Pauli Effect And Ethics
- What would the ethical dilemma be for a person capable of Pauli
Effect on almost any level he or she wanted? I would suppose such a
person could literally have the world in the palm of their hands but
in what way should that person use his or her ability or power? I
guess the question goes back to the age-old question of what is right
or wrong. Or in a more absolutist term, "What is Truth?" Should such
a person use those abilities for fame or fortune or for the
betterment of his fellow man? If it is to be used for the latter than
how could such a person know what is best for the most number of
people? And if a person believes that such power should be used for
the betterment of the world then how could such a person cause
negative stuff to happen even if he or she did not necessary want
something to happen or more to the point why would any negative stuff
occur at all? In other words, how is a conscious intention defined
quantum mechanically? Does it mean actually wanting something to
happen or does it simply mean believing something to happen and being
resigned to the fact that it will or has happened and this therefore
effects the probability of such an occurrence to happen. Could drugs
effect this process and if so how? And if God forbid something bad
did happen by a conscious act of observation then what would be the
best and most efficient way to correct the problem? Could revenge be
justified for evil people who are clearly wrong and on what level
should the problem be corrected if a person believes in helping the
most number of people? What place does God have in life if the power
of Him is inherent in man? Is it right to judge man if you know that
they are in the wrong and that is the only way to correct a problem?
I ask these questions because I have been giving this quantum
consciousness idea a lot of thought lately, especially in regards to
how it can effect the physical world, and I think that a lot of the
things that happen in the world can be explained by it both good and
bad. Not only from a collective conscious/unconscious level but also
on a personal level as well. I have experienced much synchronicity in
my own life since I was born. But if we actually effect the physical
world by observation then on what level are synchronistic experiences
self-induced? Is it even possible for them to not be self induced?
And can such observations actually affect the world as a whole on a
grand scale? If it can, then what gives one person's consciousness
precedent over others? Especially if their consciousness is out
numbered by many. I don't want to sound like a solipsist, but what is
the nature of the universe and man's destiny if consciousness is
primary and you take the many world interpretation at face value? It
would seem on the surface of things that each conscious being has his
or her own universal time line where they can literally create the
physical world as they please. And if this is so then why should
there be any suffering at all in a person's own personal universe if
they do not want such stuff to happen? I know this sounds like crazy
nonsense and would sound even more so if I stated everthing I think
about this topic, and perhaps it is, but I would like these questions
answered even if only on a hypothetical philosophical level.
- On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 11:23 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
> Dear Jack,Thanks Brian. Can you give me relevant quotes I can include from your
> If I may insert a comment here ... Fotini Pallikari and I discovered
> the same possibility independently at the same time and published the
> idea in Foundations of Physics, though admittedly V. developed the
> ideas, which were the main content of his thesis, much further.
> Incidentally, V. was a Cambridge graduate who apparently attended my
> superconductivity course, before going off to Trieste to do a Ph.D.
> under Dennis Sciama, a past Fellow of Trinity. Anyway, your 'cutting
> edge ideas' are nice and to the point.
work. All of this is preparatory for a book I am working on "Super
Cosmos". I will send you rough draft when done and if you would like to
contribute to it later on that would be good. We can discuss this
further in March in London. I would also like Basil Hiley to
contribute. I am not looking for agreement but for intelligent
constructive "creative tension" (Ray Chiao) of alternative approaches.
>No I was not there.
> BTW, in the 2003 quantum-mind conference, which I think you may have
> been at also,
> I developed the idea that strings play the role of data structures,Yes, this is an exciting idea that dawned on me only recently from
> their raison d'etre maybe.
reading Lee Smolin I think?
> I guess I ought to write this up some time (or put it on the preprintDefinitely. Did you think of the duality between spin networks and
> server :-) ).
strings? I mean a node on a spin network is a volume and an edge on a
spin network is an area. Therefore, quantized links on the stringy
edge lead naturally to quantized areas. Is this well known I wonder?
Did I simply see the obvious that everyone takes for granted? I also
was thinking of reciprocal lattices in solid state physics because of
Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal" elastic model of General Relativity.
> It interfaces nicely with my present ideas on the brain which I'm
> hoping to present at ICCS 2004 in May if there is still such a thing
> as transatlantic air travel by that date (see www.necsi.org for
> details of the conference).
> --On Saturday, January 3, 2004 9:29 am -0800 Jack Sarfatti
> <sarfatti@...> wrote:
>> Yet, the Bohmian analysis of Antony Valentini suggests otherwise.
> * * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::
> * Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
> * Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
> * Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
> * * * * * * *
> PS I am meeting with Carlos Castro tomorrow in Santa Barbara.
- On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>>JS: Show me quote from Wheeler that leads you to say that.
>> JS: Yes and he is correct.
> PZ: Einstein's stated position was that gravitation and frame
> acceleration are
> "completely physically equivalent".
> How can you now say this is correct? Even Wheeler doesn't believe this.
I gave you complete argument based on geodesic deviation equation and
of g-force vs tidal measurements! That's it.
You need, in addition, curved geometry to make LOCAL EEP consistent
this is the point of Hawking's example where two oppositely
accelerating observers are at
fixed spatial separation. This is not possible in flat Minkowski
space-time only in non-Euclidean
curved space-time. This is why Yilmaz and PV are complete nonsense IMHO.
>JS: Einstein is not wrong. He is wonderfully consistent. The idea here
> PZ: For some reason it seems you just can't bring yourself to admit
> that Einstein
> could be wrong about this fundamental issue, regardless of all the
>JS: On this, yes.
> PZ: Is Einstein infallible?
Overheard at Caffe Trieste:
Alice: Do you know the difference between God and Jack Sarfatti?
Bob: No, what is it?
Alice: God does not think he is Jack Sarfatti. ;-)