On large scale quantum determinism and synchronized bias in scientific method.
synchronization, bias, complete relativity, mainstream science, modern science, neurogenesis, bible
Theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QM) obviously do not work on all scales, are mutually incompatible, and do not provide a complete understanding of reality.
Reliance on these theories and corresponding frameworks in scientific methodology and interpretation of results can thus introduce bias, even though the methodology itself is rigorous.
Large scale evidence of quantum determinism
Multiple experiments have shown that a human body can respond to stimuli occurring 1-10 s in the future.
By the response, it can apparently distinguish between different randomly delivered stimuli such as emotional vs. neutral images.
But is this a response or a human soul is, even if unconsciously, interacting with the setup to influence the outcome?
In Complete Relativity (CR), human body is entangled with personal space (soul space, or aether). This space is theoretically unlimited, but practically it competes with other spaces in a fluid-like
manner so its density is variable and range may be effectively limited, although it overlaps other spaces.
However, this range is sufficient for personal space to affect at least people in vicinity and certainly may affect other close bodies on some level.
It may thus affect physical experiments, corresponding to the nth order observer (in CR).
It is well known that observation (measurement) affects the measured (observed) entity, but direct effect is in QM limited to the 1st order observer (usually photon or electron) and
quantum effects are limited to a certain (fixed) scale, just like entanglement of space curvature and matter is effectively limited to extremely massive bodies in GR (and properties of that
space are absolute, rather than personal).
CR predicts entanglement of past and relative future, and I would interpret this case as a proof for determinism stemming from such entanglement.
A completely relative reality cannot be absolutely non-deterministic. Cause and effect must be relative, so there must be a reference frame (event horizon) where these are inverted.
The mentioned experiments are a good example - on one scale, emotional reaction appears after a certain effect, on other, it may be interpreted as the cause for such effect.
Effectively, past (cause) and future (effect) events are synchronized and even simultaneous from a certain reference frame.
But let's suppose that randomness is delivered by a deterministic machine (classical computer). Random number generators on such machines are not random at all (they are pseudo-random - sufficiently
random for most practical purposes).
If the random sequence is generated at the beginning, how can one then interpret emotions as cause for the effect which is delivered at some predetermined point later - perhaps
at the end of sequence?
Apart from concluding that everything is scripted, this would also be a proof for synchronicity - multiple time-separated causes of similar effects converged to a single
If one dos not discriminate between space and time, one might notice that causes are simultaneous in space, while effects are simultaneous in time - and therefor reduced to a single effect.
In nature, everything has multiple purposes, and this too might be the result of such optimization (causes are reduced to a single cause in space, effects are reduced in time).
Past and future effectively attract each other. This is manifested in various forms of causes and effects.
For example, fear of (positive belief in) an unwanted effect attracts that effect but simultaneously the effect from the future induces fear in the past. Probability for an event (effect) to
occur in a moment of specific space (time) depends on the strength of attraction which itself is dependable on distance between cause and effect and the amount of such causes and effects.
Obviously, specific polarization such as fear in space of a body can induce such polarization in personal space of an other body, increasing the strength of attraction, but
the effect may also be canceled (repelled) with negative belief in the outcome.
Note that causes and effects are quantized - any distinct cause and effect on one scale is a manifestation of grouped quanta (causes and effects) on another scale.
There is always a reference frame where one might detect the quantization of one but not the other, producing the effect of synchronicity.
The synchronized bias
In mainstream science, the influence of 2nd and higher order observers is not taken into account. And if the prejudice of such observers may affect the outcome of the experiment, obviously,
some serious bias may exist in scientific research.
Results of some experiments may not be successfully replicated due to the expectation of a negative result by the observer. Space of some observers may be simply inadequate
to produce certain results regardless of expectation.
Understandably, this is something hard to accept for scientific community, but it should not be discarded as a possibility simply because it encourages pseudoscience and cannot be explained
by currently accepted theories.
I will never support pseudoscience, but there is some valid research and hypotheses which should not be in the same category as junk that actually deserves such a negative connotation.
A good example of this is synchronicity.
Mainstream science treats the effect as being merely a product of coincidence. But putting it in the same category as perpetuum mobiles obviously harms any further research into phenomena, potentially
preventing science to progress in understanding of reality.
I have experienced so many (even temporally chained) synchronized events that I have no doubt this particular phenomena is real. Without these I could never understand reality as I do now and
complete relativity could not be realized.
Mainstream science is overly materialistic, obsessed with quantization of reality, hoping that with enough brute force and enough measurements a complete qualitative description of reality will emerge.
Science turning into a religion, as predicted.
It thus evolves weakly, and with more and more resources wasted and patches produced it becomes more reluctant to change its core.
From the perspective of a neutral observer - one who does not discriminate between material and spiritual aspects of reality, it is the modern science which is, by the pseudo-randomness
analogy, a pseudoscience - not real science, but sufficiently scientific for most practical purposes.
The biggest problem with mainstream science is in its superficial modernism. It regularly changes and upgrades its envelope or skin but the core remains untouched because it is effectively
sacred in that society. The same society is, due to burdens of points, grades, awards and reputation, effectively also another elite society funded by public money. As many of these, it is only theoretically open - effectively, as I have witnessed myself and
as others have witnessed
, it is close[-minde]d.
There is nothing wrong with measurements and calculations, but when these effectively become science rather than just a part of scientific method, science becomes merely a job - work for
Machines are made for jobs, people are designed for work that would make them materially satisfied and spiritually happy. I love working as much as I hate being a resource for a job.
If one is concerned with material progress only, its incarnations will converge toward more materialistic lifeforms with less intelligence capacity.
But there is nothing wrong with that too. Intelligence is a quality, but the amount of intelligence is an overrated quantity in a world where it is not needed or abused.
I would prefer the world with less materialistic people and more animals in harmony with themselves anyway.
Added chapter My experience with mainstream academy.
My experience with mainstream academy
I was a part of mainstream academy until I have attained a master's degree, and even afterwards I have worked within or with that society for a while as part of my job.
What I have realized is that, generally, people who have the highest grades from all courses learn primarily for grades, not for knowledge. In elementary school, even I was one of these - I was
very concerned with grades because parents told me they were important and I trusted them. Those who pursue high academic degrees might have different reasons but they are still very concerned
Of course, I realized later I do not want to learn for grades but I want to learn about what I am actually interested in.
Eventually I did get interested in almost everything, but, like most people, I wasn't interested at the time I was forced to be interested.
It was pointless to me to learn something that will be forgotten as soon as I get some grade, even though some might value me or my opinion by these grades. Sure, a grade might reflect your
capabilities, but how many times do I have to prove I am capable of learning something?
Even though high intelligence may be generally concentrated within the mainstream academic society, and even though it may generally generate quality content, it is still a society which
prioritizes grades, points and titles. And since there's generally a lot of hard work and pride behind these grades and points obviously these people will be the last to accept that what
they know is wrong.
And if even by taking a look at scientific work outside the mainstream society they risk loosing points and credibility, out of fear, they will generally ignore it.
Nonetheless, I had to try to present my work to this academy, as its members should have the capacity to understand it. I would try other academies, but, sadly, mainstream academy with its points
and grades, is the only scientific academy I am aware of.
How I tried and failed
During my work on CR, I have sent about a dozen of emails to various scientists but never got a single reply. And I didn't ask for much, simply rough dates of performed experiments.
This led me to conclusion that they ignore messages from non-institutional email addresses, some probably even by blocking common non-institutional hosts such as Gmail.
After CR matured enough I decided to try to post a preprint on some academic servers.
First, I tried Arxiv, but I soon realized that will be impossible. They require endorsement - I was supposed to send a code by email to someone in the field who has posted a couple of works in the
same category during the last 5 years or so. So I had to find some phD who has published a couple of theories of everything (TOE) or something similar, who never heard of me and who most likely
will not even take a look at my email, let alone my work to endorse it - and by doing so risk his/her reputation because others might not consider it has the acceptable quality. Right.
Next, I tried HAL, but it was rejected because I am not affiliated with any institution.
Next, I tried EarthArxiv, was rejected because it was "out-of-scope for EarthArXiv, and that it might be better-suited for ArXiv or a general preprint server like preprints.org".
So I tried preprints.org, my first submission (CR) was initially rejected because I didn't provide an institutional email address or an email address I have previously used to publish my works.
I was baffled by the response - I cannot post my 1st preprint to preprints.org, but I can my 2nd?
And that's what I did with my second submission (The Solar System) - I have uploaded the preprint of CR to OSF (which seems like a repository for everything, like Zenodo - they don't have strict
requirements but you don't get exposure there) and then my 2nd submission on preprints.org got accepted. Note that they will not host your preprint if you have uploaded it somewhere else
already, so I could choose between posting CR or TSS to preprints.org, but not both.
However, even if the article gets accepted, it still doesn't get exposure because institutional email address is still required for online announcement according to their policy (as I was
told when submitting CR, however, TSS might have been announced online - apparently it was announced on their twitter account).
So, generally, without the institutional email address, it's almost like [if not the same as] uploading to a public repository, which is generally a trashcan in a sense that all work
and work is treated the same and none is promoted.
I have also sent a letter by regular mail (!) to Sabine Hossenfelder, I thought she might be interested so I gave her the link to the work and my email address if she would want to give her
opinion. While it is possible she did not receive the letter, the fact is, I did not get a reply from her either.
How I tried and failed again
A preprint is generally a precursor to a work published in a journal. But after such experience with preprints, would it be insane to try to actually publish the work in a journal?
Well, again, I had to try.
For those who are affiliated with some academic institution, publication of works is sponsored by the same institution, so authors generally do not pay for publishing out of their own pocket.
Other authors, such as me, generally have to pay for publishing. In some cases one can avoid payment by sacrificing the openness of the work (it gets published behind the pay-wall) which I would
never agree to, and, in rare cases, a non-affiliated author may be eligible for a discount.
First I submitted CR to Open Physics, but with the submission I asked for a discount if possible. Quickly, the submission got rejected because the article is too long (!) and it does not follow
their basic publication guidelines. While I could've altered the article to follow their guidelines, making it shorter by a couple of pages was simply unacceptable - this already was the shortened
Next, I tried PTEP (Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics). With the submission I have asked for a full discount (which I was eligible for, according to their terms) and got an even
quicker, and obviously generic, reply - "we require our articles to contain results that contribute to the current advancement of theoretical or experimental physics. By our
standards, unfortunately, your article does not meet our criterion.".
Since I haven't seen the exact definition of their standards on their website and I strongly disagree with the first statement of that reply, I replied back:
"I am sorry to hear that. However, as I am very interested in truth behind everything, can you clarify your response for me:
What exactly are your standards?
I am convinced that my article does very much contribute to advancement in understanding of universes, and as such, to advancement in theoretical physics.
What is this advancement, if you are not open to new ideas?".
Of course, I got no reply to that. It is not the first time I am underestimated.
Next, I tried two of MDPI journals, again, with a quick rejection and equal, obviously generic, responses.
Note that, in all of these cases, the article did not reach peer review and was rejected very quickly by the editor. This strongly suggests reasons for rejection are purely
political (it takes time to read something properly), but what they are I can only speculate as the responses were generic. So I guess what induced the fear [of loosing points and
other stuff] in them, could be one or more of the following:
- no affiliation,
- no guaranteed money for them (due to non-affiliation or discounts),
- no phD,
- usage of red flag words in the article (which I believe I don't have much in CR, but I do mention the soul and spiritual well as synonyms for a gravitational maximum and a gravitational well, respectively),
- no previously published works,
- low number of references.
If this world would be a Carpenter movie, the main character would call these people fear infested pussies before he would destroy The Thing that plagues them.
Will I try to fail once more?
I might try one more journal, but not more.
I am not gonna beg anyone to take me seriously whoever they think they are.
In the short term, it might be my loss, in the long term - it's their loss.
If it doesn't go away by will, The Thing
gets exterminated by force, but then there's that inconvenient
thing with The Thing - the host generally dies with it.