Re: Alternate treatment for depression

I think your blowing in the wind here. This is simply not true. Please detail you claimed extensive evidence. e.g. professional medical evaluations of subjects showing that they have no physical impediments, and that they were cured etc.

With all due respect, your experience is not sufficient then. Have you actually done any research on medical treatments at all? The evidence for physically induced personality disorders is completely overwhelming. Its the converse of what you say in many, if not most, cases. People try all sorts of lifestyle changes to solve a problem, when there is a basic physical cause for the problem. New links between brain function and behaviour are being discovered all the time.

Have you actually tried using logical arguments to someone with Schizophrenia? Hint: my twin brother has had Schizophrenia for the last

28 years.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Hi Kevin.

I've sent you an e-mail off-list, hope it reaches you OK.

Regards, NT

The pill, is arguably for hard *physical* causes.

the other methods work if you can change your

Only for its specific cause.

In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is.

One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

------------------------ The chance for defective software to fix itself is about even, flip a coin, it will still turn up heads or tails due to cause and effect.

-Steve

--
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

No idea what your saying here. Software dont usually fix itself at all.

flip

There are at least two flaws with this argument. The first is the obvious quantum uncertainty. A given input does not uniquely specify an output. The second, is classical uncertainty. Large numbers of non-linear systems are such that the outputs from a given input can not determined because of uncertainty in the initial conditions. This is often expressed by ill conditioned, or even by the term, chaotic systems. The idea of making in depth predictions for anything but the simplest of systems has been given up long ago.

Arguable, QM may or may not form a limiting aspect to human behaviour, however classical uncertainty certainly does. The claim that, in principle, a classical system can be deterministic, is vacuous. To all intents and purposes, given the inputs to a complex system (e.g the brain), the output can not be determined. The *same* input, can, in practise, lead to *different* outputs. Indeed, the knowledge that an equation can have more than one solution with an exact input, leads to the reality that cause an effect is not applicable in removing an individuals own responsibility to their own actions. For example, given someone says hallo to them, independent of prior history, it may cause them to shot or give them a $1. There is simply no way of making a valid prediction.

So, the technicality of cause and effect, has little relevance in practice. There is simply no way utilise this principle, if it were so, I would be down at the dog track making my fortune. Your basic flaw is that you assume that cause and effect uniquely determines an outcome from an income. Non-linear equations simply don't have that property.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

If you learn to change it then you have a _real_ solution.

Or change the way you react to your environment, or both. Bear in mind we're talking about depression here, not different things like schizophrenia, which is another ballpark entirely.

It is interesting to see folks put so much energy into arguing that something can't be done, instead of going and finding those who've done it. Human nature is a curious thing. I think we are all limited by our thinking traps. While we gradually recognise them and get free of them, we never see and eliminate all of them by any means. And all the discussoin in the world only occasionally changes that.

I would say the real issue was determining which approach works, and which can be applied. The theories behind it aren't the real issue, the results are.

To really understand the subject one also has to understand that there is far more to it than this.

Thats right. Yet it is tried all the time by those who a) dont know the causes b) haven't gone and found out what works.

This is one of those subjects thats probably going to change a lot in the coming decades.

Regards, NT

This is meaningless. The idea behind finding out the true cause is to determine what does work, i.e. to get the right results. It called engineering. Without understanding the causes you are going to achieve only almost the right results.

You seem to be trying a bit of one-upmanship here. It should be obvious to anyone that I am merely giving two specific examples to illustrate physical or environmental effects on the brain.

And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing experiments? And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing experiments?

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

------------------------------ No, if you did the same thing at the same time in the history of the universe in the same place it would do the same thing, because it already DID and always HAS!

Only in an alternate universe, per the "many worlds interpretation" (MWI) would it be different, and that is NOT the same universe.

------------------------------ Nope! Not the MWI doesn't.

------------------------------ It makes sense of too many things to be dismissed, ala Occam. Copenhageners always say that, but they have grave difficulties.

---------------------------- Our ignorance is unrelated to cause and effect and inevitability, no matter whether it is temporary or eternal.

------------------------ There is no way to disprove MWI experimentally, it is a heuristic interpretation. Try it, I'll blow you away.

-------------------------- Wrong.

-------------------------- Alternative realities is the most expansive and most easily accepted interpretation of QM, and MWI are irrelevant to an Individual Life, which is the ONLY way the Universe/Reality Occurs and Is Experienced.

------------------------ That's not what I mean.

There is NO way to EVER repeat an experiment exactly.

There is NO way to absolutely duplicate any experience, because each tiniest feature of reality depends on the Totality of the Universe. All circumstances are all different, we simply state that individuated separable causes for effects are governed by statistics ala Uncertainty.

It is still a hypothetical, because we don't have Absolute Knowledge of cause and effect, we are trying to isolate a non-isolatable phenomenon. Uncertainty is true, but it is ours, and I don't mean that it is our failure or due to any inaccuracy, instead what I mean is that it is due to the inherent limitations of Life. There are NO true closed systems, even though we pretend this in physics.

---------------------------------- Unrelated.

------------------------------------- If we assume there is a physics, then that implies cause and effect rules the Universe. Trying to do without that assumption will stop you instantly. Whether the rules are "funny" in this particular way in no way obviates cause and effect. What happens was always going to happen in this life we are experiencing, by definition. It is strictly other selves, like you but NOT you, who experience other similar universes that within Heisenberg's Uncertainty all share the moment of interest. Any instant has an infinite number of possible pasts, and an infinite number of possible futures, converging here and now and diverging beyond now.

---------------------------------- Yes, in alterantive universes branching from the same instant. But we can never live more than one of them, and cause and effect and inevitability is the wall between these universes,

------------------------------------- Only within certain limits, as QM, and Goedel says.

------------------------- I don't have that ability. No individual will have that ability. Life is far too finite an experience to be able to grasp itself, ala Goedel.

------------------------------ Sure, we are limited beings, but our inability to predict has nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth of Determinism.

Mice can't either. A Life cannot encompass and understand its self and its meaning or all its causes and effects. We are merely stuck with them.

-------------------- Then you are a business major, not a Scientist.

--------------------- Predictability is unrelated to cause and effect. What happens happened for its own reasons, even if WE WILL NEVER and *CAN* NEVER KNOW WHY!

------------------------ Irrelevant.

------------------------------------- You can only make one decision if you decide, the universe can only happen one way at a time.

-Steve

--
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use.

But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. Its simply not cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack cures based on dubious anecdotal claims.

I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in that the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea what *really* works without doing proper studies.

And the side effects.

Says who?. The snake oil salesman?

Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time.

One offs are not success. The evidence has to be very strong. This can

*only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier.

Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system don't have it.

I think you bit out on this one. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. There are too many claimed cures that arnt. Without proper studies, its all meaningless. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

There are many situations where science cannot help people. These people should not be left without any options, which is the case many times. People who have a life threatening form of cancer which is not responding to medical treatment, many times will turn to alternatives, and who can blame them. If your going to die, why not try whatever you feel might help in some way. Depression is the same thing. If the medical profession cannot help you, which many times is the case, especially when dealing with the human mind, then instead of waiting for the situation to get so far out of hand that it destroys lives, it's time to try other alternatives. The idea of selfhelp will power helping people overcome self-induced depression is hardly a new one, but it is shunned to a degree, by professionals in the mental health field.

Since science beleives that everything is based around cause and effect, they always want to know the cause of the depression. That's where the problems start for many people seeking help with depression. Concidering the complexity of the human mind, science fails many times when trying to find this "cause" and often mistakes the wrong events as the "cause". I have learned from my own experiences that when dealing with depression, finding the "cause" can be far less important than finding help for the problem. The reason is that self-induced depression can be more a result of not wanting to deal with events in life, then the actual events themselves. Because of my own past experiences with depression, I beleive there is not an actual cure for it, but rather methods that can be learned to control it. Whether we like it or not, we all have to deal with negative events in our lives. Learning how to deal with these events, past, present, and future, is paramount in beating depression. Masking the events is not always the best approach, and can often lead to far more serious problems.

Nobody should have to suffer and not be allowed alternatives treatments for any medical or mental condition, simply because science does not approve of them.

Hi Kevin.

I think this should clear up some things.

Kev>>> And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing

done

There are case specific ad-hoc ones, and widely applicable formula ones. They are not all of limited use at all, and I have seen no real reason to believe they are.

I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists, and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example.

method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts

Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This elementary statistics can indeed be applied.

This is a standard misperception of our time. Collecting the info I propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable, but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down.

Of course, I would not suggest doing so. First any positive results would be used as a basis for more research, not for clinical recommendations. Second there is nothing dubious and anecdotal about the results of doctors exams and reports that clearly show a cure. These exams have already been carried out in over 50% of cases.

Whether

that

Thats why I propose a preliminary study that will show us what is worth a detailed study. Not one to find out beyond doubt what works, but one to find out what looks real promising, and is worthy of more thorough research. I have found that there are such things about.

or

If there are side effects I would consider that part of the result. One of the results of drug based treatments is going to be side effects.

There

Lots of doctors and nurses have seen surprising cures. AFAIK they dont sell snake oil. I think its obvious we wouldnt be looking for testimonies from busineses selling junk.

cure,

Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just luck. That is what we're looking for.

So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying that's not a success? It is by definition a success.

There are working treatments about that have been employed by far more than one person: clearly numbers are needed to reach any useful level of conclusion reliability.

It has to be strong enough to warrant a further research project. That is quite achievable.

That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. You can get that by pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get

100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant doing a more in depth investigation.

Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by double blind controlled trials? I think not. Yet it works, and was discovered to work. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly.

There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on, but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its own.

The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records. Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and found to be better. It costs little.

What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to make this data clear and mass-harvestable. At the moment sometimes the relevant info is written on the records, sometimes its not, and almost never is it reported to anyone who could make use of it.

Wrong again.

1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue the forms.
2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs to allocate a little of that money more wisely.

When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound drugs.

any

I know, but I'll wait until I see you've comprehended the idea before taking on board such judgements. I hope from this reply you will be a bit clearer on the concept I propose. Only when you have got what I'm actually proposing will you be in a position to make a genuinely informed judgement. So far that has not been possible - think about that. Soon or now it will be.

That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong all the time, its expected, its OK.

Absolutely. This can deal with those too when the scheme is later extended to collecting failed treatment results as well, by reporting the real results on Snake Oil Brand A. But in all of this we need to do it based on _evidence_, and not presupposition, which is how its done today sometimes.

I'm suggesting a valid study that will lead to more thorough studies, that will lead to a few new curative practices.

No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term. Its an erroneous criticism.

With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later, we know that will happen.

I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm proposing.

Stay well, NT

Correlations by themselves have little value. Correlations have to be shown to be *causative*. Its why the tobacco industry could claim that the was no proof that smoking causes cancer. I agree that you can use this as a starting point for further investigations, but by themselves have little value.

Not at all. This has evolved precisely because it was recognised that the prior methods had seriously failings.

One has no real idea how reliable it is at all. There are too many places where the results could be totally meaningless.

I agree, if you see strong correlations, then this should warrant further study.

Thats not what I'm saying. I meant one off by not working on all individuals, only a few individuals.

For example, my twin brother suffered with severe eczema for around 25 years, from birth. Continually scratching. It was horrendous. His skin was a mess. Nothing helped. His life was utter misery from it. One day he decided to go completely vegan, that's is no animal products whatsoever. After around 3 months, he noticed that he was no longer scratching. He was cured, and has been ok now for the last 20 years. On occasions he has inadvertently taken animal products, in all cases he now has a severe allergic reaction confirming that food was the problem.

So, this method worked for him, will it for others?

This makes no sense. Without controlled experiments you have no idea what you've got. Its 101 science.

The data could all be Swiss cheese. The literature is filled with erroneous "studies".

Ho hum...

You can pick any one off the cuff example you like, but it means nothing to the principle of doing good science.

You doing that condescending one-upmanship again. The scientific method is not something one learns "blindly". This is exactly what the method is designed to eliminate. Its a process to ensure that what you think you have, is what you have. When peoples welfare is at stake, its even more relevant then in the inanimate sciences.

I don't discount non controlled studies out of hand. If they indicate significant promise, than that is an argument to do the studies correctly.

Doubt it somehow. Things usually mushroom out of hand. There is simply too many claimed cures to pursue any. Waiting lists are way over a year for many treatments in the UK NHS.

Oh dear...another form...I don't think that you have really thought this through.

I don't agree. Its extra staff. Every expenditure requires good support for it.

But you cant determine what will actually pay out in the end. You assuming that you choose correctly in what your studying. Most won't pan out. Its the way life works. There are 1000's of different medical conditions that all need cured, selecting one, e.g. such as depression, is a choice that not many will take.

Arguable, depression is a non issue for the NHS. They can simply send depressed people away. Maybe it costs society money in the long run, but that will have little impact on NHS policy.

You proposal is really a dreaming proposal. Nice idea, but will never work. It don't take into account the way real life works. Every one is competing for limited resources, with there own pet agendas. I don't think you understand just what it takes to get an organisation to go and spend money, especially one like the NHS.

I did not suggest this. Its the people that implement/recommend the cure that has the liability. If something goes wrong, people get sued. Its that simple.

No, you missed it. Why would you think I was referring to the data collectors?

Unfortunately, only a few % will pan out. its the way its always been.

Indeed. Wishful dreaming...

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

------------------------- Wrong. You don't truly grasp QM. QM, in effect, states that multiple universes can be branched from an uncertain statistical interaction, but not that any one of them doesn't have one and only one definite outcome.

------------- Overblown nonsense, if that were true there wouldn't be any such thing as QM.

------------- No one has to, we only need to know what we don't know and use THAT!

------------ And that was because Einstein didn't like Uncertainty and maintained a way would be found around it. Again, that doesn't touch unary world cause and effect.

---------------------- You're quoting pithy pop media responses, not theory. You clearly don't know shit about QM and have been only PRETENDING that you did. You don't even respond to the actual issues in the field, and you try to argue concepts using one-liners. This is the proof that you're QM-incompetent.

------------------------------ This is purest nonsense. You're worshipping here, not thinking. It somehow would please you if human insight were stymied. That's primtiive deification.

----------------------------- There aren't any such. None such are necessary.

------------------------------- You're trying to convince using a majority vote now? You'd LOSE! MWI gets rid of virtually all difficulties that MOST physicists posit for other theories, the only objection to MWI is that it works TOO well, and that it sounds fanciful and makes all lives and all alternatives of equal, which really irritates some certain one-up-men.

----------------------------------------- I've chased a few of your posts around, and you seem to cite Ballentine over and over as some all-purpose reason why you're right and someone else is wrong, but you're never ever specific, and you never actually SAY ANYTHING. I've read reviews of his theories, and I see nothing that obsoletes MWI's at all, it merely ignores it as uninteresting or banal.

I doubt if you've read his book, myself, you never state anything.

---------------------- No, all you have specified is ignorance, not cause and effect. It is by no means neceesary that we know all causes and effects. When we knew none of them it mattered not a bit, the universe still worked fine.

------------------------- You need to think outside of cheap physics bumper-stickers. My notions have nothing whatsoever to do with "hidden" variables. I'm not claiming there is something we cannot know or can know. I'm claiming we simply don't happen to know, or care.

----------------------------------- Okay, smarty-pants, do it. This is the SECOND time I told you that you can't!

------------------------- Unnamed co-conspirators need not apply to help you.

------------------------------------- You're just frightened of my Omnipsism (TM).

------------------- Ta-da!

------------------- And I'm telling you precisely that, just trying to get you to recall the former WHILE realizing the latter. You seem to not want to do that.

It matters not a bit whether "hidden variables" act, or not at all. We all know the Truth, that you cannot repeat a moment in time in someone's Life, and that's the ONLY way any Universe exists.

----------------------------- I didn't say that variations account for statistical vatiance. I said that it is notable that we cannot actually repeat an experiment. These are not opposites or inverses.

------------ I DIDN'T say that indeterminacy was "explained" that way, it is simply a feature of perception. Thoughts are the only provable reality, and thoughts have as their perceptual foundation, a structure that has limited "resolution". When we try to examine a suppose "outside world" (outside the mind, as IF) then that perception acquires that same sort of indeterminacy!

------------- Much more deeper?

It certainly is, "much more deeper" than even you can fathom!! It arises from the indeterminacy of the inherent specificity of Existence.

--------------- Nothing *I* believe is in ANY WAY "classical"!! Shit, man, I don't believe anyone can prove the existence of supposed "concrete reality", meaning a physical world separate from the mind that perceives it! I see all existence as thoughts!!

--------------- You're preaching to the minister.

------------------------------- No, it doesn't. You've never understood my Perceptual Phenomenlogy.

------------------------------ Do try to pay attention, will you: Not the classical cause and effect, but a cause and effect within any unary existential path in an MWI Multiverse.

------------------------------- You don't get it and you won't pay attention. You're assuming that I have made some freshmen mistake and that you the freshman can help me, when I've simply said something you don't understand since I'm a grad student.

------------------- And I'm trying to tell you that only single world cause and effect is denied by QM, and NOT MWI single-path cause and effect.

------------------------------ I don't "believe" anything, it's against my religion. I hold it as the best among numewrous current explanations, and have added some corallaries of my own.

------------------------------------- I admit this form of speech is heuristic. But it is useful to explain my offering.

------------------------------ It is a heuristic that acknowledges it is undemonstrable, but it solves SO MANY problems that it is crucially important to one's understanding.

-------------------------------------- Re-read what you just said. It's not even related to QM.

--------------- I never said that. I said they have other motivations too.

------------------------------- Irrelevant.

-------------- I didn't mean the Pathetic Fallacy, I mean cause and effect.

------------------- You don't know and I don't care. Steve

I certainly understand what its basic premises are, however, as Feynmann says "no one understands quantum mechanics".

QM, in effect, states that multiple

Nope. Qm is based on a few simple postulates. It says nothing at all mythical universes that may or may not be present. e.g.

1 To each dynamical variable there is a Hermitian operator whose eigenvalues are the possible values of the dynamical variables, i.e.

A|phs> = a|phs>

2 To each state there corresonds a unique state operator, which must be non-negative, and of unit trace.

etc.

Not at all. You are confusing an ad-hoc add on to QM, called the many worlds/universe interpretation. Why you don't understand this point shows an amazingly lack of the basics. Some of the other interpretations are:

Copenhagen Interpretation Bohmian Mechanics Interpretation Quantum Ensemble Interpretation Transactional Interpretation Many worlds Interpretation

Of course it isnt. This is pretty pointless. You simple have no idea what QM is all about.

Every single credible QM book will state that prediction of individual events are not possible within QM, only probabilities of occurrence of an event. e.g. a particle might be in a volume anywhere in the universe, but with a probability distribution quite peaked.

Its simply staggering that you claim to have a B.S. degree in physics, yet have demonstrated no knowledge of QM, other than knowing a few relevent words.

I'm trying to bring the explanation down to the level that you may be able to understand.

Oh..Your the one spouting off that

With no idea that this is just a postulation, and not part of QM at all.

Nonsense. I am pointing out that MWI is not part of QM. It is not accepted by all, and does not need to be.

There are no technical difficulty at all with the quantum ensemble interpretation.

Nonsense. Lots of people have put forward objections in MWI.

and that it sounds fanciful and makes all lives

Some things are debatable, some are not.

This is simply untrue.

That's right. MWI's is of no value. Its, essentially, untestable metaphysics.

Your off your rocker. I'll be happy to supply copies of my many pages of Ballentine quotes. I have posted volumes of relevent information from the book. I have included a sample of them at the end of this post.

Again, you miss a fundamental point of QM. Its not a matter of ignorance, its a matter of not knowing, *in principle*. QM states that the required information to make deterministic predictions does not exist. Not that it exists but is not known.

Its ludicrous that you have the cheek to question my understanding of QM, when you show again and again, you only know the words, not what the words actually mean.

They do, but you don't understand the consequences of what you are saying.

You are.

Saying we don't happen to know is implying that there is information that can be known.

No idea what your talking about. You claimed that MWI is not falsifiable. If this is indeed the case, it is religion. I suspect you don't know what falsifiable means. For example, the special theory of relativity is falsifiable. This dose not mean that it has been proven false, only that, in principle I can do an experiment that could disproof it. For example, measuring time dilation and obtaining different results from that predicted by SR.

Theoretically, I think that QM allows for the *finite* probability that all particles could be in exactly the same place as at a prior time, more than once. I'd have to check on the details though.

Ho humm...

Probably not. I wont lose any sleep over it.

The assumption has been adequately confirmed.

Crap. You don't understand even the basics of QM.

If you happen to believe in MWI. This is not the view that is accepted by all. Most don't seem to take a stand. They just use the equations.

So do I. Those with more money get to shag more often.

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

ref:

Prior Ballentine posted quotes in NG:

***************** I have only looked briefly on this site, my main information is from Ballentine, who spends a great deal of detail in explaining just why the reduction of the state vector view is false. e.g. pages 234 - 237 (and supporting pages), interpretation of the state vector. ***********

*********** Ballentine page 133 chap. 5.4 for diffraction etc. but see end of post.

***************

"To the reader who is unfamiliar with the history of quantum mechanics, these remarks may seem to belabour the obvious. Unfortunately the statistical quantities delta_q and delta_p in (8.33) have often been misinterpreted as the errors of individual measurements. The origin of the confusion probably lies in the fact that Heisenberg's original paper on the certainty principle, published in 1927, was based on early work that predates the systematic formulation and statistical interpretation of quantum theory. Thus the natural derivation and interpretation of (8.33) that is given above was not possible at the time. The statistical interpretation of the indeterminacy relations was first advanced by K.R. Popper in 1934."

(8.33) - delta_x.delta_p >=1/2||, the result hold for any operators that satisfy [A,B]=iC

************** ****************

Ballentine, p.225

"..One must have a repeatable preparation procedure corresponding to the state p which is to be studied. Then on each of a large number of similarly prepared systems, one performs a single measurement (either Q or P). The statistical distributions of the results are shown as histograms, and the root mean square half-widths of the two distributions predict that the product of these two half-widths can never be less the hbar/2, no matter what state is considered."

******************8 ****************

p. 225-226 - Interminacy relations. Ballentine explaines in detail what they mean, and point out that the literature abound with contrary statements. He points out that delta_x and delta_p do not form the errors of measurement, and that they do not involve a limit based on simultaneous measurements. This is essentially because delta_x and delta_p are statically rms of separate measurements on ensembles, the conventional view would be limited as usually described. He then references an experiment to justify this, e.g.

"Jauch (1993). The rms atomic momentum fluctuation, delta_p is directly obtained from the temperature of the crystal, and hence gives a lower bound to delta_q, the rms vibration amplitude of an atom. The value of delta_x can be measured by neutron diffraction, and at low temperature it is only slightly above its quantum lower bound, hbar/2delta_p. Jauch stresses that it is only the rms ensemble fluctuations that are limited by (8.33). The position coordinates of the atomic cell can be determined with a precision that is two orders of magnitude smaller then the quantum limit on delta_q".

Again, this experiment trashes the non-ensemble view, imo.

These bits are worth going through:

interpretation of the state vector.pages 234 - 237 (and supporting pages), Diffraction and double slits treated page 133 chap. 5.4.

***********************

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Hi Kevin.

A couple of your comments indicate to me some miscommunication still on what I'm discussing here. For clarity I'll give a quick overview to make sure we're both on the same page.

1. there is a standard form produced for doctors and specialists

1. It is to be filled in when they come across a clear positive result that they consider out of the ordinary, unexpected, ie in a small percentage of cases.

Lets spin 3 examples:

2a. A patient they'd been treating with severe depression, with little result, and held no hope for. The person rarely washes or shaves, shows practically no interest in anything. Patient has been written off by the DSS as being incapable of work for life. Specialists have said basically there's nothing more we can do, if he tries suicide again we'll admit him to a psych ward long term for his own safety.

The patient isn't seen for a while, and comes back one day with an air of confidence, a clean suit, a job, a calm attentive and positive attitude, a whole new perspective on thier previous problems, interests, friends, life plans, and lots of smiles. Person says 'well, I did this, and the problems all gone now'. The doc says, wow, what a change! All the depression indicators have gone. At this point the form gets used.

Example 2b: a patient being treating with life threatening asthma, regularly admitted to A&E for emergency treatment, on strong drugs which dont seem to be controlling the problem effectively. (A&E = ER)

Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day they come in and say the problems all sorted now. They say 'nothing helped until I took linseed oil, now its just not a problem. I havent been to A&E for 8 months now.' Doctor checks NHS records, and indeed they have not needeed A&E in the last 8 months, or even any prescriptions. Breathing flow rate test shows full recovery. At this point the form gets used.

Example 2c: a patient being treated with chronic severe eczema, has seen all the specialists, picks up scripts for creams regularly, often treated for secondary infection.

Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day they come in and say 'Look, no more eczema! Nothing helped until I stopped eating dairy products, been just fine ever since.' Doctor can see they no longer have any eczema. Doc checks NHS records, and they have not had any prescriptions for 6 months. The form gets used.

1. These forms are filled out for all conditions, not a small selection of conditions. Any surprising positive result is reported, regardless of the condition.

1. The data is collated centrally, and any results that stand way above the noise level are looked for.

2. Any strong positive results indicate a reason to do a more in depth controlled trial on anything found - they obviously do _not_ indicate something should be used in clinics! That is well down the line.

I hope this is clear.

exists,

mostly

have

does

researched

This

That comes later. Strong correlation is generally sufficient reason to do the further in depth study. 30,000 successes out of 50,000 attempts is of value for that.

Good!

Correct. What is incorrect is to imagine those prior methods to be useless. How useful they are depends on various factors, and it is really quite easy to show that in some cases good useful results are obtained - and in some nothing is obtained.

it

reliable,

down.

There are expected to be some. It will be less reilable than a similar but controlled study, but that does not zero its usefulness. Controlled medical studies arent too reliable either btw. This approach has both pros and cons compared to controlled medical trials.... another time tho.

cure,

Good!

more

it

25

skin

day

On

problem.

If a method works often enough for it to rise well above the noise then it would be picked up by what I'm discussing. If it doesn't, it won't. No problem there. This approach will never pick up on the ones that have just a 3% success rate.

The truth is no-one knows what success rate veganism gives for eczema. No company stands to make out of studying it. But the NHS does. This is true with many conditions and treatments. I have come across a lot of people who have resolved their own problems when they were considered to be beyond help. There is potential there.

no-brainier.

you

I think you're making assumptions there. Read on. (BTW this method is already used here to detect potential carcinogens)

IRL with a large number of results some will be and some wont. You get to assess the noise level and look for anything that rises well above it.

Thats right, and this is why controlled studies are normally demanded. What is not taught in your science 101 is just why so many controlled (and uncontrolled) studies produce junk results. When you address some of the problems you can get uncontrolled results with a useful probability of correctness. You can argue on that, but its been done, many times. I'm trying not to get too much into all that here.

by

nothing

It means that uncontrolled studies do turn up results some of the time. Its a known fact. Its also known there are ways to improve the odds, particularly by using large numbers of test results from a wide variety of sources.

see

no, I'm just wanting to avoid going down that path. Like I said there is a whole nother threads worth to this branch-off. We have enough to discuss just in this one. Suffice it to say very briefly that controlled studies are not the research cure-all hoped for. The proliferation of controlled studies with duff results in medicine shows controlled medical studies to be unreliable too. While your point about what a controlled study gives you is sound in theory, it isnt like that in practice. There are serious issues with controlled medical trials. But no more diversion.

If I just wanted to be condescending I'd say ho-hum. :) I don't want to because I prefer discussing, and I realise everyone has plenty of room to learn, me included. Sometimes assumptions are wrong. I'm not being condescending, the same basic truths are so for all of us.

method

We know that, but I dont think thats the point here. Not all things are practical to do controlled studies on. You're then left with 2 practical options: dont study it, or study it uncontrolled and accept the failure rate, and use your positive results as preliminaries for tighter studies when warranted. That is perfectly valid science.

Directly, no-ones welfare is at stake. An uncontrolled study can only be used to pinpoint any strong trends that indicate a few methods deserve more thorough investigation. That is not putting anyones welfare at stake, as you seem to suggest.

Indirectly, welfare comes down to which is the cheaper method per result of finding a new treamtent. If an uncontrolled across the board collation picks up on one effective treatment it will have done so at a relatively low cost compared with the currently popular methods. If that treatment is one people get to go and do themselves without the NHS paying specialists or drugs, even better, more payback.

on,

could

Exactly. We agree on that key central principle.

It is routine that the doc gets to see the patient later, and patient tells them about their result. And often they do a proper assessment, and often not. It is routine that the result goes on the medical records.

Costwise it is only a small percentage of people who have found such cures. Confirming and completing the paperwork takes one 10 minute visit. The suggested data collation is pretty basic. As for further development, the NHS already pays for massive amounts of R&D, billions, by buying new and still patented drugs. If 0.1% of that spend is diverted into a process that produces a total of 3 treatment approaches then it is ahead.

That's what showed me you hadnt understood the idea.

For a few yes, but how is this relevant? Long waits are more political and managerial than financial.

this

Valid criticisms can be accepted, but 'oh dear' doesnt count as one.

issue

support

Yes... we seem to agree there.

new

to

needs

pan

depression,

Hopefully you're clearer now on what's being put forward.

start

pound

but

That would be politically unacceptable here. The current edge of political cost-cutting debate is whether or not sex changers should be made to pay for their treatment. This is not America :)

Its a discussion on a newsgroup, not a business proposal I have any personal intention of getting involved in.

First I'm hoping you are clearer about what it is now. If you still think it'll never work, guess what, its already been done on a smaller scale, and has found results already. Once folk realise there's a cheaper way of finding working treatments than what's popular today, this approach will in time become used. Its simply an intelligent and more efficient approach. Now I dont think it'll be done any time soon, but in time:

a) a more realistic perspective will be applied to controlled/uncontrolled medical studies (neither of which are especially reliable IRL). b) more awareness will develop of just how many lay people have found their own successful treatments (many) C) and as this concept continues to get applied on a smaller scale its value will become steadily more realised.

Things are already moving in the direction such that all the ground conditions are being gradually set up now.

I know. As the value awareness of this increases, it will end up on someone's agenda at some point. There are folks who stand to gain from it after all.

and

We haven't even addressed that question, so I see no base for this criticism.

cure

No they dont, our laws are different to yours.

Secondly your point is relevant to the studies that are done on safety before a treatment is used clinically. It has nothing to do with the phase of the process I'm discussing here, ie collecting data and looking for potential.

the

sued

term.

I didnt, its obvious you weren't. I gathered you thought I was proposing that initial study data be used to recommend tratments to clinic patients, which is certainly not what this is about. That would not be a sensible proposition.

Any clinical treatment would need to be well investigated before being recommended to doctors and patients, and established to be sufficiently safe. I think thats fairly obvious. The process from first study to final use involves a bare minimum of:

1. initial data collation to find any potential treatment
2. controlled trials to investigate the look-goods more rigorously
3. trials to establish safety of such treatment
4. cost/benefit analyses, etc.

Going thru the correct procedures eliminates suing over here, and keeps your U.S. sue risks down to current medical levels over there.

later,

been.

Yep - in a different process. Bear in mind this process involves the use of: a) drugs that are already on retail sale b) non drug approaches etc, so some of the work associated with todays new drug trials has already been done, or doesnt need doing.

If we get a few % it will in fact be quite fortunate.

I think it will happen in time, things are moving in the direction such that all the ground conditions are being set up now. Time will tell for sure.

Shit, I got to ban myself from this for a while, this took way too long. Nice discussing again. I'm sure we'll have more when curiosity gets the better of me. It always does.

Regards, NT

You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate

Actually everything is an interpretation the only important thing is predictability power of my subjective perception of reality (other people is part of this perception). From this point view MUI has productive power.

--George

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one.

-Steve

--
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public