Discussions here indicate a loathing, by some, to accept UFOs (and flying saucers) as tangible objects; some interpretations centering on psychical manifestations, others centering on a mental interaction between percipient and the UFO (image).
There are other hypotheses, and one that should be addressed is the possibility that UFOs are intrusions of a quantum kind from other places in the Universe or psychic ether, if you want) that appear because of quantum non-locality.
To get a grasp of the thought and theorizing about quantum non-locality, click HERE for a 1997 paper about the topic by John G. Cramer of the Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
One paragraph focuses on what Bruce Duensing and Jose Caravaca call “observer-created reality” (which I eschew). Here’s that paragraph:
The nonlocality of the quantum mechanics formalism is a source of some difficulty for the Copenhagen interpretation. It is accommodated in the CI through Heisenberg's "knowledge interpretation" which views the quantum mechanical state vector (y) as a mathematically-encoded description of the state of observer knowledge rather than as a description of the objective state of the system observed. For example, in 1960 Heisenberg wrote, "The act of recording, on the other hand, which leads to the reduction of the state, is not a physical, but rather, so to say, a mathematical process. With the sudden change of our knowledge also the mathematical presentation of our knowledge undergoes of course a sudden change." The knowledge interpretation's account of state vector collapse and nonlocality as changes in knowledge is internally consistent, but it is rather subjective, intellectually unappealing, and the source of much of the recent misuse of the Copenhagen interpretation (e.g., "observer-created reality").
I’m asserting that UFOs may become present when an object tangentially connected to our area of the Universe is made visible because an observer here is conveniently in situ to see the non-local inspired manifestation.
The UFO may even come about by a quantum intersect across dimensions or parallel universes, ours and theirs.
The quantum possibilities strike me as more reasonable (feasible) than the psychic hypotheses.
Psychical hypotheses are prosaic and mundane for me.
The human mind is given too much credence and power in the psychical response, and we all know, intuitively and intellectually, that psychism leaves a lot to be desired in repetitive and scientific experimentation.
UFO mavens want some control over the UFO phenomenon and applying a mind/UFO interaction allows that control to remain intact, somewhat.
This is akin to the Einstein approach about quantum mechanics, and John Cramer’s paper will take you through Einstein’s caveats and the quantum renunciation.
Einstein couldn’t accept the quantum quirkiness, and those in the UFO community can’t accept the UFO quirkiness, unless they keep control of the phenomenon by saying that it’s the human mind that is needed for a manifestation of UFOs.
That view is unimaginative and errant.
The human mind is hardly able to deal with practical reality, let alone incomprehensible reality (such as that in the quantum world).
(Schizophrenics and paranoiacs display examples of what happens when the human mind accesses realities outside the norm.)
While quantum non-locality is best represented by light photons, there are indications that quantum artifacts can exceed the atomic level and are manifested macrocosmically.
(I’ve provided some of that information online here earlier and at the RRRGroup blog.)
More importantly, perhaps, is the notion that UFOs may derive from intrusions, accidental or purposeful, across dimensions or between parallel universes, as string theory allows.
This would keep intact my preference for UFO tangibility, which is obvious and well-witnessed.
The psychic view of Jacques Vallee and his devotees is old-hat for me. It’s something like the hysteria of the Salem witch trials or the insanity of the Catholic Inquisitional thrusts.
More on this approach to the UFO phenomenon will be ferreted out from other sources and pertinent quantum theorizing, and will be presented here upcoming.
Meanwhile, you “UFOs as psychic phenomena” people can have at it.
RR
4 comments:
Hello RR!
Was going down your list of links and found this one quite interesting -and I was surprised and humored at the end to find it was one of yours. I was thinking, "I like this guy's perspective."
Musing on your recent impatience, the lack of definitive photographs, quacks that waste bandwidth, and my uncertainty with my own single clear daylight sighing some 35 years ago I have also been reading fairly extensively and constantly on both quantum physics and astrophysics. -This from a Liberal Arts major.
As you have said essentially, groundless speculation is just that. But, it is certainly easy, and perhaps reasonable, to consider that some form of unpredictable dimensional shifting gives us occasional visual opportunities that cannot be defined or even further researched with our current science.
So, on with the speculation, the notion that 96% of the universe is supposedly invisible to us comes into play. Entanglement alone invites another frustrating uncertainty and confusion. And the latest on black holes and parallel universes...
Well, there you have it. At the advent of the net I was hopeful that global communication would answer the question of just what I saw that left me simply astounded.
It seems, however, that the more we know the more we find that we don't know and the plethora of cooks and intentional deceivers parallels that "96% is unseen" with 96% of what is discussed and reported is unfounded and misdirection.
Thanks for your efforts, I often wonder just how much time you spend on your personal journey that gives me some hope amid the madness.
BD
PS
You can print this or just take it as personal communication and thank you.
-B
Bryan...
Come to the current postings at
http://ufocon.blogspot.com
RR
Thanks RR! But it was there that led me to here!
I was going down your links on Iconoclasts that I read daily.
While this is from an older blog it was right on -and I didn't want to dirty up things with observations from your earlier post on the new discussions.
Glad you still got it.
Bryan
Thanks...
Stay with me.
RR
Post a Comment