Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   interesting stuff:Sheldrake's morphogenetic field?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 45 (296125)
03-17-2006 12:03 AM


Question: Does this have anything to do with Sheldrake's morphogenetic field?
Yes indeed. Sheldrake's morphogenetic field is pure-and-simply a species quantum potential, created amongst the members of a species. As experiences are met by the individual members, they steadily input infolded EM structures into the "inner" EM channels of that quantum potential. Since any infolded EM wave has its phase conjugate -- or time-reversed replica -- produced and infolded automatically, a sort of "negative feedback" corrective EM signal pattern for all inputs of the bad external EM stuff exists inside the quantum potential. One can show that, for detrimental changes to the species' members, time reversal provides infolded signals that represent an exact counter to the "overstress of the species," so to speak. These "corrective antidotes" for the overstressed species, however, are in the virtual state. But as more of the same detrimental changes are experienced over generations, the countering signal structures residing in the species quantum potential will be increased over the same period of time. Gradually the hidden EM structure -- which is like jillions of little "vacuum engines" -- is changing and internally structuring the Schroedinger potential for that species.
Then one day the internal corrective charge is sufficient to breach the quantum threshold. One could also say that the spacetime potential occupied by the species members is now sufficiently curved and structured to serve as a specific-signal-pattern energetic source for genetic change. Breaching this threshold causes specific new genetic changes to occur in the entire species in a single jump. At that point, the actual genetics of egg fertilization (conception) is altered, and shortly thereafter members of the species start being born with the new change, specifically designed to counter or partially counter the former detrimental aspects in the species overstress. In a dramatic example, that's how a reptilian species can "suddenly" develop light, air-filled bones; feathers; and wings, for example, and change from a reptile to a bird in one single jump. Sheldrake's morphogenetic field is a species quantum potential and the charged-up Whittaker structure is the inducing agent.
....
.... We already know that a potential is everywhere nonzero all the way out to infinity. So the spirit of the living system is -- in the virtual state -- everywhere in the universe -- and everywhen as well. It's all a giant hologram, not only in space, but in spacetime.
The entire universe is everywhere alive, with everything. Note that if you simply examine the "ghost forms" requirement of quantum mechanics, this conclusion is inescapable. All life is eternal. Nothing is ever lost.
A thought or thoughtform is just a specific, dynamic Whittaker structure in the hidden EM channels of the biopotential. Thoughts and thoughtforms are real. They are virtual spatially, but they occupy one "real" spacetime dimension, time. Physics and metaphysics share one common, nonobservable dimension: time. So long as physics continues to have to have time, which is nonobservable a priori, then it also must contain everything that is a structure or action in time. Skeptics of parapsychology, who believe that humans are robots and the mind is just a meat computer, just have little or no foundations knowledge. And if you get carried away by the "observable, objective science" bit, remember that the choice of fundamental physical units in physics is arbitrary. You can -- and it's actually been done -- build all of physics from time as the single fundamental unit. That means that you can build the whole observable, detectable physics model out of the totally unobservable and nondetectable. Quantum mechanics long ago destroyed materialism for all time, but it just hasn't percolated through the prevailing scientific dogma yet.
http://www.geocities.com/...ands/9654/bearden/interview.html
At first I wasn't so sure about this guy, and some of his thinking is terrifying and probably wrong, but he's onto something.
I put it here because I am growing tired of debating with materialists that rely on an outdated and unscientific definition of material, and so there isn't really much opportunity for debate as there is no agreement on terms of science.
Just interested in discussion....
This message has been edited by randman, 03-17-2006 12:10 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 1:24 AM randman has replied
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 03-17-2006 4:15 AM randman has not replied
 Message 8 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2006 11:05 AM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 2 of 45 (296128)
03-17-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
03-17-2006 12:03 AM


Silly nonsense
This seems to be pretty silly.
I looked at the web page you cited, and from which your quoted text was extracted. Just reading the explantion of vector and scalar already borders on the crackpot. My read is that the author is doing a snow job. He has given an exotic (and technically incorrect) account, in order to bamboozle the non-technical reader. Judging by the fact that this thread was started, we might guess that the snow job was somewhat successful
Scientists have done empirical research on parapsychological claims, and have found that they don't hold up. The idea of hidden EM channels is pretty implausible. If they were present, you would be able to measure the energy, even without knowing how to look for the information. Such channels would have been detected long ago. If the energy level was too low for detection, it would also be too low for useful communication.
My conclusion - you posted prematurely. You should have waited till April Fool's day, when at least there might be some sort of point in posting this nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 12:03 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 1:44 AM nwr has replied
 Message 6 by EZscience, posted 03-17-2006 7:35 AM nwr has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 45 (296129)
03-17-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
03-17-2006 1:24 AM


Re: Silly nonsense
We see non-seperability or action at a distance with quantum entanglement so I think your claim of hidden EM channels being looney is just nonsense. Plus, I think in one way you are misunderstanding what he is saying. He is not saying there are hidden Hertzian waves. He is saying there are non-Hertzian waves. So you need to at least understand what he, and incidentally Tesla claim.
Now, Bearden does say some stuff I cannot go along with, but I think his example of vector math not distinquishing between "2 elephanes" pushing against one another producing a motionless state and "2 gnats" is actually pretty interesting, assuming that the vaccuum is not inert, and it's not, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 1:24 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2006 5:12 AM randman has replied
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 1:53 PM randman has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 45 (296133)
03-17-2006 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
03-17-2006 12:03 AM


Just read his vector/scalar paragraph. Good stuff. Not seen anything this stupid in a long time. Do you want me to tear his stuff to shreds line by line or shall we just leave it that it is nonsense?
What's really funny is when he does state something correct, he claims that no-one knows it, except possibly Feynman. What an idiot.
What the present vector system of EM does, therefore, is throw out the ability to use the very strong EM force as an agent to curve local spacetime. The very mathematics itself, a priori, assumes and guarantees a locally flat spacetime.
Hmmm, so I guess I've never studied Einstein-Maxwell theory? Never taught the Reisnner-Nordstrom black hole? Strange...
In fact, it can be shown that the E-field and B-field do not exist as such in vacuum; only the potential for the E-field and the B-field exist in vacuum. Feynman pointed that out, but nearly all of his modern cohorts seem not to have recognized that fact.
Strange, I can pull out just about every grad text on my shelf which will say this. But then, they're probably a bit over his head. What's even funnier of course is that it isn't actually true if you allow non-trivial topology... as our friend Wheeler was so fond of pointing out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 12:03 AM randman has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 45 (296134)
03-17-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
03-17-2006 1:44 AM


Re: Silly nonsense
Care to explain how quantum entanglement can act as a channel for electromagnetic radiation/waves?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 1:44 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 1:18 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 6 of 45 (296145)
03-17-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
03-17-2006 1:24 AM


Quantum mysticism
Funny actually. I just read this story in the NY Times science section the other day entitled "Far Out, Man. But Is It Quantum Physics?" This crap seems to be just the kind of drivel they were talking about.
Physicists have been at war for the last century trying to explain how it is that the fog of quantum possibilities prescribed by mathematical theory can condense into one concrete actuality, what physicists call "collapsing the wavefunction." Half a century ago the physicist and Nobel Prize winner Eugene Wigner ventured that consciousness was the key to this mysterious process.
When it comes to physics, people seem to need to kid themselves. There is a presumption, Dr. Albert said, that if you look deeply enough you will find "some reaffirmation of your own centrality to the world, a reaffirmation of your ability to take control of your own destiny." We want to know that God loves us, that we are the pinnacle of evolution.
But one of the most valuable aspects of science, he said, is precisely the way it resists that temptation to find the answer we want. That is the test that quantum mysticism flunks, and on some level we all flunk.
Interestingly, religious interests always seem anxious to reward mysticism in science. Dr. John D Barrow, admittedly an excellent mathematician, but much less of an actual physicist, has just won the richest religious prize in the world, the $1.4 million Templeton Prize that he will receive in Buckingham Palace on May 3.
Barrow is co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle that is a thought-provoking consideration of all the seemingly improbable mathematical coincidences of the physical world and a book widely hailed (or criticized) by science philosophers as 'scientific mysticism' at its most mathematically elegant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 1:24 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Son Goku, posted 03-17-2006 10:55 AM EZscience has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 45 (296207)
03-17-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by EZscience
03-17-2006 7:35 AM


Re: Quantum mysticism
Barrow is co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle that is a thought-provoking consideration of all the seemingly improbable mathematical coincidences of the physical world and a book widely hailed (or criticized) by science philosophers as 'scientific mysticism' at its most mathematically elegant.
Barrow's pop-science books land somewhere between the Brian Greene-type and the Michio Kaku type. They posses the well meaning "fun" of Greene's books and are a bit full of Kaku's mysticism. Although ultimately they're damaging to the public view of physics.
randman writes:
We see non-seperability or action at a distance with quantum entanglement so I think your claim of hidden EM channels being looney is just nonsense.
It is ridiculous though.
In fact it makes so little sense I'd find it difficult to criticise.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-17-2006 10:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by EZscience, posted 03-17-2006 7:35 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 03-17-2006 11:36 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 8 of 45 (296212)
03-17-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
03-17-2006 12:03 AM


All life is eternal. Nothing is ever lost.
Hmmmmmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 12:03 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by EZscience, posted 03-17-2006 11:31 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 9 of 45 (296221)
03-17-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by riVeRraT
03-17-2006 11:05 AM


Nothing is ever lost...
Except the ability to distinguish actual science from mysticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2006 11:05 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2006 2:20 PM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 10 of 45 (296225)
03-17-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Son Goku
03-17-2006 10:55 AM


Re: Quantum mysticism
Son Goku writes:
Barrow's pop-science books land somewhere between the Brian Greene-type and the Michio Kaku type.
Interesting. I happen to have owned the An. Cosm. Principle since it came out, but I haven't read any of Barrow's more popular books. I know he has written quite a few. I assume they were written to be a little more accessible to lay people than ACP was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Son Goku, posted 03-17-2006 10:55 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 03-17-2006 12:41 PM EZscience has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 11 of 45 (296246)
03-17-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by EZscience
03-17-2006 11:36 AM


Re: Quantum mysticism
I happen to have owned the An. Cosm. Principle since it came out
Ditto. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but Tippler has always been a bit dubious with his mystical side. I think some it rubbed off on Barrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by EZscience, posted 03-17-2006 11:36 AM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-24-2006 1:02 PM cavediver has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 45 (296254)
03-17-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
03-17-2006 5:12 AM


Re: Silly nonsense
WK, I don't think anyone can really explain the mechanism of non-separability or quantum entanglement, in terms of how it happens. Maybe cavediver can explain the mechanism. From our vantage point, it appears like action at a distance, but one way people get around that observation is to say, in some manner, the particles are non-separable. The idea then that they somehow share energy is not farfetched, imo. So we have the energy existing in a shared state across distances. You tell me what that sounds like?
This message has been edited by randman, 03-17-2006 01:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2006 5:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 13 of 45 (296263)
03-17-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
03-17-2006 1:44 AM


Re: Silly nonsense
randman writes:
..., but I think his example of vector math not distinquishing between "2 elephanes" pushing against one another producing a motionless state and "2 gnats" is actually pretty interesting, ...
He misrepresents the mathematics and physics. This presumably puts you in a state of mind that you will distrust the traditional scientists, thus allowing him to continue to bamboozle you.
Why are you so gullible?
A question: if scientists just add all the vectors up, and treat the result as zero, how did they ever manage to invent the electric motor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 1:44 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 2:02 PM nwr has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 45 (296274)
03-17-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
03-17-2006 1:53 PM


Re: Silly nonsense
nwr, you do realize the guy that invented the electric motor, or the induction motor which relied on rotating electric field, agrees with Bearden, don't you? Not on everything, but Bearden is basically following Tesla's line, and Tesla invented or discovered alternating electric fields and developed the induction motor, which he eventually conceded his rights to his friend George Westinghouse to help him stay in business.
It may be Bearden is way off on some stuff, but I think he and Tesla are correct in identifying a hidden level of reality, and I think more modern physics is moving in that direction.
Over the past 100 years, lots of things Tesla said he discovered and demonstrated, such as over the horizon radar, which was scoffed at by mainstream thinkers like you, have been proven true.
This message has been edited by randman, 03-17-2006 02:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 1:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 2:14 PM randman has replied
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 03-17-2006 3:12 PM randman has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 45 (296281)
03-17-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
03-17-2006 2:02 PM


Tesla
Tesla was first-and-foremost a hands-on experimentalist. If he couldn't build it in his workshop, he didn't have much use for it.
Now, he did make some speculations that didn't pan out... but likely he would have laughed at your woo-woo notions too.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 2:02 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 2:20 PM ringo has replied
 Message 18 by randman, posted 03-17-2006 2:23 PM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024