philebus
Could you reference the experiments you are talking about please?
Quantum Theory and Tarot Inquiry...
Umbrae
philebus said:
Nope, as I said earlier, it's time to do some homework (or at least read the thread completely) Entanglement is the condition wherein causal information exceeds the speed of light.
As a theory it is proven.
It has also been demonstrated with reproducible and quantifiable experiments.
Head off to your library, and do some basic research. But here’s the key – one can begin research with a bias (to prove me absolutely wrong), and you’ll find that information. However if you do your research with a bias that I may just have something here – and you’ll scare the bejeaszus outta yourself. You’ll find that I’m not making any of this up. It’s factual.
BTW: in an entangled stated, the causation is not reverse – that’s a trick of perception since time is not linear, nor is it separate from space.
Reverse causation would exist only if Einstein’s relativity was not correct. Your statement essentially is against Einstein, not against anything stated here.
Skysteel
Umbrae said:
"Observations on entangled states naively appear to conflict with the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of no communication theorem.
"Although no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is required."
- 'Quantum entanglement', Wikipedia
Umbrae
Wikipedia is cute fast and oh-so-often just plain wrong.
Well…let’s see…how about some hard factual science.
http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement.html
And no – I shall do no further research for you folks without tuition.
Sitting and saying “Your wrong” is not a discussion. It serves nobody. It does not help us, educate us, or illuminate new paradigms.
So far, others have insulted my education and my intentions, they’ve argued against Einstein, Schrödinger, Feynman, and Heisenberg….what more can I do?
Well…let’s see…how about some hard factual science.
http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement.html
And no – I shall do no further research for you folks without tuition.
Sitting and saying “Your wrong” is not a discussion. It serves nobody. It does not help us, educate us, or illuminate new paradigms.
So far, others have insulted my education and my intentions, they’ve argued against Einstein, Schrödinger, Feynman, and Heisenberg….what more can I do?
The crowned one
Quantum entanglement between two particles just means that if you measure the behavior of one particle that will instantly determine the behavior of the other regardless of them being physically far apart. What is usually done is photons are put into a particular state by the sender and then observed by the recipient, no information is passed, it is a key, the key itself is the information based on the photons state. In this case the "key" was a picosecond 355 nm Nd:vanadate laser with a repetition rate of 249 MHz to produce two photons at 710 nm in a BBO crystal (a light 
) It has the potential for communication is all that is being said by physicists right now.
It is mind boggling.
) It has the potential for communication is all that is being said by physicists right now.It is mind boggling.
The crowned one
Well, back to the reality of the Newtonian world for me I have a mortgage to pay and I better get onto it! Fun stuff going on here.
Anyone wanting to get a good handle in a entertaining and viscerally easy to grasp read I recommend "The elegant universe".
Anyone wanting to get a good handle in a entertaining and viscerally easy to grasp read I recommend "The elegant universe".
philebus
I am beginning to doubt my clarity.
"Your statement essentially is against Einstein, not against anything stated here."
Nope. I've not argued against Einstein.
"BTW: in an entangled stated, the causation is not reverse – that’s a trick of perception since time is not linear, nor is it separate from space."
Well....I thought much of my point was that reverse causation does not happen - that is, surely, what is important to this discussion, within the context of tarot reading.
"As a theory it is proven."
I don't think that anyone contests the phenomenon of entanglement. What is contentious is the question of it's involving information travelling faster than light. This particular point seems a little irrelevant to this discussion, as we accept that reverse causation does not happen (which is why I wondered why you introduced it to the debate). However, the contention is, as I stated, that information does not travel but rather that entanglement involves the same event being witnessed from two locations.
If you accept that reverse causation does not happen with entanglement, then what is your point?
"Your statement essentially is against Einstein, not against anything stated here."
Nope. I've not argued against Einstein.
"BTW: in an entangled stated, the causation is not reverse – that’s a trick of perception since time is not linear, nor is it separate from space."
Well....I thought much of my point was that reverse causation does not happen - that is, surely, what is important to this discussion, within the context of tarot reading.
"As a theory it is proven."
I don't think that anyone contests the phenomenon of entanglement. What is contentious is the question of it's involving information travelling faster than light. This particular point seems a little irrelevant to this discussion, as we accept that reverse causation does not happen (which is why I wondered why you introduced it to the debate). However, the contention is, as I stated, that information does not travel but rather that entanglement involves the same event being witnessed from two locations.
If you accept that reverse causation does not happen with entanglement, then what is your point?
frelkins
philebus said:
philebus, Umbrae is saying is that there isn't any past or future in the conventional sense, that our feeling of time is a sensory illusion. He appears to be arguing for so-called imaginary time a la Hawking (http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html). That's all. Nothing more grand. It's important to note that even Hawking's imaginary time accepts that we are on a one-way ticket and there's no going back.
Entangled particles appear to do whatever "spooky action" they are observed to do at the "same time" despite the large distance that "should" prevent them from having any effect on each other or allow them to act simultaneously. Supposedly.
While experiments have been done -- I grant Umbrae that -- we really can't say there's any scientific consensus on what it means. Since in science it takes a certain amount of critical consensus before something is said to be "true," and that hasn't yet happened for entanglement, we still can't yet say entaglement is "true." It remains an interesting and curious apparent phemonenon.
Now onto tarot. I think Umbrae would like to say that since entanglement seems "real," people and other large collections of particles could then accidentally or willfully entangle themselves or be entangled, so that Tarot cards could be used as the observational and "measuring" mechanism for events happening elsewhere and at "other times."
This would allow Tarot to reflect what "will happen" (not that there's any real future) or express what "is thought elsewhere" in the same way that other measuring devices enhance our senses to discern natural phenomena.
My only issue with Umbrae here is that we don't know the real meaning of entaglement yet, and that we don't know how things become entangled (or if they do!) in nature. Entanglement might be artificial, like some elements -- created only in a laboratory with fancy equipment and existing only for the merest moments, never observed in the wild.
Further, I doubt that entanglement can be willfully created. We just don't know.
Yet.Umbrae
All along, I’ve been working with the results writings of Eddington, Pauli, Plank, de Broglie, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Feynman, and DeWitt. I’ve never stated opinion or fallacious statements.
These eminent physicists themselves believe that this field pushes the boundaries between science and mysticism.
As Eddington said, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.”
I didn’t say that space and time as we know it do not exist, they do.
I didn’t say that time travel is possible, they have.
Some argue for a one dimensional time model, which has been shown by Einstein to be a trick of perception whereas the four dimensional model is proven by relativity and the same person states “I’m not arguing Einstein”….
This could have been a wonderful and inspiring discussion, perhaps we could have gone into some really cool stuff. Perhaps we could have learned something, or been inspired… Except for a few.
Do your own homework. As I said right of the get-go. This is real science. But you have to do your homework.
As I said – that photons can affect other photons that to us appear backwards in time – this has already been proved. Now please do the homework.
Entanglement is not the same event viewed from two separate locations.
Entanglement is where given two or more objects that are separated by space/time, influences upon one object create influences upon the other.
Some sources will state that faster than light information transferal is not possible by entanglement; however NASA and JPL are now finding this to be not true.
Entanglement states that indeed things can and do move faster than light! Once again, this is not theoretical – this is real. It’s all out there in the public domain. Do your homework.
Nobody here would dream of taking part in a Crowley Thoth discussion without at lest looking at a deck…but here we have folks arguing…without a clue as to the basic nomenclature – and they refuse to do their own homework – appalling.
Edited to remove directed inflammatory content.
I’m having a difficult time with posts, that first are personal – and then it’s revealed that the poster does not understand the material.
It’s much more constructive to say, “I don’t understand, can you explain?”
These eminent physicists themselves believe that this field pushes the boundaries between science and mysticism.
As Eddington said, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.”
I didn’t say that space and time as we know it do not exist, they do.
I didn’t say that time travel is possible, they have.
Some argue for a one dimensional time model, which has been shown by Einstein to be a trick of perception whereas the four dimensional model is proven by relativity and the same person states “I’m not arguing Einstein”….
This could have been a wonderful and inspiring discussion, perhaps we could have gone into some really cool stuff. Perhaps we could have learned something, or been inspired… Except for a few.
Do your own homework. As I said right of the get-go. This is real science. But you have to do your homework.
As I said – that photons can affect other photons that to us appear backwards in time – this has already been proved. Now please do the homework.
Entanglement is not the same event viewed from two separate locations.
Entanglement is where given two or more objects that are separated by space/time, influences upon one object create influences upon the other.
Some sources will state that faster than light information transferal is not possible by entanglement; however NASA and JPL are now finding this to be not true.
Entanglement states that indeed things can and do move faster than light! Once again, this is not theoretical – this is real. It’s all out there in the public domain. Do your homework.
Nobody here would dream of taking part in a Crowley Thoth discussion without at lest looking at a deck…but here we have folks arguing…without a clue as to the basic nomenclature – and they refuse to do their own homework – appalling.
Edited to remove directed inflammatory content.
I’m having a difficult time with posts, that first are personal – and then it’s revealed that the poster does not understand the material.
It’s much more constructive to say, “I don’t understand, can you explain?”
satine
I have read through this entire thread, and I have to admit that I understood only about 10% (if that) of what I read. So, forgive me if my perspective is overly simplistic... I recently read a Dean Koontz book-- the third book in his Odd Thomas series-- called Brother Odd. I know this novel can hardly be considered a resource for factual information (worse even than Wiki, I would imagine!), but I found one part of the storyline to be intriguing and possibly relevant to this discussion, at least conceptually. One character in the book, a scientist who had become a monk, decided to try to "prove" God's existence by means that I won't get into here (partly because I really don't think I could explain it very well!), but his main point seemed to be that order always underlies the seeming chaos of matter, at every single level (as you break it down again and again). I really don't know if this is in any way related to the elevated discussion that you guys are having, but it did ring a bell for me in terms of my perception of how tarot "works." When I look around me, the world seems insane at times; so many things happen that seem wrong, unjust, random, etc. It's hard to make sense of it intellectually. What I hold onto personally, though, is that beneath all of the chaos, there is perfection. In fact, there is perfection within that which we consciously perceive as random. In my view, the tarot cards serve as a physical bridge to the order we don't often see on the surface. Does this have anything to do with this discussion? ha. If not, then please excuse the interruption.
I recently read a Dean Koontz book-- the third book in his Odd Thomas series-- called Brother Odd. I know this novel can hardly be considered a resource for factual information (worse even than Wiki, I would imagine!), but I found one part of the storyline to be intriguing and possibly relevant to this discussion, at least conceptually. One character in the book, a scientist who had become a monk, decided to try to "prove" God's existence by means that I won't get into here (partly because I really don't think I could explain it very well!), but his main point seemed to be that order always underlies the seeming chaos of matter, at every single level (as you break it down again and again). I really don't know if this is in any way related to the elevated discussion that you guys are having, but it did ring a bell for me in terms of my perception of how tarot "works." When I look around me, the world seems insane at times; so many things happen that seem wrong, unjust, random, etc. It's hard to make sense of it intellectually. What I hold onto personally, though, is that beneath all of the chaos, there is perfection. In fact, there is perfection within that which we consciously perceive as random. In my view, the tarot cards serve as a physical bridge to the order we don't often see on the surface. Does this have anything to do with this discussion? ha. If not, then please excuse the interruption. 