Time, death and the universe

[denuseri]

One thing we have to remember is that, if this other universe is mingling with ours it would have physical, measurable effects on our universe. People have been seeing ghosts from the beginning of human history, yet no one has ever been able to actually measure one. Or even capture one! I went on a "ghost" hunt once. Middle of the night, a dark field, half a dozen of us looking for ghosts. Everyone else saw them, or claimed to. All I saw was patches of mist drifting over the field. Because the weather was cold, and the air was damp. Water vapor, not ghosts.

Actually seeing these things is a form of measurement.

If what's being seen is from some weird kind of quantum entanglement between so called potentially parallel universes (which as I understand the main related theory means it's not so much "parallel" as dimensions warped up inside the space in between our own on the Plank scale) ...then it makes sense that the phenomena isn't fully recordable via normal means.

Furthermore: If it's been happening through out human history...then one can conclude that:

A) It is just what people seem to think it is IE the supernatural etc (which also means our understanding of physics is still a lil off since it needs to include the study of such things in more than just a fringe way..

B) It's a naturally occurring phenomena of the physical world and we humans are categorically misinterpreting what we are seeing or hearing etc and we just haven't figured out a way to substantially "measure" events....(or the act of attempted measurement is changing the results just like it does in the famous split screen experiments).

C) It's a relatively uncommon yet natural occurring element of human experience to "see ghosts" or at least "think one has" on occasion.

D) Some combination of the above with or without adding other unknown factors or postulations.

[Thorne]

Actually seeing these things is a form of measurement.

Not exactly. It's the first step, certainly, but contrary to popular belief, seeing is not always believing. There are some pretty good optical illusions on You Tube that demonstrate that very well.

If what's being seen is from some weird kind of quantum entanglement between so called potentially parallel universes (which as I understand the main related theory means it's not so much "parallel" as dimensions warped up inside the space in between our own on the Plank scale) ...then it makes sense that the phenomena isn't fully recordable via normal means.

While this is, of course, a possibility, there would have to be a way for us to record such interactions, since they are physically impinging upon our universe. If what we think we are seeing is actually there, then it can be recorded. It might be that this entanglement is interacting directly with our brains, and we don't have the means to record such interactions, but then how do you separate them from hallucinations?

Furthermore: If it's been happening through out human history...then one can conclude that:

A) It is just what people seem to think it is IE the supernatural etc (which also means our understanding of physics is still a lil off since it needs to include the study of such things in more than just a fringe way..

The supernatural is, by definition, above nature, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. In which case, they do not impinge upon our universe and can be considered on a par with hallucinations, as mentioned above.

B) It's a naturally occurring phenomena of the physical world and we humans are categorically misinterpreting what we are seeing or hearing etc and we just haven't figured out a way to substantially "measure" events....(or the act of attempted measurement is changing the results just like it does in the famous split screen experiments).

Not an impossible situation, certainly, but the fact that people tend to see different things (unless "prompted" by the visions of another person) tends to put this kind of viewing back into the realm of hallucination. The brain sees what's familiar. Cultural differences in such viewings seem to confirm this.

C) It's a relatively uncommon yet natural occurring element of human experience to "see ghosts" or at least "think one has" on occasion.

This is the most likely explanation, as far as I've been able to determine. We have a natural tendency to see things that aren't really there. It's part of our survival mechanism. The best explanation for this I've heard is the story of two primitive humans on the plains. They see movement in the grass and one of them sees it as a lion and runs away. The other sees it as wind in the grass and stays. If it's only the wind, both are OK. If it's really a lion, the one who stayed is dead. We are descended from those who ran away.

[denuseri]

Not exactly. It's the first step, certainly, but contrary to popular belief, seeing is not always believing. There are some pretty good optical illusions on You Tube that demonstrate that very well.

I should have been more specific please forgive me: In quantum physics the act of something so seemingly passive as "seeing" something is akin to bumping it's photons which are all entangled down on the plank scale with the thing being seen and hence automatically count as a "measurement" that influences what is precieved. Much like as espoused from the numerous experimental results from things like the split screen test etc. Said test being a well known and proven means of determining how light photons act as a wave until "measured" and then at that moment become like particles.


While this is, of course, a possibility, there would have to be a way for us to record such interactions, since they are physically impinging upon our universe.

There are plenty of experiments which show that such things do in fact "not" need to be measured to behave in such a manner on the ultra-tiny scale and effect experiences measured on the macro scale. Sometimes the only thing about something that can be recorded is its speed, or its spin, or its charge but not at the same time be able to determine it's position. If the position is known then one cannot know its charge etc.

If what we think we are seeing is actually there, then it can be recorded. It might be that this entanglement is interacting directly with our brains, and we don't have the means to record such interactions, but then how do you separate them from hallucinations?

You don't and they are then possibly tantamount to "god" or "something" magic what have you...making you see what it wants as much as they could be holographic (which is another theory on the ultra tiny scale where strings vibrate and things are in more than one place at the same time, fuzzy like a dancing pixel board with particles dancing around and teleporting through space and time in a little storm and wave like as opposed to being like particles until an aspect of them is detected and then poof! they turn into a particle in a specific location or of a specific charge etc. Almost as if the hand of god is always at work making your precieved reality seemingly out of nothing.


The supernatural is, by definition, above nature, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. In which case, they do not impinge upon our universe and can be considered on a par with hallucinations, as mentioned above.

Only by such a strict definition can one avoid the ultimate philosophical question of what existence is and how does the universe work. In science one must be prepared to objectively follow where the information one discovers takes them without reservations. Which doesn't mean that which we for so long thought was "super" natural turns out to be just as much a part of ourselves as it is a part of all things ...ironically both seen and unseen. In which sense being super means more of something or better of something or simply that which was once thought of as being beyond our human understanding.


Not an impossible situation, certainly, but the fact that people tend to see different things (unless "prompted" by the visions of another person) tends to put this kind of viewing back into the realm of hallucination. The brain sees what's familiar. Cultural differences in such viewings seem to confirm this.

Hallucinations which could be induced by as of yet not understood stimuli as in the case of mass hallucinations? Where a group obviously sees something in common.


This is the most likely explanation, as far as I've been able to determine. We have a natural tendency to see things that aren't really there. It's part of our survival mechanism. The best explanation for this I've heard is the story of two primitive humans on the plains. They see movement in the grass and one of them sees it as a lion and runs away. The other sees it as wind in the grass and stays. If it's only the wind, both are OK. If it's really a lion, the one who stayed is dead. We are descended from those who ran away.

I think however it is a limited approach to such things to have and maintain preconceptions with some phenomena being prematurely discarded because they do not seem at first to be the most probable especially considering the quantum possibilities.

[Thorne]

In quantum physics the act of something so seemingly passive as "seeing" something is akin to bumping it's photons which are all entangled down on the plank scale with the thing being seen and hence automatically count as a "measurement" that influences what is precieved.

You're talking the uncertainty principle here, right? My knowledge of quantum physics is very sparse. But what you're saying applies to individual photons, certainly, but as a group all of their characteristics can be measured. By taking enough such measurements you can make predictions for virtually all photons.

You don't and they are then possibly tantamount to "god" or "something" magic what have you...making you see what it wants Almost as if the hand of god is always at work making your precieved reality seemingly out of nothing.

But there's the problem. If you allow yourself to accept hallucinations as coming from some non-physical realm, whether god or something else, then you would have to explain just how this non-physical realm interacts with ours. And such interactions, if they are real, should be able to be measured scientifically, which removes them from the supernatural. A far more likely explanation is that they are just hallucinations.

Only by such a strict definition can one avoid the ultimate philosophical question of what existence is and how does the universe work.

The question of "what existence is" is a philosophical question, for sure. I'm not equipped, either educationally or temperamentally, to discuss philosophy. I find it tedious and contradictory, with little or no evidence of having any real value, at least to me. However, "how does the universe work" is strictly a science question, one which mankind has been asking, and finding answers to, from the very beginning.

super means more of something or better of something or simply that which was once thought of as being beyond our human understanding.

Ultimately, I'm not sure we can honestly conclude that there is anything beyond human understanding. If we apply our intelligence, I think we can eventually learn how everything works. And it is quite possible that, someday, we will learn that some of the things we've ignored as being supernatural are, indeed, natural. But that does not mean that we should accept every supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. Doing that will only restrict our ability to find out what's really happening.

Hallucinations which could be induced by as of yet not understood stimuli as in the case of mass hallucinations? Where a group obviously sees something in common.

There have been numerous studies done which show that:
1) People will see patterns in random data, such as faces in clouds.
2) What people claim to see can be influenced by environment, culture and expectations.
3) People can be made to see a specific pattern when influenced by another person.
Most mass hallucinations are caused by some combination of these three, and other influences. Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are like this. People go there expecting to see it, so anything they see which is different and unexplainable automatically becomes Nessie. But when you go there and try to find her scientifically, there's nothing to see.

I think however it is a limited approach to such things to have and maintain preconceptions with some phenomena being prematurely discarded because they do not seem at first to be the most probable especially considering the quantum possibilities.

I'm not saying we should discard an idea just because it doesn't seem probable. But when you propose such an idea you have to have some way of showing that it is even possible. You can't throw something out there and say, "Now go and prove me wrong." You have to provide evidence for it first, otherwise it's purely speculation, and hardly worth the time of someone else to investigate.

When Alfred Wegener first proposed the idea that the continents drifted, spreading apart and colliding like bumper cars, he was laughed at, his idea ridiculed. After all, what could be more solid than the ground beneath your feet? But he had the evidence, the observations, the tests. Everything that was needed to convince the scientific establishment to look deeper. If he had simply come out with a statement that the continents moved, with no evidence or data, the ridicule would have been justly deserved.

When astronomers look out into the universe and detect distant galaxies, and stars, and planets, even, they have solid science to back up their conclusions. Their data are checked, double checked and triple checked. Their conclusions are torn down and rebuilt, to insure that the science is right. Only then are they able to say with any confidence that they are PROBABLY correct. All scientists know that future observations, future advances in measurements, may turn their theories upside down. But everything we know tells us that, as far as we can determine, THIS is how the universe works!