Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[mike]

The original point i was making was that schrodingers thought experiment was intended to refute, not support or demonstrate the copenhagen interpretation as was claimed.

Erwin Schrödinger's intention for his infamous cat-killing box was to discredit certain non-intuitive implications of quantum mechanics

That aside the observer effect is a very old idea and has been displaced with newer theories

One must define observer and measurement

However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system

Quantum decoherance is now the better accepted theory

In the last few decades, major advances have been made toward a theoretical understanding of the collapse process. This new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence, supersedes previous notions of instantaneous collapse and provides an explanation for the absence of quantum coherence after measurement. Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.[4]

Accepting that wavefunctions are physically real, Penrose believes that things can exist in more than one place at one time. In his opinion, a macroscopic system, like a human being, cannot exist in more than one place for a measurable time, as the corresponding energy difference is very large. A microscopic system, like an

electron, can exist in more than one location forever, unless the energy difference becomes large enough.[3][need quotation to verify]
In Einstein's theory, any object that has mass causes a warp in the structure of space and time around it. This warping produces the effect we experience as gravity. Penrose points out that tiny objects, such as dust specks, atoms and electrons, produce space-time warps as well. Ignoring these warps is where most physicists go awry. If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed gravitational fields. According to Penrose's theory, it takes energy to sustain these dual fields. The stability of a system depends on the amount of energy involved: the higher the energy required to sustain a system, the less stable it is. Over time, an unstable system tends to settle back to its simplest, lowest-energy state: in this case, one object in one location producing one gravitational field. If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.[2]

Objective collapse theories[edit]
According to objective collapse theories, superpositions are destroyed spontaneously (irrespective of external observation) when some objective physical threshold (of time, mass, temperature, irreversibility, etc.) is reached. Thus, the cat would be expected to have settled into a definite state long before the box is opened. This could loosely be phrased as "the cat observes itself", or "the environment observes the cat".
Objective collapse theories require a modification of standard quantum mechanics to allow superpositions to be destroyed by the process of time evolution. This process, known as "decoherence", is among the fastest processes currently known to physics.

Which brings us back to the von Neumann chain

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=498186

The math is at the links within this one, but this commentator nails it

Von Neumann meant it literally - it can be made anywhere.
But nowadays dechorence solves the issue. And with digital recording equipment in the form of computers these days its really hard to see exactly why you need conciousness to collapse it anyway.

Schrodinger himself subscribed to a deterministic answer

Einstein and Schrödinger did not like the fundamental randomness implied by quantum mechanics. They wanted to restore determinism to physics. Indeed Schrödinger's wave equation predicts a perfectly deterministic time evolution of the wave function

Long story short, the universe measures itself, it does not need a conscious observer

 

[mike]

An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von
Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might
play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement
problem.

This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology
and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any
superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later
Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position,
expanded upon by Shimony, which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue.
The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or
states is always objectively changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a
continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a
discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons,
thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind
or consciousness.

Conclusion

1. That the brain, mind or consciousness play no subjective role in the collapse of the
wave function, with this event taking place naturally in an objective and stochastic
discontinuous nonlinear fashion within the complex architecture of the eye. This
means that only non-superposed states or final, measured information reaches the
brain, mind or consciousness.

That while the macroscopic measuring instrument known as the eye is an integral
part of the brain, it is a non-conscious entity, such that the brain, mind or
consciousness can have no subjective effect upon its objective and stochastic wave
function collapse processes.
3. That wave function collapse is a
real physical process of a discontinuous

nonlinear nature, resulting when a superposed microscopic system interacts with a
living macroscopic measuring instrument, in this instance the eye.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0509/0509042.pdf

Wheeler makes an interesting point

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? | DiscoverMagazine.com

I think thats the error thats being made by some

Humans being physical do cause wave function collapse in the same way as any physical particles do, it is our physicality, not our consciousness that causes the effect

Matter measures itself, consciousness is not required.

This of course makes perfect sense when we consider reality, the universe ,was ticking along doing its thing, long before biology let alone consciousness crawled out of the soup of matter

 

[SRL+]

I found the tone of Sean Carroll’s recent article and of his thoughts decent. Unfortunately, it does sound like if we’re lucky enough to see where this road ultimately leads, we’ll be old folks.., very old folks indeed. One thing I've noticed are the number of interpretations there are, only to realize there may be more to follow. Also noticed is the striking similarity between the passions of Ufologists and those of theoretical physicists.

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics | Sean Carroll

 

[Fedora Chronicles]

JOHN MACK, ALIENS, HARVARD - Hollywood Film Producer Goes Outside the Box to Tell the Biggest Story of Our Times - MakeMagic Productions Seeks $450,000 in Crowdfunding

Los Angeles, CA -- (SBWIRE) -- 07/17/2014 -- Major motion pictures are seldom seen in the crowdfunding world and with good reason; the established Hollywood standards of movie production follow time-honored steps including making decisions by committee. But when you’re dealing with a huge subject like ALIENS, HARVARD and an esteemed Psychiatry Professor who sacrificed everything to champion people who claimed to be ABDUCTED BY ALIENS, the integrity and authenticity of the story is paramount.

Especially because it’s TRUE...

... DR. JOHN MACK was a Harvard psychiatry professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who was asked to study people who claimed to be abducted by aliens. As a man of science, he was reluctant, but these people were desperate for help, and Dr. Mack was curious what the underlying psychiatric syndrome might be.

Dr. Mack studied over 200 alien abductees using everything he had as a world-class psychiartrist. His conclusions shocked him: “These people are not lying and they are not crazy. I know mental illness, and this is not mental illness.” he announced in his best-selling book, Abduction.

JOHN MACK: The Movie - Phase I Development - Help us fund Script Development for JOHN MACK - the true story of a Harvard Professor who bravely defended people who believed they had been abducted by aliens.

 

[nsurround]

I really like it! What a tremendous imagination you have my friend. Seriously. Very entertaining and plausible. What a tremendously fascinating world we live in wherein just about anything that we imagine can one day become a reality so mundane that we find surprise in even considering as much day to day.

Your debunking of the Cahill case, seems to be lifted from this page

KELLY CAHILL : THE HOAX IS OVER « eye of the cyclone

The authors conculsions being



With no proof he alludes to a "supposed" husband, claiming in contradiction with what reports we do have he never acknowledged the story.

But according to bill



so we cherry pick the "not acknowledged" bit and create a false statement from it

The organisation is merely a name on paper.....

Yet Chalker refers her to this organisation and has first hand discussions with Auchettl, another false premise its clearly more than a name on paper

"There was no investigation" a statement of fact, based on.......???

But we know Chalker took the initial report, we know she also gave an interview to Robb Tilley. The claim there was NO investigation is patently false.

Even Chalker makes the same point



That at least is an honest summation of the situation, he doesnt make the claim there was no investigation

His sole premise for deciding its a hoax is that there was no report released.

Its like me deciding to investigate and research the types of ladybugs on one of my rose bushes, but on chosing not to release my report we can conclude there were no ladybugs and no rose bush.

The lack of released report is evidence for one thing and one thing only, that no report was released.

You can infer whatever you like from the fact no report was released, but its not evidence the whole thing was a hoax

His conclusions are pure BS

Its very clear the author has started with a conclusion and then massaged the data to fit that.
Thats not how it works

Your debunking of the Cahill case, seems to be lifted from this page

KELLY CAHILL : THE HOAX IS OVER « eye of the cyclone

The authors conculsions being



With no proof he alludes to a "supposed" husband, claiming in contradiction with what reports we do have he never acknowledged the story.

But according to bill



so we cherry pick the "not acknowledged" bit and create a false statement from it

The organisation is merely a name on paper.....

Yet Chalker refers her to this organisation and has first hand discussions with Auchettl, another false premise its clearly more than a name on paper

"There was no investigation" a statement of fact, based on.......???

But we know Chalker took the initial report, we know she also gave an interview to Robb Tilley. The claim there was NO investigation is patently false.

Even Chalker makes the same point



That at least is an honest summation of the situation, he doesnt make the claim there was no investigation

His sole premise for deciding its a hoax is that there was no report released.

Its like me deciding to investigate and research the types of ladybugs on one of my rose bushes, but on chosing not to release my report we can conclude there were no ladybugs and no rose bush.

The lack of released report is evidence for one thing and one thing only, that no report was released.

You can infer whatever you like from the fact no report was released, but its not evidence the whole thing was a hoax

His conclusions are pure BS

Its very clear the author has started with a conclusion and then massaged the data to fit that.
Thats not how it works

 

[nsurround]

Your debunking of the Cahill case, seems to be lifted from this page

KELLY CAHILL : THE HOAX IS OVER « eye of the cyclone

The authors conculsions being



With no proof he alludes to a "supposed" husband, claiming in contradiction with what reports we do have he never acknowledged the story.

But according to bill



so we cherry pick the "not acknowledged" bit and create a false statement from it

The organisation is merely a name on paper.....

Yet Chalker refers her to this organisation and has first hand discussions with Auchettl, another false premise its clearly more than a name on paper

"There was no investigation" a statement of fact, based on.......???

But we know Chalker took the initial report, we know she also gave an interview to Robb Tilley. The claim there was NO investigation is patently false.

Even Chalker makes the same point



That at least is an honest summation of the situation, he doesnt make the claim there was no investigation

His sole premise for deciding its a hoax is that there was no report released.

Its like me deciding to investigate and research the types of ladybugs on one of my rose bushes, but on chosing not to release my report we can conclude there were no ladybugs and no rose bush.

The lack of released report is evidence for one thing and one thing only, that no report was released.

You can infer whatever you like from the fact no report was released, but its not evidence the whole thing was a hoax

His conclusions are pure BS

Its very clear the author has started with a conclusion and then massaged the data to fit that.
Thats not how it works

After looking into her story found there was little public collaborating evidence from the other witnesses or from any investigation. I believe she is now divorced from her husband and for what ever reason the ex is not speaking about the subject. Her actual story has a number of holes that she should explain. For example she said she was traveling with her husband and three children that night and that she screamed a number of times in the car. Certainly the children would have awoke if previously asleep but they are left out of the whole picture. Kind of unusual do you not think? To my knowledge she has said nothing about the children's experience during this time. Where are the other witnesses and why have they not come forward publicly with their story of the event. All we can rely on is basically the Kelly Cahill story. It is very strange that a case that would seem to have such strong collaborating evidence in reality comes down to just one persons telling. Yes she wrote a book that was published for awhile but now does not have publisher. What happened to that deal? It does seem that she has been abandoned by almost everyone that was supposed to be connected to the case. It is still possible she is telling the truth as she knows it but in my mind there are some red flags to this case. If anyone has further information about the children sure would like to know about it.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I once found some posts here Kelly from many years ago, I believe. As I recall, I think had moved to California at some point? Can't answer for her regarding her children during the encounter, but many, many similar cases of abduction tell of family members remaining in a deep sleep during the incident.
Aside from a book that is no longer in print, Kelly is not out there riding the experiencer circuit train- that does say something IMO.

 

[Burnt State]

I once found some posts here Kelly from many years ago, I believe. As I recall, I think had moved to California at some point? Can't answer for her regarding her children during the encounter, but many, many similar cases of abduction tell of family members remaining in a deep sleep during the incident.
Aside from a book that is no longer in print, Kelly is not out there riding the experiencer circuit train- that does say something IMO.

Now what does it say. Last i saw she departed from UFO abductee to contactee and even folded the experience into her own religious views if i remember correctly. I'm also puzzled by the one off encounters, experiences or people who don't come back to either milk the event for sake of the circuit or perhaps were so personally affected or destabilized that they want nothing else to do with this UFO stuff. In the case of close contact witnesses and abductees this does seem to be a repeated feature. Cahill's case, after the familial disruption comes to a quick period and end point. Without direct info from her as to why, there's not too many conclusions that can be drawn, outside of that she has chosen not to milk the event for $$$. But there are many holes, no final report regarding what appears on the surface to be an incredibly detailed investigation. There's oddities all over this one.

But like others, whether legit or not, they have faded from view, are not engaged in the community and have moved on with their lives. I don't know if there's anything to be made from that.

 

[mike]

I once found some posts here Kelly from many years ago, I believe. As I recall, I think had moved to California at some point? Can't answer for her regarding her children during the encounter, but many, many similar cases of abduction tell of family members remaining in a deep sleep during the incident.
Aside from a book that is no longer in print, Kelly is not out there riding the experiencer circuit train- that does say something IMO.

I'm of the same view, what we know of the alleged event is that they were knocked out during the encounter, recovering the memories later.
Its a plausible explanation for why the children dont feature in the narrative.

Again no proof that this claim is true

That night as Kelly undressed for bed, she noticed a strange triangular mark on her navel, a mark she had never seen before. It must have been created early this every night.
But how? And why? And most importantly, by whom? Kelly suffered from general malaise for the next two weeks, and was taken to the hospital on two occasions, one for severe stomach pain, and another for a uterine infection.

But if this really happened it may be physical trace evidence.

My understanding regards the lack of report is one of the other witness' came forward and gave her statement and then decided she didnt want the publicity and took the report writer to court seeking an injunction on its publication. He not wanting to risk losing his house in a law suit decided to just wash his hands of the matter and walk away.

Not an unreasonable scenario, and not proof in and of itself the whole event was a hoax imo

 

[Randall]

Who is "Issac Koi" ? Does anyone know whom this person actually is? It doesn't look like issac.koi.com was registered by a UK registrar, which is supposedly where this person resides.

 

[Ron Away]

Other than him posting on ATS for years I don't know much.Seem to remember him having a legal background but could be wrong.

 

[Wade]

Who is "Issac Koi" ? Does anyone know whom this person actually is? It doesn't look like issac.koi.com was registered by a UK registrar, which is supposedly where this person resides.

 

[Sue]

I want to work on my sinister snicker, but I suppose actually providing info will be more helpful. As far as I know, Koi is a British barrister whose hobby it is to archive various ufo writings, lore and miscellanea. He participates on the Facebook UFO updates page as well as ATS. I think the work he does is valuable and stands on its own merits.

 

[Randall]

I want to work on my sinister snicker, but I suppose actually providing info will be more helpful. As far as I know, Koi is a British barrister whose hobby it is to archive various ufo writings, lore and miscellanea. He participates on the Facebook UFO updates page as well as ATS. I think the work he does is valuable and stands on its own merits.

I'm going to be a bad boy and say that the science learned from Nazi experiments on humans stands on it's own merit too. Or less dramatically, in ufology, Phil Imbrogno, who used faked credentials, and that even if this Koi character is a real barrister from the UK, which IMO is doubtful, by now his legal work should also stand on its own merit, and there should be no need to play the role of International Man ( if he is a man ) of Mystery.

I'll add that while the info provided under this pseudonym might be worthy of consideration, the anonymity doesn't add any strength of character and only contributes to the ongoing stigmatization in ufology. So IMO he or she should come out of the closet, accept the applause for doing so, and be proud of it. Then again, how would we know that anyone who does claim to be Koi is actually the real Isaac Koi ( Zachary McCoy ? ) If Koi agreed to an interview, how could anyone really be sure that it was this person? The forum member here using the pseudonym and icon may or may not be the real McKoi either .

 

[Jeff Davis]

Not to seem like the eye in the sky or some wannabe vetted source file or whatever, but IMO Koi is real, and he is assuredly not a "yes man"or disinformation agent with respect to UFOdom. I have had several behind the scenes email communications with him with respect to basic questions that I had that IMO begged his familiarity. There really is nothing mysterious about him, Kandinsky, or whomever you're considering out of that initial ATS forum orthodoxy, these are just intelligent, emotionally mature people, that have kept at the UFO fascination in self expressed written form (online) for a long time. I think that it goes without saying that pretty much anyone that has a real public profile, one wherein significant integrity is in fact integral to one's reputation, "ufology" will only detract from that ground level exercise in professional detail. This is why I have so much respect for people like John Keel, Chris O'Brien, Leslie Kean, etc. These people were/are highly skilled professionals that have put their professional authorities on the line in the name of providing a very high standard in UFO/Fortean relevant information. In short, the sacrifices that these people make in the name of what we both know is an extremely import matter is thoroughly untold and rarely ever recognized. It's absolutely ridiculous, if not completely heinous, but that's just the way it is in the realm of the animal human.