http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080602/sc_livescience/keytoallopticalillusionsdiscovered

This theory effectively disproves any belief of collective conscience.

This theory states that human minds are designed to forsee the next 1/10 of a second. Since this theory addresses all optical illusions, it is very likely true or at least close to the truth.

If you have read this article and still believe in one of the theories of universal oneness, please answer the following question: If humans are merely extensions of the universe and we are all tied into the universe in some way, why would we have this "foresight" ability rather than actually seeing the future?

good article, thanks for posting it, but i dont see its connection to disproving the collective.

If we are part of the universe, why do we need this poorly functioning Forsight ability? Wouldn't we as parts of the universe have an inherent ability to predict the future?

No, not at all. Why would you think such a thing?

Quantum Mechanics has shown that even nature herself does not know what the future will bring.

but just because we are part of the universe (per say) does that mean we have to all be equal?


(i don't know if that made any sense, i'm on benedryll for a sinus headache. )

Citation please?

Could you rephrase the question?

if we are all a part of the universe, does that mean we have to all be equal, why can't as humans we have different abilities, just like we have different talents? Isn't the universe a make up of differences that seem to be in a equilibrum? So one person may have the ability to see father into the future then another?

Good question.

It's not really a matter of someone having more or less precognitive ability, as optical illusions work for everyone with eyes. If someone were truely precognitive, then optical illusions wouldn't work on them as they would precognitively know that they were not moving. I would like to point out that foresight is only 1/10th of a second long. Every human has this 1/10 second delay so it is reasonable to assume that all humans should have 1/10 second precognition. The fact that we demonstrably do not is very important. If our link to the universe were to allow foreknowledge, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that this precognitive ability would fill in this gap of 1/10 second that already exists? If we are truely "modes" or extensions of the universe, then why would we have imperfect foresight rather than 1/10 second precognition?

Could there be someone with actual precognitive abilities? I suppose so, but without proof I would consider anyone claiming to have such abilities to be frauds. I have read tarot cards and other future reading techniques, so I have first hand knowledge that those techniques are designed to fool the guilible.

I'm re-reading an old book I have about time. In fact that's the title of the book "About Time", by Paul Davies. In his book he suggests that there is much more to the idea of time than we think. In fact, we really don't even have a good definition for time. The only thing we really know about time is that it is a measurement of motion. Davies even suggests that time really has no existence of it's own outside of the concept of motion. Time is just our method of quantifying motion.

He then goes on to talk about the concept of Newtonian Time, and then Einstein's time of Relativity. He also suggest that there must necessarily be other concepts for time as well, and I'm in compete agreement with him.

One thing that I've been focusing on lately is trying to perceive the 'now'. Is that even really possible? Can we perceive a perfect and absolute 'now'. I've come to the conclusion that we can't. That such a perception would be meaningless. Our perception of a moment of 'now' is actually spread out over a temporal field. It has to be that way. And our minds, as well as our senses help to make this so by they lag times associated with sensing the physical world around us.

I actually noticed this quite profoundly when working on sensors for robots. People have often asked if we all perceive the world in the same way. For example, do we all experience the same notion when we see what we call 'blue'. Do I see 'blue' the same way you see "blue". Maybe, and maybe not. What you see as blue I may see as red. We could never because we would have both learned to call that perception "blue".

The guess is that we do most likely see colors in much the same way. This is because of the way the spectrum works and the ways the eyeballs work. In other words, it appears that we all have pretty much the same sensors. And light is consistent in it's spectrum. If we individually measure the frequencies of different color light we will all agree on the numbers. Whether we actually perceive the colors the same or not is another questions altogether. But our physical eyeballs appear to be the same kinds of sensors. So if there is a difference in our perceptions those differences would need to take place within the brain itself.

In any case, the point is that all sensors are not precisely identical. As I say I noticed this whilst working on robot sensors. I noticed it in two different ways. One way was by simply monitoring the output of the sensors with an oscilloscope. I could see that they all did not produce the same waveform output to the same sensory input. In fact, having a dual-trace scope I could actually monitor two sensors simultaneously and see that they were putting out different outputs to the same sensory input. In fact, part of my job was to match up sensors that produced very similar outputs for a given input. When you built a robot it makes it easier to program if both of it's "eyes" are seeing the same things.

In fact, that's another thing about human eyeballs. If you just look out of one eye at a time, back and forth the colors you see don't change. So your eyes are a matched pair of sensors. They both give the same outputs to your brain for the same given input.

So what does this have to do with time?

Well, the other thing I noticed when working with robot sensors is that they don't all have the same 'response time'. This was another quality that needed to be matched up in pairs for a good quality robot.

When you make a sound, for example. And ear (or microphone) doesn't just give a blip on the oscilloscope. It gives a whole range of harmonic oscillations. Moreover, it's almost impossible to make it "blip" because of the response time. If the input signal is a 'blip' then the output signal will be something that lasts much longer. This is because the sensor itself has been excited and takes a while to "clam down".

Well human biological sensors are no differnet. In fact, if you are in a room with a bright light source (or outside and look toward the sun), and you close your eyes that picture doesn't disappear immediately. It lingers on your retina. You're retina takes time to calm down. Same is true with your ears with sound, and all of your senses actually.

I play the guitar and whilst playing I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. What makes "music"?

As I sit here plucking arpeggios I have to ask myself why do they make sense? If we can only experience the 'now' then why does a song even make sense? Well of course, we can remember what has gone by. But the actual music that is entering into our ears is far more than just the single solitary notes that are being played at a specific instant in the now. In fact, if that's all we could experience then music wouldn't sound very good at all. We actually experience a more temporally spread-out phenomenon.

We are temporally special beings. Our very existence is spread out over time. In fact based on the equations of Albert Einstein's Relativity this is necessarily the case. On the smallest scales of time there are delays between the times that differnet sensory inputs reach our cognitive inputs. In order to handle all this information and make sense of it, it is absolutely imperative that we experience a 'smear' of time.

We might then be tempted to ask, where are we within that 'smear' of time? What constitutes a precise and perfect 'now'?

But the answer is that there is no such thing as a 'point' in time that precise. That's the answer to the riddle. We are simply thinking in terms of precision and perfections that simply don't exist. Our 'now' is spread out. And I would even say that there is no definite boundary as to how far it can be spread.

Ever since I have been thinking about this I have been trying both scenarios. I've been trying to narrow it down to a precise and definite pinpointed 'now' (which I have been completely unable to even come close to doing). And I have also been experimenting with how large I can comprehend a 'now' to be? I have found that I have had much better luck with that endeavor. In fact, I haven't yet determined what constitutes a boundary for the largeness of the 'now'. I'm thinking that any such boundary must necessarily be subjective. But then again there may be mathematical equations and physical reasons that can be used to determine the boundary of what constitutes a moment of 'now'.

I don't think anyone has ever really studied this idea of how small (or how large) a temporal span a human actually perceive simultaneously. Until that's been done I don't see how they can even speak about 'future and past' in the context of perception. It seems to me they are still assuming a 'point-like' existence in time. That's really a Newtonian ideal, not something that would be compatible with the concept of Relativistic spacetime actually. In fact, Einstein has show us that's it's totally meaningless to speak of time as a stand-alone concept. We can only speak in terms of a spacetime field. And according to Relativity that field is necessarily spread out not point-like. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle also confirms that this is the true nature of reality.

Just my thoughts for whatever they're worth.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

I would like to see wherein Quantum Mechanics that anyone has proven that the universe has a gender and that it can know anything.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies to a second party (the observer), thus it disproves any belief that humans are extentions of the universe. If humans were part of the universe (and not merely inhabitants), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be false. Since Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is true, then we must assume that humans are, in fact, inhabitants of the universe and not extensions of the universe. I hadn't thought of that previously, thanks for the heads up.

Why would it need to? It’s stating that nature cannot know. So if she can’t know, then why would she need to have the ability to know?

I only refer to nature as a ‘she’ because this is the commonly accepted tradition. (i.e. Mother Nature). Everyone I have ever met in my life has already referred to nature as a she. It’s just a convention and is not intended to be related to biological gender.



Well, you’d have to give a citation for this. Because I’ve been studying physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for the bulk of my adult life and I strongly disagree with the conclusions that you have stated here. These conclusions most certainly are not inherent in the definition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

These conclusions you’ve posted clearly came out of a book where someone is extrapolating their own line of reasoning that may or may not be correct. I personally feel that I would not agree with their line of reasoning.

The fact that the universe cannot know the future is inherent in the very definition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This is one of the things that it is directly stating.

In fact you have a whole lot of if-then statements that sound like nothing more than pure speculation to me along with unsupported assumptions. I’ve highlighted them below.




First off, you say, “Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies to a second party (the observer)”. That’s totally wrong right off the bat. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn’t refer to observers at all. That’s a gross misconception right there. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a set of equations that relate Energy and Time. Momentum and Position. And all the other pairs of conserved quantities. There is nothing in any of Heisenberg’s equations that even remotely addresses or suggests the concept of “an observer”.

You say, “I hadn't thought of that previously, thanks for the heads up”. You can’t have humans being inhabitants of the universe. That Newtonian thinking. You can believe that our “souls” our somehow external to this universe if you like because that’s not a scientific concept. But our physical human bodies are indeed made of the fabric of the universe. That’s a given in modern science.

The very notion that human beings are inhabitants of a completely separate aquarium-like universe is definitely incompatible with modern science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics firmly have our bodies entirely made out of the stuff of the universe completely, in every way, with no genunine permissible boundaries. The idea that we are separate bodies that have been placed in an aquarium-like universe is totally incompatible with modern science.

SpiderCMB said:


Wikipedia


If momentum or position is measured, it must be an observer doing the measurement. The principle only makes sense if the reader understands that an observer is being discussed. SOMEONE HAS TO BE DOING THE MEASURING! You just love to split hairs and argue, which is one reason I had stopped discussing with you...I now see that my previous position was right.

Abracadabra said:


Exactly right and my point. NATURE CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING, BECAUSE NATURE IS NOT SENTIENT.



The fact that all matter is made of energy has no relavance. Is everything one? That's a matter of philosophy, not science. There are obvious boundries in nature, it's where the molecular bonds end. The ground isn't part of my body, I can easily move away from the ground I'm standing on. My feet are a part of my body, they are connected by bones and tissues, which are held together by molecular bonds. You won't find any scientists arguing that the universe is one contiguous whole. That's philosophy. Ugh. I'm going to go back to not talking to you, which I'm sure you will appreciate as much as I do.

No it doesn't.

Actually the Wikipedia definition is technically incorrect, as are many books written on the topic. People often talk about the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as being a statement about measurements . This is actually a quite popular misconception. So popular as a matter of fact that this kind of wording has actually found its way into some actual textbooks!

Actually the discussions about measuring things is a result of the fact that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true. What the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle actually states mathematically is that particles cannot have a definite position and momentum simultaneously. It really doesn't matter whether anyone is trying to measure them or not.

It's totally independent of any observers. In fact, in the scientific sense the terms measurement and observation to not even imply the need for a conscious observer. Any interaction of anything in the universe is considered to be a measurement or observation whether any conscious mind is there to witness the event or not. And this is where the public misconception that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has something to do with conscious observers and measurements comes from.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually just saying that the things we call particles cannot have simultaneous conserved qualities of any kind (whether measured or not). That can be momentum and position (related conserved quantities) or energy and time (also related conserved quantities). And there are others. See the work of Emmy Nother the mathematician that discovered the relationships between conserved quantities.

So the layman definitions are wrong. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says nothing about any observers or measuring anything. These concepts are merely an observation of what follows from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If the particles don't actually have a definite simultaneous momentum and position then it's certainly no observers are certainly going to be able to measure these things.

So while the conclusion is true that's not the definition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually saying that this is what the world is like whether it's measured and observed or not. This behavior is not dependent upon measurements or observations. That's merely how we discovered them.



I never said it was. When physics speak about "nature" they are talking about the laws of physics. When I say that nature can or cannot "know" something I'm talking about what the laws of physics demand. And what the laws of physics demand is that the future cannot be known on the quantum level. And thus they say, "Even nature does not know the future".

In other words, the very nature of the universe is such that the future has not yet been determined. That's what they mean when they say that even nature doesn't know the future. They don't mean to imply that nature has a consciousness. They simply mean that this is what the laws of physics demands. That even if nature could have a consciousness she couldn't know what's going to happen next because her very nature forbids that knowledge from even existing much less being known.



According to Quantum Mechanics you can't say where that occurs. So modern science denies these artificial boundaries that we imagine to exist.

It's scientifically incorrect to say that there are obvious boundaries in nature. That's not compatible with the either the modern science Quantum Mechanics, or even with the spacetime of General Relativity.

You're still thinking very much in terms of a Newtonian Universe. That's water over the dam.



In all honestly Spider I'll take it or leave it. I'm just reporting what I believe to be the modern view of science. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a personal argument from my point of view. I didn't invent modern science. I've merely studied it. Anyone is more than welcome to jump in and contest anything I've posted.

...merely?

First, that article was as shallow as a puddle on a piece of tin and was speaking about optical illusion etc. It had no connection to quantum theory etc.

There are those who claim that we can "see" into the future and indeed have done that. It was called the The Montauk Project ~and the Philadelphia Experiment. For more information:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/montauk.html

When I lived in Las Vegas I picked up a book about it called "Thin Air." I must say, I was convinced there was something going on there. This is not just science fiction.

JB

So lets assume that the future cannot be "known" and go from there.

If the future cannot be "known" then what is going on with the Montauk project? What are they seeing?

Paths to probabilities perhaps. Multiple dimensions in the implicate order contain all probabilities. These are things that might or could happen if the observer places attention upon that path or probability.

Example: You are in a holodeck program which is a movie or story with a beginning, middle and an end. The story allows characters with minds and wills of their own whose actions and choices will determine the outcome of the story.

The story has multiple possible outcomes. No one in the game/holodeck knows the true outcome because no one in the game can venture to guess what the other players might do that will effect the game.

Today you can play video games that have multiple outcomes, and movies that have two or three different endings. So why not our holodeck?

There are many different possible probabilities and we determine the future by our choices.

JB

That's very interesting Jeannie, and as ironic as this may sound there are ways to know the future inspire of the fact that it's 'scientifically' impossible.

Science is concerned with physics. All science is saying is that the physical world cannot be predetermined. Physically speaking (i.e. Using only the laws of physics)

However, I can blow that away very easily. On Saturday at the beach, I can predict that on Monday morning I'll be sitting at my desk at work. That's a prediction of the future!

Well, if come Monday morning I find myself sitting at my desk at work who can say that I haven't foretold the future? Of course, we all know that a myriad of other things could have happened. I could have drowned on Saturday at the beach for example.

So it's not a really great method of predicting the future, and it only works well if I'm actually expecting something to happen.

However we can take this a bit further. Suppose that a man is planning to rape a kill a little girl. He is thinking about doing this and has a vision in his mind of doing it precisely the way he is planning on doing it.

So a psychic picks up on this mans thoughts. She sees what he is envisioning in his mind. She sees the future that he is planning. And so she predicts it based on his vision.

She states the prediction before it happens, and then it actually happens. In this way it appears that she actually saw into the future. But in reality she actually saw someone else's vision of what the were planning to do in the future.

If the Law of Attraction is true. This may actually happen in a lot of cases. People who have bad accidents may actually be dreaming about them or subconsciously thinking about them prior to them happening. This is how they attracted them in the first place. The psychic sees the current vision of the accident and thwarts it. How could the psychic see into the future? She didn't! What she actually saw was someone's vision attracting a future event.

I just now thought of this.

What appears to be vision into the future can actually be visions into the "now" of other people's visions of what they are about to attract or actually do.

Whadda think Jeannie?

ok, new question. 1/10 delay is due to an optical response which is due to a biological mechanism. The eyes, nerves and brain are what are involved with this action. There are parts of the brain that we still do not know how they function or understand exactly what the reactions are for. What if foresight or precognition of the future doesn't involve the eyes at all. When you close your eyes you can see an image without having to see it with your eyes.

In dreams we see images and movements and scenes, that we haven't ever experienced first hand before. Could foresight come from something not linked directly to us? From God or from some kind of spiritual entitiy or entities?



(I read tarot too! and have freaked out maybe ppl on their readings! But tarot is a tool best used to guide one in the future not necessarily as a future telling device.)