geordief

No ,I meant that their top speed ,w would not have the same properties as a top speed in a vacuum (c) . I am not not sure if they would still associate w with the speed of causality or not

They wouldn't have invariance of w ,would they?

I was hoping to get an answer to my particular scenario. Do the intelligent beings living under those circumstances (nothing in their environment moves faster than w (the speed of light on their environment -the same in all directions) have a (possibly flawed) belief that causality in connected to w? Will they be dumbfounded when the channels are created where signals travel at c and will those who still operate at the old speed of w be under the impression that "causality has been broken" until they get up to speed with the new reality? Edit I have just seen a (the ) flaw in my scenario: w will not be the same in all directions.

We have an intelligent community living in an environment where the speed of light is slowed by the medium they live and communicate in . Then they discover a method to create channels through the medium so that they can now pass messages at the speed of light. Will it seem to them that " causality has been broken"? Is this scenario an accurate analogy to us discovering a faster than light process of signaling?

No (but I can look for one if you want) I thought it was commonly accepted ,since I have heard it so often. You think it is wrong?Have I misinterpreted all the times I have heard about things being in two places at once the super position of waveforms etc? (Certainly not trying to be sarcastic btw-my default position is being wrong)

Damn it!(apologies) Ishould have used an object like a neutron.I forgot completely about the em attraction of protons So how about my scenario with 2 neutrally charged particles? Do their probability waves combine somehow so that the space between the 2 objects is altered over time.

Say two protons. Some where in a low/zero gravity field they are initially at rest wrt each other and I want to track their paths in space/spacetime. So ,according to quantum theory their locations extend through space with varying degrees of probabilities What happens when and where these 2 probabilty waves (are they waves or fields?) meet? Do they combine ? Do they interfere? Would any interference between the two bodies (the two protons) probability waves (or fields?) cause the paths of the two protons to converge rather than to be parallel?(ie the same way as with a gravitational attraction) Something like refraction with light( which I don't understand to well I must admit) Is the initial (and subsequent)spacetime distance btw the 2 protons a function of the strength of the probability waves between them,perhaps?

So ,on a practical level we might teach parents and families to be aware of behaviour in children at the applicable very young age whereby they exhibit dissatisfaction with the outward symbols of their gender identity?** As a result some parents could bring this up with their doctor and the situation might be closely monitored for the next year or so until ,hopefully the child is happy with the gender role (or lack of gender) it is playing. Then the question may arise whether the child has chosen the gender that "matches" its body and further decisions may or may not need to be taken and whether or not any bridges need be burned. Find as many cases (early on) where "if it's not broken ,don't fix it" applies and deal with what remains. I am wondering whether the crisis point may lie around the preschool ages and if it it can be addressed there,the overall problem will be much less thereafter. ** I think @Peterkin was suggesting this.

Oh no Micky sounds like President MiXi.They would surely take offense.Donald Duck may have more legs. But filled with agricultural fertiliser by all means.

Yes,that is it.I was ruminating mainly on a personal level about all the inputs that go into the outcome of thought processes (not physically but in the realm of ideas ) wondered if it might be possible to model the situation in such a way as to predict what actually happens (what decision I make or just what thought comes next) You know ,if you have to make an important decision and you are weighing up all pros and cons ,(as you see them) you might write them down in two columns (for and against) with varying weights applied to each consideration. There could be very many inputs and I was idly wondering if you could somehow model them and so predict what the actual decision you would make. Now I know that it is also said that our conscious decisions are actually made before we are aware of them but maybe some model could incorporate that delay (or anticipation) Anyway ,I liked the sound of "psychic space".I wonder if it resembles Hilbert Space.(that is the same as phase space,I am guessing) btw what are "psychic classes"?Sounds a bit like ouija board sessions but I don't suppose it is anything like that.) Also,I can see how difficult it is to predict mental processes.Did you ever listen to Robin Williams?

Well I am glad this conversation was moved out of my Psychic Space

Same here.Very similar scenario and worse.USA was the pits for that."I have a gun,so no trouble" etc...but not just there. It is the men who pick up rather than the hitch hikers who are scary . A long time ago.... Our paranoia probably makes it worse but it is a real thing.

How are you defining "its innate identity"? The gender that infants recognize in themselves at around 2 years as per iNow's quoted link?

Sorry to waste your time. I was hoping this might ring a bell with (knowledgeable) others here . As it happens an extremely short google search brings up this bbc video which I may well have heard in passing and misinterpreted It actually focuses on the parents rather than the children and their unconscious biases https://youtu.be/nWu44AqF0iI And makes a contrary point to the one I imagined. I still cannot say whether there have been experiments to show young infants choosing their own roles via choice of toys or otherwise -but quite possibly not.

I think I have heard the young infants, when presented with a choice of toys will (presumably w/o cues) tend to choose cars etc rather than dolls depending on the genetalia they have. Have I described these experiments correctly and ,if so what might that tell us? (Do we choose our group at the outset of our lives or do parents who try to prevent early gender assignments have a point ?) Apologies that I do not have any references as this is just something I picked up on the TV.

I am asking whether there are any models of individual or group behaviour that are experimentally more successful than others in predicting future outcomes. Not so much what are the ranges of theories but whether any of them have been shown to be effective in their domain of applicability. By the way is "the psychic space" a real term ?I just made it up and it seemed to make sense to me but I have no idea if it makes sense to (or is used by) anyone else.

Ah yes,maybe more mundane than I thought.

What if the frames relative motion varies between zero and c?(so not a Hafele-Keating experiment) Would there be any particular interpretation to the results of such an experiment? (I mean ,we know what those measurements would be,I think and there would be no need to perform the experiment but would that flesh out our understanding of how time works at all?)

Have there been systematic attempts to identify psychological parameters so as to predict behaviour at the individual or group level? If so,is there a list of these parameters and how successful have predictions based on them been? (I don't mean astrological signs😏 )

The ratio of the passage through time btw frames changes as the relative motion btw the frames changes (if i does) That is the measurement I am wondering if it is academic or of some practical consequence.

I agree .What about a property of time that changes with time? (Ps you said there might be a point in this measurement.What might that point be?Just academic or could there be any utility?)

Is there any point to comparing the passage of times between different frames of reference? That would give numbers varying from zero to infinity. Could that represent a "speed of time"? I don't think (as per what I have heard) that space and time are equivalent but they do seem very close (and the signs in the spacetime interval could be reversed)

That is very interesting(to say the least)

I see what you mean ,but actually I had in mind the initial moment when entanglement occurs . Not "touching",I suppose but total "closeness" maybe?

Are all objects modeled as properties of fields? If so ,can we say they "touch" when they are entangled?