Thanks for once again specifying the very specific and narrow words you are using. That's very helpful in communications.
You mean like bolding and underlying specific words like shannon entropy and von neumann entropy.
Kind of. I was going to mention that for the information to be added to a closed system, such as a RNG that's set to produce 100,000 numbers, then some other information has to be shunted to make way for the addition (though, one could say that they're not adding information and instead are just altering information already present). But then I thought better of it because it doesn't really matter anyway. In a more cosmic sense, I don't much care because the Earth is not a closed system, and we still have no verification as to whether the universe itself is a closed system. And then there's the psi theories about the possibility of actually being able to create energy out of nothing, and then there's the real world physics possibility of energy potentially being able to be created out of seemingly nothing. So I don't much care unless we're talking about a closed system, and even them I don't much care if there's no real point to be made. And I really don't see the point to the entropy discussion.
Your understanding of this is off, though, this is understandable because the average person does not have this understanding... That is why I stick to examples of what you called "psychic dices". Pretty much, the idea in quantum statistical mechanics is that if you swap the location of particles, the universe will be in the same state it was prior to changing the location of the particles; therefore, n-particles can be said to be indistinguishable from one another. This is to say things like mass, spin, and charge are the same. This means there are redundancies in the system. However, if a state with identical properties to the old one is created without the particles sharing these properties, you count both states versus simply counting one state in terms of the entropy because one does not have redundancies. Redundancies, or lack of them, would thus play a role in how much entropy one ends up dealing with and whether or not it changes. This is important, because redundancies allow one to feasibly draw correlations and symmetries in regards to information for different parts of a system, so if you do not have this, it counts towards entropy. Now, we get into why what you said about Earth not being a closed system is irrelevant. Symmetrical things in the universe are homogeneous and isotropic, and when they are no longer so, there are more possible states which impacts the entropy you are dealing with(there is a relationship between those two in words). Recall just a little while before, I said something about indistinguishable particles in respect to symmetries and correlations? The cosmological principle states: "In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.(Cosmological Principle)" In other words, it does not matter if this is happening on Earth or anywhere else.
In a context like a wave function(but not exactly), the information specifies the state of the particles including its history that encompasses its position. What I said relates to micropsychokinesis, because entropy and what I explained, above, is a factor in things such as radioactive decay which could be a source of a random event where this is manipulated via manipulating the probability. The universe is a closed system, to say it simply, because matter is not being exchanged between this universe and another universe. Closed is not the same as isolated, mind you. I am not saying that quantum statistical mechanics explains psychokinesis; rather, I am saying information can be modeled in similar way when discussing psi. I could go into the other things you said, but that would be tedious(you said a lot of incorrect things) and would quadruple the size of this already lengthy response.
As far as psi creating energy out of nothing, that is hypothetically possible; however, psi seems to follow something that is analogous to the path of least resistance where this likely means that psychokinesis is merely manipulating information which determines where energy will be in such a way that energy that already exists is manipulated unless otherwise specified which leads into the materialization aspect of psychokinesis. This is implicit in the teleogical nature of psi(see Helmut's research
; I disagree with his theories but his experiments show the teleological properties of psychokinesis). For example, biochemistry in a living being is already moving around, so all that needs to be done is to just shift and direct it via manipulating the probabilistic aspects of those reactions. I kind of think to truly appreciate this, you kind of have to have a solid background in natural sciences. For example, when you increase information and order like one does with psychokinesis, one is creating something like a reversal, and in doing that, energy is accessible to do work. Chemical reactions, for example, are dependent on spatial and temporal organizations, so if you fool around with the information, you fool around with both those things which would allow one to manipulate reactions and their resulting structures. Considering the teleological nature of psi, for an intention to say improve health via killing off an infection, you likely would be dealing with that to organize physiological processes more so than creating the energy from scratch. The law of conservation of energy is bent via the violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and this does not negate the universe being physically a closed system in that physically matter is not entering or leaving this universe.
Kobok addresses that here:
The laws of quantum field theory tell us that energy can and DOES get created and destroyed all the time, but that it does so at such an equally matched rate that the end result is no net change. This means that in small areas and for small times, energy does get created and destroyed noticeably, and the effects of this are measureable.Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Psi
The only thing keeping the conservation of energy balanced on the everyday macroscopic scale is probability. So long as the probabilities of creation and destruction are equal, there will not be any net creation or destruction. But one reasonable interpretation of abilities like micropsychokinesis might be that we possess the ability to manipulate probabilities. So there's no fundamental reason to think that psi is restricted to obeying the conservation of energy.
So, I'm really curious as to how you directly observe an informational or statistical manipulation, in much the same way that I can feel (observation through a sense of feel, though not to be confused with the sense of physical touch) the qi interacting with things outside myself and get feedback from it (which is often then also confirmed via my normal physical senses).
I already answered this, and I am not repeating myself because it can be read in my response above this one. I gave you a specific name and way of knowing if something has more or less information, so if you are sincerely curious, just reread and then use Google. The issue, though, is that it is an inference, and that is what you seem to not like. Here is the thing about science; it is inductive(except for maybe experimentation to test a hypothesis). In being inductive, science deals with what is probably true and not with what is necessarily true. In other words, if I interpret an experiment statistically, I am inferring that what the statistical analysis of that experiment indicates is probably true where there is a strong case for this; however, it is not necessarily true. For example, if we were to look at the p-value of an experiment and its significance(especially in relation to null hypothesis and whether or not something is testable), we would actually being looking at a frequents statistical inference
. I should note, here, though, there is some debate concerning that(there is some disagreement in terms of where Bayesian statistics should be used) There exists the possibility it could be wrong, but you really can't start proposing other things could be equally true without some sort of scale of it being likely. You are saying we cannot directly observe this; rather, we are merely inferring something based on an interpretation, but most of science is predicated on this, so if you reject what I said for this reason, you pretty much reject science or you reject the scientific study of psi. On the other hand, a lot of ontological/metaphysical frameworks are categorical syllogisms. You actually use of a lot of those(you propose a definition, then you argue from that definition where those definitions tend to be normative). Those arguments are deductive, tautological, and tend to not be scientific because they result in tautological statements that are necessarily true. There are a lot of other things factually wrong in your understanding of Physics, but based on the conclusion that you will likely reject it for what I said, above, I am not going to go into it. Also, conversations concerning psionics that supplement what I have said and would say are on this site where in one of the articles, kobok directly addressed one of your points, so if people are genuinely interested in it, they can find it.
Do you mean to say that we don't have any sensors that can detect the presence of qi, as a causal mechanic that is distinct from pure intention alone? In that case, I'd agree, except for all the people who can perceive the existence of qi as a distinct thing. Hell, 5000 years of Chinese History does it so well that they even have other terms and forces that they deal with too, and have methods for converting one thing to another. And if I recall correctly, Yoga has somewhat similar concepts with regards to pranayama and kundalini.This usage
of Qi is not falsifiable(this isn't to say other ways of approaching qi are intrinsically untestable); therefore, it is not testable, and because it is not testable, you can't really draw meaningful scientific conclusions about it. I cannot statistically infer it's likelihood. It is much like Carl Sagon's dragon in the garage. Furthermore, the persistence of a belief is not evidence for whether or not that belief is justified. The same arguments you are using in favor of qi can be used in favor of <insert deity>; however, it does not constitute scientific evidence(many people will say they have experienced their gods where their experiences will sync up). Also, that, at the moment, is not testable.
As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he "neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, "but this dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an infra-red camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains that the fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed physical test with a reason why the test will not work.
Sagan concludes by asking: "Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."
I am interested in what you can plausibly give me based on a strong inferential link with empirically meaningful evidence. I honestly don't know what you go on about. You speak of Physics that does not exists(there are huge major flaws in the post I am referring to where it just is so tedious to go through it) and then you speak of things being science that are not science and then you say real science is not science. There is no scientific evidence to propose that qi is a causal mechanism for psi. You have admitted to me you are giving me an argument with no evidence. There is enough scientific evidence to conclude that psi exists; however, at the moment, there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that qi exists; therefore, any normative statement formulated in that context has no scientific backing. Saying that having sex saps qi is thus not a justifiable reason to abstain from sex. You have not scientifically proven it
For instance, if I might guess, I would assume (based on your descriptions of your experiences) that you do most of your psychic stuff within your own head: is that correct, Rayn?
No, it is not correct in that I do not place particular importance on my body, so I am not doing anything internal relative to my head or body... If you are referring to internal as within my own mind, that is a no, too, in that I perceive the presence of other minds as external to my own. I perceive thoughts as objects that are tangible to me where I can perceive how they interact. The focal point in my practices tends to be wherever my awareness is, and, a lot of times, it is no where near my body. In other words, the "energy" performing the action is not coming from my body which is more evident when I am not actually in it. When I was younger, I actually had a problem popping out of my body and being somewhere and somewhen else all of the time. I had strong bouts of clairvoyance where I actually would end up wherever I am at. When I would geist, my skin would feel funny as if it were charged; however, I have concluded that is a parasympathetic response to my emotions and is actually not correlated with the psychokinesis. To be honest, it is hard for me to cut loose with what I can do if strongly associated with my body in that my body has limitations in terms of perception and experience that another part of me does not, so to tap into it, I have to "move away and past" my body where that actually allows me to change my consciousness entirely and shift from looking at things as the way humans do(it is just hard to hold onto that when strongly associated with my body). Metaphysically, my body does not have any particular special importance to me or my experience, so I cannot relate to what you mean when you start talking about physical states and such as related to your practices, to be frank. When I sense a table, a part of my thoughts are that table. A part of me is that table. When I perform psychokinesis, I just utilize that part of me which is that table, so I am not shaping energy; rather, I am shaping myself. I experience a part of me as that thing or that person. When I interact with someone, I have a similar experience. I do not have the experience of all that energy stuff. The closer I am to my body, the harder it is to do that, though
. I also don't experience what you do when you get depleted. To be honest, the more I do, the more I want to do and the more I can do. It just gets out of hand, and I lose control over it and myself, so I tend to not cut loose until I can get more control over myself. I have had very strong psychic abilities all my life where I heavily researched mysticism and religion, but I found they cannot explain it where the best bet, for now, seems science, so that is where I am placing my money. I don't know where my abilities come from or why I have them, but if it were not for my experiences, I would not have an interests in science or engineering probably. I also believe that scientifically figuring psi out will benefit society in terms of creating a very potent energy source of clean energy. In that sense, I place little value on things like this because I have what I see as more important goals in mind. I also believe my abilities are my own, and I can do with them what I want, so I tend to resent practices that tell me what I have to or should do with them under the idea you have to subscribe to whatever to refine them, so I am skeptical of schools of thought that speak of this. I will not say more on this bit in this thread, though, so if you want to discuss it further, you'll have to do it somewhere else with me, because that is not what this thread is about.