psychic chess masters

Sort:
royalbishop
reflectivist wrote:
royalbishop wrote:

Well this is my point!

Why and What?

Why would they send a ship here and what do they hope to gain from it. Maybe we are stronger than them with nuclear weapons. So they sent a ship with all kinds of tech gadgets to allow it to be seen and captured for the purpose that we lack the wisdom to use it. In which case it would destroy us. Maybe they do not want this planet or us but did it to amuse themselves. Sure we can relate to that as many members here start arguments for that purpose.

Who knows?  Truth is often stranger than fiction.

Strange, but true.

Well people like to talk about Event A. I like to talk how did it happen and are we responding to it just as they thought we would not consider the event as a whole before it even started.

I have to wonder did this start at the time when we had our first radio broadcast and they(it aliens exist) received it.

Knightly_News

Well, what if consciousness is all linked, or we eminate telepathically or the Earth does, then maybe aliens are just able to sense us here because their ESP/psychic knowledge of the universe is developed to a very high degree.  

On Earth we have life forms that are receptive/perceptive to all kinds of things humans cannot sense, why couldn't that be the case with other life forms.  Like Donald Rumsfeld said: 

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

royalbishop
reflectivist wrote:

Well, what if consciousness is all linked, or we eminate telepathically or the Earth does, then maybe aliens are just able to sense us here because their ESP/psychic knowledge of the universe is developed to a very high degree.  

On Earth we have life forms that are receptive/perceptive to all kinds of things humans cannot sense, why couldn't that be the case with other life forms.  Like Donald Rumsfeld said: 

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

I would need a chapter to talk about each and a book after you responded to it.

Well the brains sends commands and they say we are use a part of brain and a good majority of it goes unused.

It is not that we can not perceive we just do not perceive. Even if we entered in a quiet room alone we could not hear our own hear beat. It makes a noise loud enough. When we do those test we learned in Elementary School when realize how loud it is and it is there. Go to park in the city where birds visit frequeintly then enter it when they are not there. Drop some crackers and watch them come ....  They can smell the crackers and yet we can not smell them when we throw them on the ground?

royalbishop

Alien? Think about when the first thought was to create a device where a person could be a distance of feet away and talk to a person using this device. If that device did not exist now and somebody mentioned the idea they think you were on crack. "That fool must have lost his entire mind".

zborg

Time is an ARROW, moving forward from the eternal NOW.

The past is irrevocable, the future uncertain.

We are here, in the eternal NOW, always moving forward, just like an arrow.

Deal with it, Numbnuts.

If you want to understand some parts of this issue, read the "chapter on time" in the following (rather dense) book --

http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-Economic-Theory-Recent-Thought/dp/0898382114/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369928125&sr=1-18&keywords=mirowski+philip

P.S., it cost about $30 in hardback, when first published.

pdela
Irontiger wrote:
reflectivist wrote:

In quantum physics there are is a sub-atomic particle that spins in the opposite direction of its counterpart whereever it is in time and space, apparently.  So if one particle is on 'the other side' of the universe from its counterpart and that law holds (and they believe it does), then how can spin information be relayed across such a vast distance instantaneously, given the limits of the speed of light?

I will answer this.

That's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. But that's one of the most difficult points, so I cannot blame you. Wiki linked here (very wonkish). Einstein and his colleagues thought it refuted quantum mechanics.

Answer : no information can be transmitted faster than light, although you can acquire knowledge about the state of a point far away in the universe. Details below.

Quantum mechanics predict intricated states of particles, which means that you have two particles that exist in a "superposed state". To make things simple, if you measure the state of the particles, if one is up then the other is down and reversly ; but the fact that the first measurement gives (a up b down) or (a down b up) is random. If you measure them again, you will have the same results as at the first measurement.

(already two strange quantum things appear here : 1-you cannot measure the "spins" simultaneously, you have to do it sequentially, and the result of the first measurement has influence on the result of the second ; 2- the result of a measurement is not determined before the measure, but takes one value or another randomly.)

Once you have created a pair of such particles (not that easy, but forget about that part), you send them light-years apart.

The paradox : if you measure one of the two particles, you know immediately the state of the other which is at the other side of the universe. Hence apparently, the far away particle communicated his state at infinite speed, or the particle at hand sent a signal to the other one at infinite speed too - any case, supraluminic transmission was achieved.

 

The flaw is that this is not communication in the usual sense. There is no signal travelling from one particle to another, and you cannot use the properties of that system to transmit information - once the particles are separated, there is no way to change the state of one and make it known to the other. As such, you have no way to use this to transmit information : when you measure one spin, you know the result someone else will obtain at the other end, but you cannot influentiate on that result.

well, I think I know a bit about this.

for the representation of states in QM you use a wave function or a density matrix. This wavefunction is not something that exists in the nature, althought many people talk of it that way. It represent the knowledge we have about certains properties of the physical system.

when you measure the system you gain information about it so you have to change your description of the system. It's the state so called "collapse of the wave function" which is also called (more properly) "state reduction". It's like if you leave home and your wife has give you some money and put it in your wallet, but you don't know if it's a 5 euros note or a 10 euros one. then at some point you have paid for the meal 7 euros. This meal you have to update your description of the state from a wave function of notes of 5 and 10 euros to one in which you have a 10 euros with certainty.

when you create an entangled pair spin-up, spin-down they were born with that correlation if one is up the other is down and by measuring one of them you can know the state of the another one even if you have sent it to another galaxy, Alice measures spin-up she knows Bob (which is in Andromeda) will measure spin-down. but fact that Alice had measured his state doesn't produce any change in Bob state, just a gain of knowledge from Alice. So what one does do not produce any physical change in a region which is not causality conected with the one you are.

zborg

Yawn.  Give it a rest.

Read between the lines -- No One is Persuaded.

Irontiger
pdela wrote:

when you measure the system you gain information about it so you have to change your description of the system. It's the state so called "collapse of the wave function" which is also called (more properly) "state reduction". It's like if you leave home and your wife has give you some money and put it in your wallet, but you don't know if it's a 5 euros note or a 10 euros one. then at some point you have paid for the meal 7 euros. This meal you have to update your description of the state from a wave function of notes of 5 and 10 euros to one in which you have a 10 euros with certainty.

I thought of giving this kind of analogy, but the hidden variables theory has been experimentally refuted in the 1970s.

Basically, hidden variables is saying that when you create an entangled pair of spins, they concert with each other and decide which one will be up and which one will be down when measured later, so that the result of a future measure is predetermined although we have no way to know it a priori : hence the hidden (unmeasurable) variables. In this example, you wife has put something in the wallet and will not change its content between the moment you leave home and the moment you open it.

Beware : the following link is extremely wonkish and will eat your soul before you can fully understand it. (I lost my soul beforehand, and still do not understand the details - I just admitted that hidden variables could be refuted experimentally) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

NobbyCapeTown

Good grief, now they are bringing Latinc words, Nietsche, Schopenhauer Descartes et al into this never ending thread. I was looking for Bobby Fischer's biogrgaphy thread in here, but can no longer find it in this this abyss. All I wish to add is "sempre in excretum".  Moderators, please have a heart and open a special forum section for the super duper intellectuals in our midsts and end this topic with a snuffed mate.

Irontiger
Master_Valek wrote:

The so-called violations are actually known as ''loop-holes'' in the theorem. I used to speak frequently with a doctor known as Sarfatti.. who has some controversial theories concerning UFO's but he did work for MI5. He found a loophole which I wrote up mathematically for him in latex. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Please shut up. You are using chess.com server space, internet bandwidth, electricity, and food that your various providers could put to better use.

I tried to come up with something nicer, but I couldn't, so BS-ish was that post.

LoekBergman

@NobbyCapeTown: This discussion is already there where it should be, because this is the off topic forum. Amazing to think that the biography of Fisher could be find in this category. Your remarks are remarkably fitting the category, so why don't you stay and say something on topic?

NobbyCapeTown

OK, I will Loek. And maybe start a new side branch thread. Are you related to Ingmar Berman ? My favourite movie of all time was the Seventh Seal, esoecially where the man played a chess game against death himself. Saw it in black and white decades ago, but it is still vivid in my mind, especially the chess scene. On a side line, I never knew a doctor named Sarfatti, but I did see the movie Scarface several times.

zborg

All this stuff is on (nightly) on the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet (AP), and yes even the History Channel, unfortunately.

But it's mostly crap there too.

Last night's story on AP about the aquatic ape and mermaids was especially inane.

Much like the trolling, @Master Vapid, and his lovely posts.  Smile 

NobbyCapeTown

Matter exists as a state of energy, while waves of probability spread throughout the universe. Existence itself may exist as only the vibrations on microscopic, trans-dimensional strings. Plus, add Hugh Everett into the blender and press scramble, you have infinite realities. Wow did I just say that or google it ?

zborg

Same reason we are (apparently) the only intelligent life in the universe, at least to date.  Smile

The universe appears "finely tuned" for bringing us into existence.

Cf. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1988), by Barrow and Tipler.

x-5058622868
Master_Valek wrote:

10^30 (means 10 to the power of thirty... ) it is a very large number.

I'm going to jump in here for just a second to say i can't really agree with that number. It could be much larger or much smaller.

LoekBergman

@NobbyCapeTown: good on topic remarks, you must have googled it or you heard a bell ringing. AFAIK am I not related to any of the Bergmans in Sweden. I wish I would, because her films Casablanca and 'For whom the Bell tolls' are beautiful. The most impressive movie in my opinion is the trilogy of Peter Jackson. I never imagined that The Lord of the Rings could be made. String theory is bizarre, that trilogy (full of trolls) too.

x-5058622868

Yes, it could land heads, tails, or on its side. However, there's an infinite number of possibilities that could affect the flip.

BeginnerInChessBlog

Please Give me a like to start this page http://www.facebook.com/BeginnerInChess?fref=ts

Ubik42
LoekBergman wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:

Here is my favorite argument along these lines, and one I find compelling:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

I can imagine you like it. That person almost reasons like you, specifically the last sentence of the conclusion. Reading the article, I had one question in my mind: if some posthuman civilization would run such a simulation, would they let the simulated people know that they are part of a simulation or not? I would guess not. The humanoids in the simulation would be programmed to think that they are the real thing and they will not be able to find out they are not real themselves. That would give the simulation more realistic value, isn't it? Therefor can you furthermore conclude that if we are living in a simulation, that it is highly unlikely that we will know that we are living in a simulation. Being part of a simulation or of a reality has the same user experience being totally humanoid. Because we can not prove that we solely live in reality and not in a simulation of reality, can we never prove convincingly that this is the real world. All in all the same conclusion as Descartes, but where Descartes created the problem of the knowledgability of the outside world, creates this article the problem of the knowledgability of the real existense of the outside world. Even if you could prove that you could know that the world existed, can you then tell me in what world we are living in? A real one or a simulated one? (At which level of simulation to be more precise.)

Maybe is that why in a lot of cultures the idea of reincarnation exists and in all cultures the notion of a god. And that UFO's stay UFO's, because they might not be spaceships, but nanobots programming the simulation.

Well thanks, I like Bostrom!

I really don't think you can make too many guesses about our hypothetical simulation runners. If the universe were a simulation its even possible we are just side junk that no one knows about. The real experiment group they care about is this civilization over on Betelgeuse....