Why do you believe?

[Wiccan_Child]

He said light alone and two-photon physics is not photons alone:

"Two-photon physics can be studied with high-energy particle accelerators, where the accelerated particles are not the photons themselves but charged particles that will radiate photons."

The accelerator creates the high-energy photons that will interact and be studied. This point is reiterated in the very first line:

"Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."

You can get photon-photon 'collision' by shining two floodlights at each other (energy notwithstanding), but the resulting particle might be a tad too small for the human eye to discern. That's why we use particle accelerators: not only do they have massively sensitive detectors for sniffing out the particles we're looking for, they also have a handy-dandy method of creating high-energy photons - colliding accelerated particles. See this paper for more details.

 

[nebulaJP]

The accelerator creates the high-energy photons that will interact and be studied. This point is reiterated in the very first line:

"Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created."

You can get photon-photon 'collision' by shining two floodlights at each other (energy notwithstanding), but the resulting particle might be a tad too small for the human eye to discern. That's why we use particle accelerators: not only do they have massively sensitive detectors for sniffing out the particles we're looking for, they also have a handy-dandy method of creating high-energy photons - colliding accelerated particles. See this paper for more details.

Colliding light

"Two photons cannot ever collide. In fact light is quantized only when interacting with matter. In contrast, this model predicts that extreme light colliding in empty space can give stable matter. That matter is light bottled up contradicts the standard particle model of physics. We know that photons can give temporary electron-positron pairs by the Breit-Wheeler reaction, that accelerator collisions can create new matter, and that high-frequency light near a nucleus can create matter, but to predict that pure light can, in the extreme case, collide in a vacuum to give permanent matter is a shock. If [stable, permanent] matter arises from light, it is not fundamental. Physics framed around the nineteenth century particle concept still dominates, even though space creates matter, matter plus matter creates matter and light plus matter creates matter, but if light alone in a vacuum can create [stable, permanent] matter, it must fall."

I have bolded the relevant words and added the words in brackets to make it clear what he saying. The current experiments are not pure, high frequency light in a vacuum and they do not produce an electron, i.e. permanent matter.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Colliding light

"Two photons cannot ever collide. In fact light is quantized only when interacting with matter. In contrast, this model predicts that extreme light colliding in empty space can give stable matter. That matter is light bottled up contradicts the standard particle model of physics. We know that photons can give temporary electron-positron pairs by the Breit-Wheeler reaction, that accelerator collisions can create new matter, and that high-frequency light near a nucleus can create matter, but to predict that pure light can, in the extreme case, collide in a vacuum to give permanent matter is a shock. If [stable, permanent] matter arises from light, it is not fundamental. Physics framed around the nineteenth century particle concept still dominates, even though space creates matter, matter plus matter creates matter and light plus matter creates matter, but if light alone in a vacuum can create [stable, permanent] matter, it must fall."

I have bolded the relevant words and added the words in brackets to make it clear what he saying.

Are you making it clear what he's saying, or shifting the goalposts? If he's talking about the creation of unqualified matter, why would you add extra qualifiers?

The current experiments are not pure, high frequency light in a vacuum and they do not produce an electron, i.e. permanent matter.

I enjoy that he only allows his claims to be tested in deep space.

 

[nebulaJP]

Are you making it clear what he's saying, or shifting the goalposts? If he's talking about the creation of unqualified matter, why would you add extra qualifiers?

Why would you call it unqualified when he used the words "stable" and "permanent" in that paragraph?

And at the bottom of the Q&A he specifically says electron:

"Current situation: The fourth chapter on matter is nearly done. It derives all standard model fields, charges and force carrying particles from the architecture of Chapter 2 and the Planck program of Chapter 3. It also proposes a theory test:

That extreme light colliding in empty space will create matter.

As the received view is that photons can never collide, if pure light in empty space creates an electron, a new paradigm will be required."

I enjoy that he only allows his claims to be tested in deep space.

He's never once specified perfect vacuum. Obviously he means a partial vacuum.

Edit: But that's not to say that outer space is a perfect vacuum or "free space," it's a partial vacuum of a higher quality than one in a lab.

 

[Paradoxum]

If NDEs were completely random I'd say you have a point. But there is a commonality. Why would the brain mess up in this particular way, with these themes? What is the evolutionary advantage of that according to physicalism, gap?

You make a good point.

I don't know if it has an evolutionary advantage. Not everything the body does has an advantage... it would just be down to chance to some extent, or the side effect other other uses.

The people who have had NDEs have had dreams in their lives. They know what a dream is like and they describe the NDE as being very different than a dream. The way they describe encounters with deceased family members and pets who tell them they have to return to their bodies is very different from a random "dream about their family." An all encompassing "life review" is very different from a random "dream about their past." So I don't see what your point is.

Well they wouldn't be the same as dreams. But just because they seem different doesn't mean they aren't illusions.

Dreams don't contain specific common themes in relation to specific common bodily states. When we have a backache, we don't commonly dream of getting a massage. When we have a cold we don't commonly dream of staying in a hospital. There is no direct correlation: this common bodily state produces that common dream content. So, apples to oranges, NDEs are not dreams and have very little in common with them.

Well NDE's are unconscious experiences... so they have that in common. Also, when you need to pee in real life you can need to pee in a dream too.

Here I have rephrased it.

NDEs commonly involve specific experiences related to crossing over, the traits of a classic NDE.

Hallucinations or dreams do not commonly involve the traits of a classic NDE.

All I have heard is that NDEs are no more indicative of life beyond death than are dreams or hallucinations, despite the fact that unlike most NDEs, neither dreams nor hallucinations commonly involve the traits of a classic NDE. Meanwhile the traits of a classic NDE make perfect sense relative to the "near-deathness" of the person having the experience. The content is appropriate to the situation.

Why is there this specific content about dying and crossing over to an afterlife realm when a person is near death; what is our physiology's purpose for generating this specific content when a person is dying?

I don't consider "NDEs are just as unreal as dreams or hallucinations" a direct answer to this question.

How do you know that some of these experiences aren't merely rationalized by the conscious mind afterwards? The actual experience could have just been a load of lights and feelings, but only afterwards are these turned into something understandable. The interpretation of them being related to death could just come after waking up. On the other hand, some drugs can make people feel like they are dying when they aren't. Something like that could perhaps be released from a dying brain.

You say these experiences are related to death, but I don't see that to be true. Feelings of peace aren't necessarily about death, and could easily be explained by chemicals released by the brain to cope with the trauma of death. The feeling of being out of body (which happens to living people too), can be caused by the brain mechanisms which makes us feel attached to the body and behind the eyes can mess up.

The tunnel of light, and the experience of growing light, could be the dying visual cortex trying to interpret the remains of brain activity. Beings of light could similarly be a combination of the dying visual cortex along with a faulty perception of where another person is. This can happen to a living person, where they feel like they are being watched by someone who isn't there, or feel like someone is next to them when no one is.

All the above don't necessarily have anything to do with death. They are just interpreted that way once one wakes up and tried to rationalize the experience.

The perhaps harder to explain experiences are that of seeing dead relatives and having a life review. The first could perhaps be explained by the mind feeling like it is dying, which reminds it of relatives that have died. I'm not sure why flashbacks happen, but they do happen to non-dead people as well, such as if you get hit on the head.

I'm not sure if that answers your question though. I hope you don't mind me trying to prove you wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why would you call it unqualified when he used the words "stable" and "permanent" in that paragraph?

And at the bottom of the Q&A he specifically says electron:

"Current situation: The fourth chapter on matter is nearly done. It derives all standard model fields, charges and force carrying particles from the architecture of Chapter 2 and the Planck program of Chapter 3. It also proposes a theory test:

That extreme light colliding in empty space will create matter.

As the received view is that photons can never collide, if pure light in empty space creates an electron, a new paradigm will be required."

As is the case if photon-photon collision creates an elephant.

He's never once specified perfect vacuum. Obviously he means a partial vacuum.

Then the experiments already done will suffice.

 

[nebulaJP]

How do you know that some of these experiences aren't merely rationalized by the conscious mind afterwards? The actual experience could have just been a load of lights and feelings, but only afterwards are these turned into something understandable. The interpretation of them being related to death could just come after waking up. On the other hand, some drugs can make people feel like they are dying when they aren't. Something like that could perhaps be released from a dying brain.

The brain has evolved in 4 dimensions. If you listen to the actual stories of the people, for the majority of them, the moment they regain consciousness they have specific memories of their experience in an afterlife realm but it is to a large extent ineffable. Many of the people who had the experience are reluctant to talk about it but if you prod them they will do their best to put into words and they will use their conditioned, human mind to put it into language in terms of their own religion or culture. So there is an influence of the mind on interpreting the experience to some extent.

However, when one of them regains consciousness after a sudden heart attack, they often have no way of knowing how close they were to death. Yet upon regaining consciousness, they have immediate memories about an experience in a beautiful, afterlife realm. Why these themes and not any random subject matter the majority of the time? Why don't they remember a visit to a land of pink elephants, where they have to run or be trampled for example. It makes no difference whether they previously believed in an afterlife or not.

You say these experiences are related to death, but I don't see that to be true. Feelings of peace aren't necessarily about death, and could easily be explained by chemicals released by the brain to cope with the trauma of death. The feeling of being out of body (which happens to living people too), can be caused by the brain mechanisms which makes us feel attached to the body and behind the eyes can mess up.

The tunnel of light, and the experience of growing light, could be the dying visual cortex trying to interpret the remains of brain activity. Beings of light could similarly be a combination of the dying visual cortex along with a faulty perception of where another person is. This can happen to a living person, where they feel like they are being watched by someone who isn't there, or feel like someone is next to them when no one is.

All the above don't necessarily have anything to do with death. They are just interpreted that way once one wakes up and tried to rationalize the experience.

The perhaps harder to explain experiences are that of seeing dead relatives and having a life review. The first could perhaps be explained by the mind feeling like it is dying, which reminds it of relatives that have died. I'm not sure why flashbacks happen, but they do happen to non-dead people as well, such as if you get hit on the head.

I'm not sure if that answers your question though. I hope you don't mind me trying to prove you wrong.

I would add the "transcendence of egoic and spatiotemporal boundaries" to this list. Though we can experience peace and a sense of being loved while we are not having an NDE, having an extremely intense feeling of this while dying is a little too convenient. Why doesn't our physiology produce for us the feeling of anger when we are dying, which could possibly help in a survival situation? Why would it care how well we cope with death? You are saying that some of these things can happen in some form without an NDE. True enough, but that doesn't explain why they all happen to converge when one is near death in hyper realistic and ineffable way.

 

[nebulaJP]

As is the case if photon-photon collision creates an elephant.


Then the experiments already done will suffice.

I'm not following you.

 

[nebulaJP]

The FAQ is interesting, but I'd be more interested in seeing actual evidence for the claims made, rather than simple speculation.

From the FAQ:

"33. This just a speculation, with no basis in detail.

Answer. Not true. For the record there is:

Chapter 1, the general introduction, was popular: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

Chapter 2, the boring grid architecture details: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf

Chapter 3, explains light: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

FQXi essay, this 2010 essay got a fourth prize. Exploring the virtual reality conjecture: http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

A podcast: Audio: Imagining Our World as a Virtual Reality - Technology - The Chronicle of Higher Education

As lay people generally dislike detail and experts generally ignore non-mainstream work, these papers inevitably fall in a sort of publishing no-man's land."

 

[Paradoxum]

The brain has evolved in 4 dimensions. If you listen to the actual stories of the people, for the majority of them, the moment they regain consciousness they have specific memories of their experience in an afterlife realm but it is to a large extent ineffable. Many of the people who had the experience are reluctant to talk about it but if you prod them they will do their best to put into words and they will use their conditioned, human mind to put it into language in terms of their own religion or culture. So there is an influence of the mind on interpreting the experience to some extent.

What do you mean by an afterlife realm? Unless there is a big neon sign that says 'Heaven', to say it is heaven is just their interpretation of it.

However, when one of them regains consciousness after a sudden heart attack, they often have no way of knowing how close they were to death. Yet upon regaining consciousness, they have immediate memories about an experience in a beautiful, afterlife realm. Why these themes and not any random subject matter the majority of the time? Why don't they remember a visit to a land of pink elephants, where they have to run or be trampled for example.

They call it an afterlife, but that doesn't mean that is what they experienced. Bright light, peace and love are only heaven if you call it that... otherwise it is just an interesting experience. There is no theme there, the theme is just the interpretation. The experience itself doesn't necessarily have any theme.

But perhaps the brain somehow realises the trauma and danger it is in, and so reminds it of death. This might then lead to thoughts of afterlife and people one knows have died. It isn't unbelievable that the brain could naturally think of such things while in trauma.

It makes no difference whether they previously believed in an afterlife or not.

Well most people know about afterlives, whether they believe or not. I don't believe in an afterlife, but Christianity has still had a strong affect on my life. Even if one has never heard of heaven someone might interpret it in such a way since they have no other way of understanding it.

I would add the "transcendence of egoic and spatiotemporal boundaries" to this list.

I'm not sure why you think that would present a greater challenge to explain.

Though we can experience peace and a sense of being loved while we are not having an NDE, having an extremely intense feeling of this while dying is a little too convenient. Why doesn't our physiology produce for us the feeling of anger when we are dying, which could possibly help in a survival situation? Why would it care how well we cope with death?

I don't know why it happens, but apparently it happens with people who experience traumatic events (but don't die) too. So it would seem that the brain can release a calming effect during trauma.

You are saying that some of these things can happen in some form without an NDE. True enough, but that doesn't explain why they all happen to converge when one is near death in hyper realistic and ineffable way.

Well I would say that the lack of oxygen, the trauma, and the release of chemical to cope with that, and the dying brain trying to work in a dying condition can probably account for alot of it. If the brain isn't asleep then it might seem like a waking experience rather than a sleeping one. Its ineffability could point towards a dying brain just as much towards an afterlife. If the brain is dying then what it experiences might not make alot of sense, so it is hard to express it in words.

 

[nebulaJP]

What do you mean by an afterlife realm? Unless there is a big neon sign that says 'Heaven', to say it is heaven is just their interpretation of it.

What I mean is they have a sense of being dead. That is the most common trait of an NDE.

Elements of NDE1 Frequency (n=62)
1 Awareness of being dead 31 (50%)
2 Positive emotions 35 (56%)
3 Out of body experience 15 (24%)
4 Moving through a tunnel 19 (31%)
5 Communication with light 14 (23%)
6 Observation of colours 14 (23%)
7 Observation of a celestial landscape 18 (29%)
8 Meeting with deceased persons 20 (32%)
9 Life review 8 (13%)
10 Presence of border 5 (8%)

Source Compare with: Near-death experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: When they wake up they have a memory of the sense/awareness of being dead.

 

[nebulaJP]

But perhaps the brain somehow realises the trauma and danger it is in, and so reminds it of death. This might then lead to thoughts of afterlife and people one knows have died. It isn't unbelievable that the brain could naturally think of such things while in trauma.

But it's not supported by the data:

'In conclusion, the present study shows that NDE memories have more characteristics than any kind of memory of real or imagined events and of other memories of a period of coma or impaired consciousness following an acquired severe brain dysfunction. In our opinion, the presented data demonstrate that NDEs cannot be considered as imagined events. We rather propose that the physiological origins of NDEs lead them to be really perceived although not lived in reality (i.e., being hallucination- or dream-like events), having as rich characteristics as memories of real events. The amount of characteristics of NDE memories probably is further enhanced by their here-identified high emotional and self-referential values. This suggests that memories of NDEs are flashbulb memories of really perceived hallucinations. Although the similarities of NDEs with hallucinations are striking, further research is needed to characterize the relationship between these phenomena more precisely. Finally, additional neuroimaging studies are needed in order to better understand the neural signature of NDEs."

PLOS ONE: Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

 

[nebulaJP]

Well most people know about afterlives, whether they believe or not. I don't believe in an afterlife, but Christianity has still had a strong affect on my life. Even if one has never heard of heaven someone might interpret it in such a way since they have no other way of understanding it.

Not children who don't even know what death is. Also, children remember their NDEs much more than adults do, 85% of cardiac arrest patients (source) compared to 12-18% in the Dutch study of primarily middle aged adults with cardiac arrest (source).

 

[nebulaJP]

I'm not sure why you think that would present a greater challenge to explain.

I only said I would add it.

 

[nebulaJP]

I don't know why it happens, but apparently it happens with people who experience traumatic events (but don't die) too. So it would seem that the brain can release a calming effect during trauma.

OK, maybe someday neuroscience will figure out why biology produces the hallucination of transcending the body and an intense, indescribable feeling of love and peace for organisms when they die, even though this will soon fade because awareness ends with permanent death. But I think the duck test applies here.

 

[nebulaJP]

Well I would say that the lack of oxygen, the trauma, and the release of chemical to cope with that, and the dying brain trying to work in a dying condition can probably account for alot of it. If the brain isn't asleep then it might seem like a waking experience rather than a sleeping one. Its ineffability could point towards a dying brain just as much towards an afterlife. If the brain is dying then what it experiences might not make alot of sense, so it is hard to express it in words.

The people who have NDEs don't say that it seemed to them like a waking experience. Their memories are of a transcendent experience of heightened awareness, unlike normal waking consciousness.

"The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function."

Source

 

[nebulaJP]

In the digital camp the billiard ball is a program entity with a new instance or existence frame generated every plank time. So it can pass through a wall if one instance is on one side of the wall and the next frame is on the other side. It doesn't exist continuously, it's a series of still frames or instances.

That's certainly one way time and tunnelling could work.

If tunneling works that way, with a new instance of the billiard ball generated every plank time, it would mean that the billiard ball's existence is the output of processing, wouldn't it? If not, how else could its existence be noncontinuous?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If tunneling works that way, with a new instance of the billiard ball generated every plank time, it would mean that the billiard ball's existence is the output of processing, wouldn't it? If not, how else could its existence be noncontinuous?

Perhaps the previous ball is the cause of the next ball's existence, a bit like a domino effect. No processing necessary.

If the universe were a program on a computer, then of course the ball's discontinuous existence occurs because of processing. But first one has to demonstrate that existence is discontinuous, and quantum tunnelling doesn't do that.

 

[nebulaJP]

If the universe were a program on a computer, then of course the ball's discontinuous existence occurs because of processing. But first one has to demonstrate that existence is discontinuous, and quantum tunnelling doesn't do that.

The way that Virtual Reality Theory explains it is simple and makes logical sense,

In the digital camp the billiard ball is a program entity with a new instance or existence frame generated every plank time. So it can pass through a wall if one instance is on one side of the wall and the next frame is on the other side. It doesn't exist continuously, it's a series of still frames or instances.

Does it make logical sense to you personally that a continuously existing billiard ball has a small but greater than 0 probability of passing through a continuously existing wall?

 

[nebulaJP]

Perhaps the previous ball is the cause of the next ball's existence, a bit like a domino effect. No processing necessary.

Or a bit like a printer that prints itself out and disappears once every planck time.