Quantum Physics Question

[Buddy]

Well, Dan Winter and his fans is not that interesting and does not really deserve a space here, or so I think. So I went back to the site mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I am reading there:

The physical can influence the mental but not determine it. The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical. Perform this experiment: think to yourself that you are going to raise your right arm, but then don't actually do so. Wait a few moments and then actually do it. The mere thinking of the thought isn't enough to cause your arm to be raised; you have to will it to happen. Watch your arm as you raise it and consider how miraculous it is that a physical object moves for no other reason that you have willed it to do so.

Convincing, isn't it?

But: can you spot logical twists in the argument above?

Here's my attempt:

The physical can influence the mental but not determine it.

Mutually exclusive thinking and considering that 'influencing' is not a kind of 'determining'

The physical can influence the mental but not determine it.

Yet he says: Perform this experiment: think to yourself (Translation: DO 'thinking', even though physical cannot determine mental)

The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical.

Doesn't seem to be connected to his point about 'willing' the arm to move and certainly doesn't prove it

The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical.

Yet, when you don't do what you think, mental is NOT determining physical

The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical.

Yet when you raise your arm, it is raised "for no other reason" than because "you have willed it to do so"

 

[WhiteBear]

Well, Dan Winter and his fans is not that interesting and does not really deserve a space here, or so I think. So I went back to the site mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I am reading there:

The physical can influence the mental but not determine it. The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical. Perform this experiment: think to yourself that you are going to raise your right arm, but then don't actually do so. Wait a few moments and then actually do it. The mere thinking of the thought isn't enough to cause your arm to be raised; you have to will it to happen. Watch your arm as you raise it and consider how miraculous it is that a physical object moves for no other reason that you have willed it to do so.

Convincing, isn't it?

But: can you spot logical twists in the argument above?

The mental, however, can certainly determine the physical.

Unless we're talking about telekinesis, I believe the mental can determine the physical only in that the thought needs to be translated down from the realm of mind into the physical through an action of some sort, performed by the body.

Perform this experiment: think to yourself that you are going to raise your right arm, but then don't actually do so. Wait a few moments and then actually do it.

The thought, "Raise my right arm" is countered by the opposing thought, "don't actually do so." with the net result of zero action.
This is different from the old mind trick where you tell someone, "Don't think of an American Flag" and the first thing that pops into their mind is a picture of an American Flag. The mind ignores negative goals and finds some way to translate it into a positive one. The body is not so fortunate. If it were, I would have a lot fewer addictions than I do.

The mere thinking of the thought isn't enough to cause your arm to be raised; you have to will it to happen.

The author here is assuming that "will" is something other than "thought". What makes the arm move, I think, is thought + intent, with intent being only another thought that modifies the first one, translating it into action.

Watch your arm as you raise it and consider how miraculous it is that a physical object moves for no other reason that you have willed it to do so.

Maybe I'm being a bit judgmental here, but I find this line hilarious...in a sad, self-indulgent sort of way. I think that it sort of feeds the wishful-thinking beast just a little.

 

[ark]

Now, reading all the analysis above it occurred to me how it is that the group thinking can be more penetrating than one person's thinking. What I thought was simply: "and what if I do not have my right hand?" I can think as much as I can about rising it, and it will not rise - simply because it is physically not there, or it is tied or numb.

But why did I ask this question? Mainly because when I see such a stretching of logic at one place, it tells me something about the author and his/her intentions. The author has a certain goal in mind and will stretch and twist the logic as much as needed to "prove" this idea to other people. This happens not only with esoteric or philosophically inclined writings. It happens also with exact sciences, even with mathematics. Even in mathematics once in a while errors in logic are being made, theorems are being "proven" and they propagate as "truths" for many many years - until someone decides to check every detail instead of just accepting as "truth" because "it has been published and no-one challenged it".

That was how my On Conformal Infinity and Compactifications of the Minkowski Space recent paper was born. I felt something must be wrong about what some mathematicians "have proven", but it took me many months first to spot the exact error and then to find out what the truth is and to write it all down.

Another example. Recently I became active on Physicsforums (as "arkajad"). People are asking questions there and they are often getting answers from those who know the subject) (or think thay know). A very useful function. And so yesterday someone asked a question about the use of group theory in physics and how in physics the mathematics is being twisted and is not always logically accurate. As I knew something about the subject, I replied. But before replying I checked what is actually known about the exact issue involved. So I have found a "Status report" paper:

The surjectivity question for the exponential function of real Lie groups:
A status report
Dragomir Z. Dokovic and Karl H. Hofmann

And what do we find there? Here are exact quotes (and remember - this is mathematics - the most exact of sciences):

From the Abstract: "Some so far unobserved errors in the literature are pointed out, results are described, and some conjectures are formulated."

And then: "Although Lai's note was published more than 15 years ago, it remained unnoticed so far that Lemma C is false."

So, here is another example where people were using a mathematical result that has been "proven", but both the statement was false and the proof was faulty.

And that is why it is so important always go back to the sources, check the proofs, compare. It is not enough to rely on "X said that", or "X,Y,Z are saying that and no one dares to question - so it must be true." Or "It sounds so convincing and it resonates with me."

Of course the task seems to be impossible for a single person. But for a group of people determined to find the truth? It may take time, but it will work. It is not enough to ask "the expert" or even "the experts" about their "opinion". The right question to the expert is: "did you checked it yourself in all the details?" What exactly did you do? Because quite often the experts use the same method: they glance through a given statement and they find that "it resonates with them".

 

[Peam]

Well if your hand is on a hot stove your arm will move all by itself.

"Itself" is YOUR self...and at some level your self is saying "Hand's on fire...move it!! This input, thought, action process happens VERY fast (hopefully) but it still only occurs if you're conscious. If for some reason you're unconscious and your hand falls onto a hot stove, it's gonna fry without your mind to reason out what's happening to your body part and correct the condition.

You're right Guardian. I was a bit sloppy there. What I was thinking was if you are conscious and your hand is on a hot stove you're going to soon move it even if you try to 'will' it to stay there.

That said, I still don't get the significance of someone pointing out that people can flap their arms?

Thanks Guardian, you often make me laugh with how you sometimes express stuff.

 

[ark]

Our dog, Cherie. I was playing with her outside a while ago. She thinks. The game is simple: she brings you the ball and waits until you throw it. Then she would catch it and bring it to you again, putting two feet from you. If you do not throw it again immediately, she will pick it and bring it right to your feet. But - if you are walking, she will put the ball on the ground some 20 feet in front of you. If you are walking fast - she will somehow calculate the appropriate (in her estimation) distance, usually quite reasonably.

Does she has a free will? Is she thinking? Or is it all just "instinct"? What is the difference between Cherie's thinking and human thinking. Moreover not all dogs think the same way and not all humans think the same way. The quality varies, sometimes dramatically.

 

[ark]

Now, what about this piece:

The First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can be neither created nor destroyed - is one of the most profound laws of existence. Few people understand its full significance. It means that no new energy can ever be created and no existing energy can ever disappear. Once energy exists it exists forever, and since energy cannot be created, all the energy that exists now must always have existed. No new energy will ever be arriving, and none will ever be departing. In other words, the energy of the universe is the same now as it was a trillion years ago, and the same as it will be a trillion years from now on, and the same as it will be at any other time we care to choose. Energy can only ever be transformed, never made or unmade.

At least, that's one interpretation. There are actually two ways to view the energy content of the universe according to the First Law. Either it is always ZERO i.e. there is always precisely enough "negative" energy (from gravitation) to exactly counterbalance "positive" energy (from particles), resulting in a total universal energy of zero...or the amount of energy in the universe is always INFINITE. Science has never been able to definitively prove which option is correct. Any other value of the universe's total energy is absurd since there would never be a sufficient reason for the energy content of the universe to be an arbitrary amount. (After all, why would one amount be any more likely than any other amount?)

You do not need to know anything about thermodynamics to analyze the above. Just see if you can detect fallacies in the reasoning there. How many?

 

[Mountain Crown]

Negative versus positive in this case would refer to balance of effect, not cancellation. It's like reasoning that the equal amount of negative and positive numbers determines there are no numbers at all. Maybe the number "one" would be a better description.

I may be off here, but doesn't transformation imply undone then remade? If so, that's contradicting the original premise.

Also, isn't quantification characteristic to finite sets?

 

[Peam]

At least, that's one interpretation. There are actually two ways to view the energy content of the universe according to the First Law.

Says who?

Either it is always ZERO i.e. there is always precisely enough "negative" energy (from gravitation) to exactly counterbalance "positive" energy (from particles), resulting in a total universal energy of zero...

Here he states gravitation is “negative” and particles are “positive” without any data to back it up.
Also, there could be balance in one part of the universe while inbalance in another part.

or the amount of energy in the universe is always INFINITE. Science has never been able to definitively prove which option is correct.

He tries to make people believe there are only two possible ways to view the energy content of the universe just because he says so. Both these options could be false.

Any other value of the universe's total energy is absurd since there would never be a sufficient reason for the energy content of the universe to be an arbitrary amount.

There could be a good reason which nobody has discovered yet.

(After all, why would one amount be any more likely than any other amount?)

There may be a reason which hasn't been discovered yet because of lack of data.

 

[Guardian]

What is the difference between Cherie's thinking and human thinking.

Cherie's honest.

 

[Guardian]

You're right Guardian. I was a bit sloppy there. What I was thinking was if you are conscious and your hand is on a hot stove you're going to soon move it even if you try to 'will' it to stay there.

Actually, some people can. I'm not one of them, but I've seen REALLY sick vids where people brand themselves and do all kinds of very painful things to their bodies. The closest I've come is giving myself stitches, and I used ice to numb it first, but there are people who would "enjoy" putting their hand on the stove

 

[Guardian]

Now, what about this piece:

The First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can be neither created nor destroyed

If it can't be created then where did the energy come from to begin with? This sounds like the old "God created everything" argument I used to get in trouble for. "In the beginning there was nothing, then God created everything blah blah blah. Fine...then who/what created God? Evidently s/he just popped out of nothing too?

This thread is an excellent example of why "science" has always annoyed me. A bunch of guys come up with a bunch of "laws" that make no sense whatsoever...then try to use them to explain life, the universe and everything.

It's like they think that if they use enough big words no one will notice they don't have a clue where energy comes from either.

 

[Peam]

The First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can be neither created nor destroyed - is one of the most profound laws of existence. Few people understand its full significance. It means that no new energy can ever be created and no existing energy can ever disappear.

The missing clause here is that it might be so in a closed system, but do we really know that the universe is closed? Can energy escape or enter from say another universe? Does consciousness fit into the equation somewhere?

 

[ark]

So far - so good. But there is more to spot. Or, at least, that is how I see it. What about zero and infinity?

 

[ana]

I have no idea of science :D, aren't they saying the same when talking of Zero and infinity?

 

[Mountain Crown]

It seems that if one concludes that neither Zero nor Infinity can be proven, then the original assumption also would be untenable.