I thought that if there are free electrons due to thermal excitation, they are randomly excited, and if you look at the energy states of electrons they are bell-curve distributed (more or less).
Electrical current (e.g. the speed of movement of individual electrons) I'm fairly sure do follow a bell(ish) distribution.
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 14 Apr 2010, 10:44
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
What I meant to say was, "the entropy of the individual components of a system can be modeled using statistical mechanics. Because it is a probabilistic distribution, conceptually, macro-PK is the same as micro-PK. "
All of your statistical distributions are going to take a shape similar to that, but your mean, skew, and steepness (I can't remember the word for this) are going to vary. But they're all the same general shape.
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 14 Apr 2010, 05:16
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 14 Apr 2010, 01:43
]]>
]]>
What is the difference between a still object and a moving object? Classical physics says it's a difference in kinetic energy (this is a tautology, the real question then becomes, "What is kinetic energy?") Relativistic physics says (simplified) it's a difference in the object's four-vector. Quantum mechanics says it's a property of the wave function. Which one is correct? It's a trick question. Both are models, they're incomplete. Don't mistake the map for the territory.
Put on your smart helmets:
The bottom line is that an object is composed of information; the entropy of the individual components is normally, excuse me, statistically distributed (as described by the partition function of the ensemble of quantized energy states of many many particles in thermal equilibrium). A [classical] force acting on an object, say a collision, is basically applying an entropy-operator. The result is that both objects have a different entropy distribution (and therefore also changing the overall entropy distribution of the universe). This is true of everything from a proton-proton collision, to black holes consuming each other.
It is my belief that telekinesis somehow allows for applying entropy operators in a way that we do not understand the mechanism.
The mental models I use involve "carriers" of consciousness (in the way that photons are carriers of EM force) that interact with the information at the root of all energy/matter. Again, it's just a model, it's a way of massaging an abstraction into a physical concept the brain can grapple. We'll call them Consciousness Particles (CPs) for now (save your breath, they don't actually exist). CPs mediate organization - anti-entropy if you will - where two pieces of information combine to create a new piece of information. This drives emergence (increasing complexity) at the expense of "" other information (generating entropy). Most interactions involve standard acts of emergence - star formation for example. However, there is nothing barring "spontaneous" emergence, e.g. a localized increase in information density, at the expense of more entropy elsewhere (essentially tunneling, but not quite). It only seems spontaneous to humans because it appears to violate spacetime locality, but locality is an illusion.
Ergo, if I push a ball with my hand, it "looks" like there is a causal link, but if I move the ball with telekinesis, it "looks" like there is no causal link, hence why telekinesis is viewed as "paranormal." However, the universe can't tell the difference in the scheme of things. Information and entropy are changing hands in both cases. In the former, it starts with the breakdown of glucose in my mitochondria to generate energy to contract my muscles to impart kinetic energy into the ball (or if you will, entropy of the still ball is traveling 'back in time' to my muscles to the mitochondria in order to "disorganize" some glucose molecules). In the latter, the entropy is still moving from point A to B, however, we can't see how it's getting there. I've noticed I get really hot whenever I do telekinesis; I'm definitely kicking off more entropy than it takes to move the object. Not a single law of physics is violated in the act of telekinesis. Saying telekinesis is impossible because it happens over a distance is like saying cell phone communication is impossible because you've never seen a radio wave. Maybe we can find the carriers responsible for mediating this interaction, maybe we won't. But just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it's not there.
What is the result of all this? If people have free will and consciousness, so do particles. Therefore, as Craig mentioned many writers have let on to - thoughts shape reality (to an extent).
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 14 Apr 2010, 01:02
]]>
I've only offered a theory based on personal experience and observation. NucleicAcid seems to have had a different form of manifestation of which I can only explain on the Metaphysical or (to be more accurate) Hermetic basis... The Mind Creates... every thought we have expresses some level of electrical discharge a.k.a. physical movement. This is where James Alan and Louise Hay get their idea of mind (thought) creating physical realities.
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 13 Apr 2010, 21:56
]]>