In QM there exists configuration space. In the light of Wheeler's delayed observation experment, it would appear that for example a photon exists in a real configuration space untill detected, at which time it becomes "physical" as we know it, in one form or another.

In physical reality, no info can be transmitted faster than light.

However, how does the 1/2 photon traveling to the right know that it's twin traveling to the left has flipped , (changed polarity) instantly, and thus know to change poarity itself? It must do so else conservation laws would be violated and it is observed to be the case.

Einstein didn't believe such a thing really happened, but Bell showed that it really does. It's a very special case and only exists between entangled particles at the quantum level.

No signal no information can be sent from one observer to another using such a thing. Thus causality is preserved.

Non local space like exchanges require entangled particles, i.e, that they be in the same quantum state. It does not fit into realtivity very nicely.

It would seem that conaciousness is a non local space like wave function , how do the bozons (electrons) achieve identical quantum states?

Read the part about consciousness, and that is what they are saying. That consciousness is a macro spacelike wave between N (10 to the 18) or so, bozons. No other known configuration can transmitt information, just noise.

A spacelike wave would exist in "configuration" space, the same as the particle/wave limbo state, before it decides to be a particle or a wave by being observed. Likewise it might be said that consciousness exists in the "limbo" state, or configuration space untill it is observed by one or more of the bozons we call grey matter.

After that I would not know where to go with it, other than to observe that configuration space is everywhere in the universe simultaniously. For example, a photon before detection see's the universe as a dimensionless dot. It is literally at every point in the universe

You can see that by applying Lorentz length contraction to a photon. The universe shrinks down to nothing when v=c. The photon says, I didn't go anywhere. It only chooses to be a photon (particle) or a wave, becasue it is observed.

So for the entangled photon, it says, no I didn't violate the light speed information transfeer rule, becasue the info never went anywhere. It does not violate causality because the info cannot be known by anyone else other than the photons themselves. i.e. we can't use it to send signals back and forth to each other.

Configuration space is real, it exists, but is hidden from us in any direct way. You have to become non-physical in anyway we can dream of physical being. Things can happen there that can't happen in what we call reality.

Relativity deals with our 4 dimensional reality, where as configuration space is one might say outside it. So the rules are not the same. It is quite possable that configuration space brings in extra dimensions, it remains to be seen.

Now if I'm allowed to speculate just a little bit. Assume that this paper is correct. Then consciousness being a non local space like wave, existing in configration space then it exists in and outside of the 4D universe, which we know had a begining. However, configuration space being spacelike opperates outside the time dimension and thus had no begining. We can certainly say that objective reality (the universe) comes from configuration space. We have thus tied pre-universe and the existence of conaciousness together. They have properties in common or have I made a mistake?

http://www.qedcorp.com/APS/Nov...

TP: I don't "know" you are really Keiths either, but you have a pretty recognizable pattern in your attacks.

There are parallels. Also noted is the rarity of substantive comments directed at blog entries themselves. Instead they are carping criticism focused on personalities.

You really ought to take some lessons from Zachriel and pick your battles more carefully. This really wasn't worth it.

I don't "know" you are really Keiths either, but you have a pretty recognizable pattern in your attacks.

As for you "paying attention". Jim_Wynne was responding to my comment to him where I explained I was an engineer and wrote…

"I will tell you what I am looking for. I am looking for the weaknesses in the basic understanding I do have. "

And in the paragraph before Jim highlighted the word "seem" he wrote…

I'm an engineer too, and I know enough physics to be able to apply what I need in my work, but my knowledge is far from comprehensive. I understand what I don't know, and don't pretend I know more because I read mass-market books. I'm not interested in trying to solve problems I'm not qualified to understand.

Jim admitted that amongst "a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about" while declaring he was not qualified to understand enough to explain where I was wrong.

After which Jim pretty much dropped out of the conversation.

In the environment that After the Bar Closes engenders that is as close to an admission you are going to get.

While I welcome the scrutiny, I am not as you sure you really want people paying attention to who you are or why you are pressing this attack.

Your comment didn't benefit AtBC, TT or any proposal. It wasn't even very relevant in arguing against Orch OR or Intelligent Design. The only purpose it appeared to serve was for dissing me and putting some salve on a bruised male ego.

What you call hyperanalysis, I call paying attention. TP's use of the word 'admission' was significant.

Sure we can. TP said I was male, then admitted (i.e. conceded "” see how that works, Doug?) that he didn't know whether it was true. When you go off half-cocked, asserting things without knowing whether they're true, you lose credibility.

See how what works? How you read things into the original to prove a point that didn't need to be proved? Sure, I see how you work valerie.
You're a hyperanalytical person, more interested in word games than actually addressing the point. All the while selectively ignoring certain parts of the post that alone prove your point as being flawed.
Hey….. great job.

Because I agree with you that identity is irrelevant to the validity of one's ideas.

Okay, that makes sense now.

Fine. Then we can't assess TP's credibility one way or the other.

Sure we can. TP said I was male, then admitted (i.e. conceded — see how that works, Doug?) that he didn't know whether it was true. When you go off half-cocked, asserting things without knowing whether they're true, you lose credibility.

Mike Gene asked:

Huh? How did I get dragged into this?

Because I agree with you that identity is irrelevant to the validity of one's ideas. If Bradford respects your right to privacy, he should respect mine as well.

So does Mike Gene. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Huh? How did I get dragged into this?