On Apr 2, 11:21 pm, stephenk <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> On Apr 2, 7:22 am, Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Yes agreed. Also if timelike entanglements occurred there would be
> > less worry about conflict with relativity than there was originally
> > with spacelike effects. However if I understand decoherence
> > correctly, information from the system passes into the environment so
> > it is there somehow but very dispersed.
> Yes, but only rarely is the "environment" an ideal gas or monolithic
> solid such that our usual ideas of diffusion and dispersal will apply.
> I suspect that we need to think about how decoherence works in a
> framework that takes into consideration a wide variety of rates and
> that considers how the phase entanglement is distributed. I have tried
> to find work examining this and only recently some papers have come
> It took a while, but Tegmark's no-go is finally loosing its hold. (I
> swear that guy is the reincarnation of Lord Kelvin!)
> From what I can tell decoherence is more of an effects that
> disperses among the many-worlds and not one that spreads within a
> single world - like photons. We really do not have good physical
> analogies for it!
> >I did write a paper once(when
> > I was younger and more stupid, so it has very doubtful worth) but I
> > tried to formalise mathematically how memories might be stored in
> > space time rather than in the brain at all ie working on the idea that
> > the brain was more of an aeriel rather than a hard drive. These
> > memories could then be later picked up by a simulated entity by
> > appropriate tuning. It was a stab in the dark.
> Interesting idea! It reminds me of Sheldrake's Morphic fields. I
> think that James P. Hogan wrote a novel based on a similar idea also,
> except in "Paths to Otherwhere" the ideas was to "tune" in on
> differing parallel worlds and even travel between them.
> I think that we still do not fully understand the implications of
> > On Apr 2, 1:59 am, stephenk <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > The idea that the EPR effect would work across time-like as well
> > > as space-like intervals makes sense in light of relativity. I am
> > > surprised that more people have not looked into it! The main
> > > difficulty I see is that there is a huge prejudice against the idea
> > > that macroscopic systems can be entangled such that EPR type relations
> > > could hold and have effects like you are considering here. Most of the
> > > arguments for decoherence inevitably assume that *all* of the degrees
> > > of freedom of a QM system are subject to one and the same decoherence
> > > rate with its environment. What if this is not the case? What if there
> > > is a stratification of sorts possible within macroscopic systems such
> > > that degrees of freedom can decohere are differing rates? Correlations
> > > of the EPR type would be possible within these, it seems to me...- Hide
> > > quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Sheldrakes ideas are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. I
think that he looked at my paper and used a reference to, I think?
alligned himself with Matti Pitkanen who was a referee for the paper.
Pitkanen promotes Topological Geometrodynamics and somehow this
accounts for consciousness etc - I think? Unfortunately I am no good
at quantum field theory and GMD seems full of it - I really can't
understand any of it. He uses p-adic numbers but it's a while since I
read about it. He has quite a few papers out on vixra.org. so I guess
I should browse them again.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at