RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: A Voice from the Middle Ground, Simultaneous Posting from Telic Thoughts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2007,11:41   

Quote
You really don't like General Relativity do you?

Ok, even with Special Relativity, what do you think would happen if you took a quick trip to the moon and back at twice the speed of light?

Don't let that negative square-root bother you, there are ways around it (complex numbers).

Neither do you apparently, how much energy is required to accelerate an object (with mass) to the speed of light? (Special or GR) Don't let the mathematics bother you, it's a simple integral.

Quote
The data will be statistically analyzed for correlation between the test subject’s choice with the actual light.  The correlation will then be plotted against the time delta between the light flash and the choice.  The graph of the primary testing will then be compared to the graph of the control testing.

It would be expected that choices made 500ms after the light flash would correlate well, whereas the choices made prior to the light flash wouldn’t correlate well at all.  The focus of the analysis would be to determine the crossover point between correlated and uncorrelated.

If, for example, the crossover point for the quantum randomizer is 100ms and the crossover point for the pseudorandom generator is 400ms, this would suggest conscious decisions are directly influenced by quantum effects.  However, if there is no significant difference between the crossover points, then this would be a negative result to the Orch-OR hypothesis’ prediction.

By the time the test subject sees the light, the quantum effect is over. The act of choosing which light to show has already collapsed the wave-function (the detector is an "observer"). Most likely the data would be Poisson distributed for both the quantum generator and pseudo-random, with the same average reaction time for both (around 500 ms). If you wanted better statistics, the timing should be randomized as well, so the observers can't anticipate when the light will be shown. Again, this wouldn't be a test for quantum effects, but how much more random is a pseudo-random generator than a quantum random generator to human perception.

  
  72 replies since Oct. 04 2007,08:49 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]