Explainning the consciousness processes by new physical theories
kenseto at erinet.com
Thu Sep 28 12:57:03 EST 1995
jerikse at news.luc.edu (Jason L. Eriksen) wrote:
> Where are the errors? I saw no rigorous mathemetical proofs or
>empirical tests in the brief excerpts which show that scientific
>principles have been overextended. Theories, such as Einstein's
>analysis of time, have been verified by many empirical tests, and
>have not yet been shown to be inadequate in any meaningful sense. One might even
>argue that these theories have been even more powerful than initially
>suggested, because they predicted new properties even up to the present
In my book I delt with the question of time dilation extensively. The
most significant conclusion was that the technique use by physicists
to derive the time dilation equations demonstrated that time itself
was not dilated but rather all clocks cannot keep the same rate of
flow of time in different inertia frames. In other words, there is no
universal clock. This conclusion will transfer the current idea of
time keeping by all clock is absolute and that it is time itself is
flexible to the idea that time is absolute--now here is now
everywhere and that the time dilationeffects observed were caused by
the inability of all time pieces to keep the same rate of flow of time
in different inertia frames.
> How can one determine relative motions of the measuring apparatus with
>adequate precision, as you suggest? I assume that you are referring to
>vectoral, not scalar, quantites. Given the nature of uncertainty, how does
>one solve the problem?.
When I said relative motions I mean the motions of the experimental
apparatuses relative to the light pulses. The double slit experiment
is a good example of this. We assumed that the result of the double
slit experiment were caused by the interference phenomenon., whereas
if we take the relative motions of the apparatuses relative to the
light pulses into account the results of the characteristic light and
dark fringes were caused by these motions. In other words, there is no
need to measure relative motions, all we need to know is that the
results of the experiment were caused by the relative motions.
> I also do not accept the idea that the human mind is "unlimited" in its
>capabilites. It appears to be quite limited in processing speed, accurate
>storage, and retrieval capabilities. However, you said that you were
>able to vastly improve your mental capabilities using "Pyramid techniques."
>Could you briefly explain what Pyramid Techniques are, and where you learned
The pyramid techniques are not as complex as you think. In the past we
do our development of scientific theory by basing on existing
theories. Wtih the pyramid techniques the formulator can choose any
model for the initial conditions (regardless of what the current
theories are saying). After choosing the model the formulator must
support the model with past and present observations and experiments.
The next step is to develop designed experiments to cofirm the model.
Then develop mathematical equations for the model. The final step is
to perform the experiments to confirm the model.
kenseto at erinet.com
Web page for "Model Mechanics"
More information about the Neur-sci