are only two fundamental metaphysical forces driving our Universe, Entropy that Devolves Mater and Consciousness that Evolves Life. If we then plot evolution on a linear scale I see the following: -

Nothing ->Energy -> mater -> atoms -> molecules -> amino acids -> proteins -> single cellular life -> multi cellular life -> individual consciousness -> collective consciousness

I have a hunch that the two extremes of the scale are one and the same i.e nothing and collective consciousness are the ether we are all just evolutionary expressions of this to some varying degree.

Interestingly time has the same duality; The best analogy I can think of is in maths no result can be 0 and infinity at the same time. But in reality the present is where the conscious window is eternally located. On the time line, the present = zero, the past = negative and the future = positive, both forming a circle stretching out to infinity. Zero is what is happening now but everything that has ever happened or will ever happen; always happens in the zero point, the present. So paradoxically then, the present like a singularity is  simultaneously zero and infinite at the same time.

In the same way I suspect the concepts of nothing and a singularity or collective consciousness co-exist and everything is merely unique expressions of this conscious ether in a space time dimension.

The illusion of time : past, present and future all exist together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

Another interesting insight is offered by Alan Steinfeld and Bruce Lipton that at a fundamental cellular level successful evolution is driven by a desire to explore symbiotic relationships this adds the element of empathy to the process that was not considered in the classical Darwinian Model.

A poignant excerpt from: Why Darwin is Wrong and Fractal Evolution by Alan Steinfeld

“By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will show that the patterns of evolution are not created by chance.  They are based upon a fractal configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a two-step process going from the One to the Many.  This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multi-cellular organism and into social organizations.  

First Lipton defines evolution as “the gaining of greater awareness.  At the most fundamental physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance coming off the membrane called a receptor site. Receptors like sense organs are interfaces between the outer and inner environments.  They survey the environment and feed information back to the rest of the cell.  It lets the organism know that if something is harmful- move away from it; or if something is beneficial -move towards it. There is only one site for each stimulus in the environment and they can only exist in a single layer.  The more receptor sites the greater the awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured.  But there is a limit to the amount of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open, the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die.”

http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-new-sciences/item/299-why-darwin-is-wrong-and-fractal-evolution-by-alan-steinfeld

Just like the 1-dimensional line made up of 0-dimensional points, the 2nd dimension can be thought of as a plane of 1-dimensional lines parallel to each other. If each point is thought of as separated by the planck length, then you have an atomic dimensional framework.

It's useful to think of each dimension as being "at right angles" (orthogonal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality)) to the dimension below...


... which then means that "time" is the dimension within which observation/perception/experience happens in any given dimension. The flatlanders in Flatland would thus experience "time" as the 3rd dimension.


If you continue the logic (the point-line-plane postulate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-line-plane_postulate)), then the 5th dimension is a plane of parallel timelines, i.e. the probability space. The idea is that you will experience one of an infinite number of parallel realities based on your free will choices.


Anything beyond the 5th is extremely theoretical and the only "clear" definition is in the form of ultra-abstract mathematical string theory equations. But a good way to imagine the idea of a 6th dimension is offered by Rob Bryanton in his Imagining the Sixth Dimension (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnhKE95AqM), in which he uses causality as the threshold that separates the 5th from the 6th, the 6th being the phase space for our universe. A phase space is a closed system in which all possible states of the system are represented. So all possible states of the universe from the big bang till the end of the universe exist in the 6th dimension, but only one causal path "undergoes the formality of actually occurring", as Terence McKenna would've put it.


Define "substance". :)



I'd change that to:

Existence (The One) -> Consciousness (All That Is) -> Energy (lower density of vibrational frequency) -> matter (highly crystallized density, vibration so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses).

Thanks Btcusury, I think Dr Rupert Sheldrake's thesis on morphic resonance is most refreshing, he correctly points out that science suffers from self created the dogmas such as the constants; specifically gravity and the speed of light. He has taken the trouble to verify that they are in fact not actually constant but vary. Since they have been around for as long as we can tell they may just be the most evolved and therefore most stable phenomena and could be evolving all be it at a more stable pace due to their age and prevalence.

10 Dogmas of Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ni4_6YJPM8

Sheldrake is a pioneer in every sense of the word. To my mind, the morphogenetic field, whose vibrational resonance provides form, is of a frequency slightly higher than that which can be detected by current scientific instruments; what some are calling "higher 3rd density". Quantum theory, which is fundamentally probabilistic, has nothing to say about what it is that selects probabilities, but due to the limitations of the instrumentation of empiricism, is stuck within artificial parameters carried over from Newtonian mechanics, and thus dogmatically rejects Sheldrake's ideas (despite being to some extent testable/falsifiable), which would help explain why certain events (probabilities) "undergo the formality of actually occurring".

Listen to this: Terence Mckenna heckled about science, maths, probability theory and Kurt Gödel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVM3Xsiu04Q)