11 2020.06.21 2024.07.14 2024.07.14 Amenoum On large scale quantum determinism and synchronized bias in scientific method. general synchronization, bias, complete relativity, mainstream science, modern science, neurogenesis, bible Synchronized bias Intro Theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QM) obviously do not work on all scales, are mutually incompatible, and thus cannot provide a complete understanding of reality. Not only that, due to absolute foundations, these paint a non-intuitive version 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. In a world where one is commonly bathed in disclaimers and various policies, it seems odd that a lot of belief is still consumed as absolute and advertised as truth without any disclaimers.
There are a lot of scientists who are so used to be right that, not only it hurts their pride to be proven wrong, but they are prone to unconsciously lie when communicating science outside the academy, especially if that science is outside of their field of work. In, example, I've seen statements such as "there is no oxygen on Mars and there never was" from well-known and respected scientists. While there's nothing bad in equalizing 'trace amounts of oxygen' with 'no oxygen' in some contexts (limited to atmosphere, and limited to present time), claiming that this was valid throughout the whole history of Mars and/or throughout the whole planet is simply a lie. When something like that comes out from well-known and respected scientists, people assume it's scientific consensus or scientific truth. What's worse, if one points that out to the polarized man, due to burden of points, titles and careers, he probably won't admit the mistake, if he replies he'll just pick out the part which he can somehow justify, completely ignoring the rest. I still respect these people for all the good scientific work they did, I support the very act of popularization of science, but I just can't support the lie and popularization of hardcore religion under the banner of science. And, of course, people who are well-known have followers, most of which are typical dogs who do not care a bit about the truth and who will defend the man (even though the man was never attacked, his work was criticised) because he and his words are sacred to them. Responses from these will always be ad hominem attacks - often calling one disrespectful (again, of the man, even if one explicitly states that one respects the man and his scientific work in general), telling one that one should be ashamed of oneself, etc. Some dogs are even more aggressive and will threaten, but generally the man will not react because this god likes to be worshipped by his dogs. And, due to abundance of such gods and dogs, and due to prioritization of profit generated by them, the truth gets marginalized.
Very rarely, interpretation is ever mentioned in communication of scientific results with the public and, perhaps even more rarely, scientists themselves will consider an interpretation that is not in the context of currently accepted theories. Even though it is well known that these theories cannot be absolutely correct. This may not be a problem during weak evolution, but during strong evolution, with advances in technology and amount of research, new results will often differ from past ones, even if interpretation remains the same. Sometimes the conclusion in one research on certain phenomenon will be completely opposite to conclusion of the other. With the coupling of industry and science, things don't get better, only differently biased. This, of course, undermines the credibility of science in the eyes of public and scientists will have to resort to practices of industry and become a consumable product in order to remain supported by the public. A rover on Mars with a twitter account is a perfect example of this. Another way to ensure sustainability is to establish a government model where support is declared mandatory and forced. Both of these models are in use and both are bad for truth.
Something bad for truth should be bad for science. Inquisition was always bad for truth, but the devil of inquisition was never gone. It just moved out of the Catholic church into mainstream science. There it is ubiquitous, and only rarely takes a vacation. This is usually at times when it becomes so sick that its ugly head is forced to retreat for a moment. But only to engrave new rules into laws. Laws which will be as sacred tomorrow as the old ones were yesterday.
In a model where science is supported by force, science will effectively become a closed community whose beliefs are [forced to be] consumed as absolute knowledge, and even credible researchers who might dare to dwell outside of the accepted frame of reference will risk losing credibility. Therefore, in such community, seldom will one dare to challenge the existing belief, rather seek and see confirmation of existing beliefs - which, at some point, becomes scientifically meaningless. Such community will start opening itself only once its existence is threatened. I've seen that in church, I've seen that in government, I've seen that in modern science. The reason for failure in all these efforts will be the same - no one really cared for truth. Everyone was biased and worked more on the sustainability of an accepted lie. Exceptions to this policy exist, but they are - exceptions, and exceptions don't write policies and care about credibility, points and awards, they care for truth, not maintenance of truth. 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). This space is theoretically unlimited, but in [real and intuitive] reality its range is limited with 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 there is no personal real space in GR, only personal geometry of absolute space). 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 being evidence that everything is scripted, this would also be another evidence of synchronicity - multiple time-separated causes of correlated effects converged to a single effect (event).
Synchronicity may be interpreted as compression of events in time as part of optimization of evolution.
If one does not discriminate between space and time, one might notice that causes are simultaneous in space, while effects are simultaneous in time - and therefore 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 cancelled (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 modern science, the influence of 2nd and higher order observers is not taken into account. And if prejudice of such observers may affect the outcome of 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.
In fact, it seems many have given up on understanding of reality. They seem to be using public money to prove what has been proven already not to work - just so they can keep their jobs.
It thus evolves weakly, and with more and more resources wasted and patches produced it becomes more reluctant to change its core. Small revision.
The biggest problem with modern 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. Due to burdens of points, grades, awards and reputation, it is just another elite fuelled by public money, by force, or by industry, of profit. As many of these, it is only theoretically open - effectively, as I have witnessed myself and as others have witnessed, it is still close[-minde]d. Fake openness can be a precursor of true openness, but true openness requires no force and is not a part of hidden agenda for maintenance of profit. Science is work and should be appreciated as all other work. It seems, however, that we appreciate jobs in maintenance of lies rather than care for truth and fundamental values.
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.
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 spiritually dead. Machines are made for jobs, but at least some 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. I just wish I'm not an exception.
Lies are good for creation and maintenance of jobs. They are not good for real work. Jobs are done to manufacture consumable products. Work is done to care for life. In the world of jobs (lies), some jobs will exist just to manufacture truth out of lies. Right now, a lot of people believe they are saving the planet by manufacturing jobs for themselves. War fuels the economy so it is not surprising that some are even building the army to fight the climate. The website climatecorps.org is a prime example of fake care - jobs, awards, leaders and smiling faces of people on the front page, while all life on the planet is dying. Blasphemy.
One thing I was struggling to understand - most people on the planet are effectively liars and yet lies are still sold as truth, not as lies. Why? Perhaps they want them to be true. Perhaps these lies are then a precursor to truth. If you are one of these people, then, perhaps you should be careful what you wish for. Do you know who cares for the planet the most? Yes, it's all those creatures you turn intro products daily just to keep your job and maintain the lifestyle of people you want to become or remain. How does it feel to be a product? Well, products don't have feelings, according to one of your accepted truths. Some say karma is a bitch. No, karma is universal justice. Not justice. But of course, you probably don't believe in karma. You probably believe in some absolute god, or the word of mainstream science, which is based on knowledge produced by some exception long time ago. You might even believe in the word of your favourite politician, god rest your soul. Article revised.