UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Plant communication across the cosmos

That plants are an intelligent species, here on Earth, is obvious, to those familiar with the literature (and studies) extant.

For example, a new book, reviewed, by Harriet Baker, in the Times Literary Supplement [6/24/16, Page 27], Lab Girl by Hope Jahren [Fleet, £16.99] has this about the plants that author Jahren studies:

“They emerge from her memoir as much more than a bundle of biological processes, but beings with strange, secret lives, supported by astonishingly elegant machinery. [Bold print mine]

“A tree in distress signals to other trees …”

Such observations show up in other books I’ve provided here, What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses by Daniel Chamovitz, Ph.D, [Scientific American/Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NY, 2012] and The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird [Harper & Row, NY, 1973].

Dr. Chamovitz is cautious about plant consciousness, calling plants “aware” while Thompkins and Bird offer that plants communicate, consciously, with each other and us.

But what has this to do with UFOs?
If there is an advanced, evolved species of intelligent plant life on a planet in our galaxy or the Universe itself, and they are mobile, traveling the cosmos, or able to, one can imagine that plants here communicate with such a species, not using a iPhone or other technology but via telepathic communication, using the quantum principle of non-locality, the non-local principle as defined by Bells’s Theorem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be." [Wikipedia]

That is, if the behavior of a particle on Earth is known instantaneously, by a particle at the far reaches of the Universe, cannot a thought process or thought generated here be known by a thought receiver in our galaxy or at the far-reaches Universe instantaneously also?

I’m positing that consciousness – information – is non-local, Ryle’s “ghost in the machine.” That is, consciousness is not constrained by the thinker or the space that the thinker resides in.

This is explained eruditely by Michael Talbot in his book, Beyond the Quantum [Bantam Books,Toronto, 1987/1988, Chapter 4, Page 83 ff]

If plants communicate here, on Earth, with other plants, as the “evidence” shows is the case, is it conceivable that plants here can communicate with like species elsewhere, a species that generated plant life here eons ago, or just happened upon a like species here while traversing our solar system?
(We all know that UFO entities have been reported to be inordinately interested in the flora of Earth, often spotted picking up plant specimens, or saving a fellow-creature in distress, perhaps.)
My point, again, is that plants may have evolved elsewhere and now travel the cosmos, in search of its plant brethren, who have sent signals – thoughts – indicating distress or how wonderful it is here, on Earth.

(UFOs with sentient plant life would come here purposefully, with a mission, allowing a caveat about my concern that UFOs would not be coming here in force just because Earth seems to be unique or special as some UFO buffs believe.)

RR

17 Comments:

  • ""There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be." [Wikipedia]

    That is, if the behavior of a particle on Earth is known instantaneously, by a particle at the far reaches of the Universe, cannot a thought process or thought generated here be known by a thought receiver in our galaxy or at the far-reaches Universe instantaneously also?"


    You immediately speak of information after the above quote. That's the key. Information cannot exceed c. Quantum entanglement does not exchange information faster than light.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (and maybe this, too) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Quantum_entanglement

    By Blogger scherben, at Tuesday, July 05, 2016  

  • Scherben,

    May I remind that "information" does not travel. What really travels, is the physical objects, namely photons, neutrons, neutrinos, spacecrafts, bycicles, tomatoes (if thrown), etc.

    And yes, objects might get close to each other at speeds faster than speed of light Just imagine two spaceships who departed from earth in two opposed directions, each with an average speed close to the speed of light. In one year, the distance between both will be about 2 light years, and the time elapsed will be one year. Average relative speed is about 2c (Don't forget also that the time elapsed for each pilot will be less than a year, so in their opinion (very valid), speeds will be even faster!).

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Tuesday, July 05, 2016  

  • We're not talking about quantum entanglement, Scherben...

    While I noted the thought process was "information," I was using the term in the Hawking sense, but meaning that consciousness (thought) was what might be taking place, instantaneously....using that word twice to make the point.

    Faster than light has nothing to with the concept I was referring to and my quote from Bell, which you repeat in your comment, has nothing to do with quantum entanglement.

    That's where people get confused: quantum particles aren't being shot through space or time. It's thinking or thought that is happening instantaneously.

    Quantum entanglement is one thing (happening instantly also, by the way) but it is not thought transference.

    Einstein's relativity doesn't allow things to go faster than light, but even that Einsteiniam maxim is being reconsidered.

    I'm talking about thought (or Hawking "information"), not quantum particles,

    The quote, again, is ""There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B ..."

    Bringing in the idea that no thing [sic] travels faster than light muddies the matter I'm suggesting.

    Nice try though...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 05, 2016  

  • Don Maor gets it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 05, 2016  

  • Don is incorrect, however.

    https://www.quora.com/If-the-relative-velocity-of-two-particles-moving-with-speed-of-light-opposite-to-each-other-is-calculated-will-it-be-2c

    By Blogger scherben, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • But Scherben...

    We are not talking about "things"! We're talking about thought or consciousness.

    You make a point about things not going faster than the speed of light (which, again, is under scrutiny by physicists as that not be true).

    But the point of this posting has to do with thought transference, not something material moving about the Universe.

    You are missing the essence of what I'm suggesting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Fair enough. I was pointing out that Don's fundamentals are incorrect, as relative velocities do not exceed c as he stated. So he doesn't get it at all.

    As for what you're saying: well,I have doubts (as is bloody obvious), but I'm willing to be persuaded if the evidence stacks up ;)

    By Blogger scherben, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Scherben...

    When I place my conjectures online here, I'm hoping that persons smarter than me (which is almost everyone) might lead me and readers to other materials offsetting my suggestions or, better, leading to support materials, if there are any.

    In the posting above, you got swayed by the quantum entanglement hypothesis, which is somewhat relevant but not exactly so.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Again, fair enough. Although the idea that I'm smarter than you -or most people on the planet- is an unsustainable hypothesis... ;)

    By Blogger scherben, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Hahahaha....

    Scherben, you are one of a kind, and surely smarter than most, as I see it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Scherben claimed:

    "Don is incorrect, however.
    https://www.quora.com/If-the-relative-velocity-of-two-particles-moving-with-speed-of-light-opposite-to-each-other-is-calculated-will-it-be-2c"


    The link is a calculation of relative speed using the Lorentz transformation. It is correct, but so oversimplistic. It is based on the Special Relativity theory, which I have already said is just a restricted theory, not aplicable to all phenomena of physics(I am really wandering how many times I need to tell the same thing to Scherben).

    The formula used by the guy in the link computes the instantaneus relative speed between both trains and obtains a value that includes the time dilation and space contraction that are felt in one of the two systems with respect to the other. The calculation is applicable to inertial systems that have constant speeds.

    But, if the traveling systems are able to accelerate and decelerate independently, Special Relativity gets much less validity.

    In other words, if both trains or spacecrafts after starting from the same place and then traveling during one year in opossite directions, each at a speed close to light speed "C", should decide to stop to a nearby planet, they would INDEED be located at a distance of about two light years from each other, and the time elapsed for each pilot would be less than one year, so the practical average relative speed beetwen both spacecrafts would still be greater than "C", about 2C.

    When one considers objects that are able to accelerate and then decelerate, things become much more funny than two trains (or photons) traveling eternally in opossite directions at the same speed, without being able to stop.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Regarding Rich's suggestion that interplanetary plants are able to communicate by using the quantum entanglement, I am more inclined to agree with Scherben in the sense that no information can be transmitted via the quantum entanglement. But ultimately, Rich is free to speculate, this blog is called UFO conjectures. I have serious problems with believing that plants can travel, much less in spaceships, but what the heck, in the millions of extraterrestrial civilizations out there, there might be few (ver few) which evolved from vegetals. For me, interplanetary plants would still be inside the ET bag.

    Moreover, physicists might in the future realize that quantum entanglement is related to a connection made via hidden dimensions and that entanglement communication might be done faster than light after all. In my opinion, there isn't a good definition of information, so the claim by Scherben that "information cannot travel faster than light" is also highly dubious for me.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Don...

    You haven't been reading my comments here or understanding my posting (above).

    I'm not suggesting that quantum entanglement is involved in plant thought.

    I thought I made that clear with the materials cited.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • So Don moves the goalposts and ceases talking about relative velocities, instead citing distances when at rest. Good one.

    By Blogger scherben, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

  • Scherben,...

    You have got to move on. Your thing with Don muddies the topic.

    Don misread my conjecture, and you are obsessed with the speed of light.

    Me? I'm absorbed by the possibility that plants communicate, telepathically, and may be doing so intergalactically.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

  • :) Believe me, I was thinking the same myself. This 'discussion' with Don is not only a pointless sideshow, it's a dilettante arguing what's way over my head. So I apologise; and will desist.

    For the record, by the way,I actually find the concept of intelligent plant life acceptable; as indeed with many other hypothetical concepts of life, like Plasma and even sentient oceans. After all, a Boltzmann Brain appears to be a genuine scientific possibility, if not probability. (I appreciate there's zero evidence for these forms of life.)

    By Blogger scherben, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

  • What sort of concerns me, Scherben, is what I was suggesting in my posting about the Kinsey reports and Blue Book; that is, "evidence" is often missed, or so subliminal or nuanced that investigators miss it.

    Some of the "intelligence" you cite may be more redolent than anyone knows but no one is checking into the possibility because the intelligence is not blatant but subtle. dynamically subtle, if I can use an oxymoron about it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home