The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[Shwa]

I'm not arguing that we can't share information through the use of our senses. I'm arguing that we don't (and can't) receive ideas directly out of the "electron soup". As I said in my previous post:

I don't see where c.r is advocating for a direct link from one brain to another at the quantum level. What I see is c.r saying that in the reality as posited by the theory of quantum mechanics it would seem that all of the elements of the universe are made up of the same things and are interconnected with each other in smoe way - obviously or discreetly.

Now I am not about to start a quantum traceroute exercise for an idea to pass from one to another; or an idea to pass from one to many; or for an idea to pass from many to many. But I can be assured - according to quantum theory reality - that each element in that communication path interacts with other elements on the level of the constituent particles and that each element has rules and laws that it must obey to be able to communicate that information from the ions in one brain, to the electrical transmition of signals, to the reception of photons through receptors to the reconstitution of those ions in another brain into a coherent message.

Shannon's Law on this level? According to your example, such interactions could not occur. And yet they do. Perhaps this is not the fault of Shannon's Law, but of it's usage.

I also do not see where c.r's ideas contradict with the use of senses to organize experience. But even senses are subject to the laws and rules of quantum mechanics and - as it seems to me - these laws and rules are expanding, not receding. That is, we are learning more, not less.

So I think these sorts of ideas - the imagining of chemical interactions in the sphere of human communication will become more prevalent in science and scientific thought and they will have real world implications in many technologies. Should prove interesting.

[ToadBrother]

Nah. None of you get it.

It isn't about telepathy. It is about perception. Perception changes with understanding.

I related to y'all that my definition of God for the sake of this discussion is:

Quantum reality - the connection between all things.

And yes that has already been proven by science and I pull a few stanzas out of the Bible to suggest that Jesus knew of it.

So unless you can prove that quantum reality does not exist, then I have made my case. I win.

Quantum mechanics is about the behavior of subatomic particles, it's not about the "connection between all things". Your word salad does not science make. I'm sorry, at the end of the day, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[ToadBrother]

I also do not see where c.r's ideas contradict with the use of senses to organize experience. But even senses are subject to the laws and rules of quantum mechanics and - as it seems to me - these laws and rules are expanding, not receding. That is, we are learning more, not less.

This is an absurd statement on the face of it. QM's effects "smooth out" at the atomic level or greater. QM is not useful, for instance, in the modeling of orbits or the behavior of rubber balls. There are some extreme circumstances, like very low temperatures or extraordinarily high pressures and temperatures, where QM can be used to model the effects of matter, but for ordinary existence, no, it does not.

An important thing to remember here is probabilities. At the subatomic level, the probabilities of bizarre and exotic behaviors like tunneling, virtual particles and the whole array of quantum strangeness is very high. The probability of an electron tunneling through an extraordinarily small surface is very high, the probability of it tunneling through, say, a three foot brick wall, is all but impossible. So quantum effects simply cannot explain the things you want it to explain. Your just spouting pseudo-scientific word salads.

[charter.rights]

The probability of an electron tunneling through an extraordinarily small surface is very high, the probability of it tunneling through, say, a three foot brick wall, is all but impossible. So quantum effects simply cannot explain the things you want it to explain. Your just spouting pseudo-scientific word salads.

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

Neutrinos occur at a higher level than quantum particles travel in and so your opinion quoted above isn't worth beans in this discussion.

[Shwa]

...QM can be used to model the effects of matter, but for ordinary existence, no, it does not.

So are you saying that qantum mechanics has no application in this ordinary existence? That is, nothing to do with, say, modern computing technology, medicine, biology, energy industries, etc.

Or do the above sectors not count as "oridnary existence?"

[ToadBrother]

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

Neutrinos occur at a higher level than quantum particles travel in and so your opinion quoted above isn't worth beans in this discussion.

Neutrinos are also very light (possibly even massless) particles that have an extremely low probability of interaction with other matter. That rather more proves my point than some strange voodoo notion that minds can meet betwixt the wonders of quantum mechanics.

This is the difference between understanding a subject and just simply googling around looking for things that even sound like they support your nonsense ideas.

[GostHacked]

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

Neutrinos occur at a higher level than quantum particles travel in and so your opinion quoted above isn't worth beans in this discussion.

If they work on a higher level than quantum particles, can you really apply QM to them? The neutrino travels at the speed of light, and it's mass is so slight, making it essentially massless. Pure energy can go through any object out there, and neutrinos are essentially pure energy. Also with a neutral charge so they are not really attracted to a positive or a negative charge.

My late Grandfather worked in the Creighton Mine for some years before it closed.

[Shwa]

If they work on a higher level than quantum particles, can you really apply QM to them? The neutrino travels at the speed of light, and it's mass is so slight, making it essentially massless. Pure energy can go through any object out there, and neutrinos are essentially pure energy. Also with a neutral charge so they are not really attracted to a positive or a negative charge.

My late Grandfather worked in the Creighton Mine for some years before it closed.

Nope, they are a gear in the QM machine.

Neutrinos occur at a higher level than quantum particles travel in...

Not sure what 'higher level' refers to though. Interesting notion. Do you mean neutrinos occur at a higher level than other quantum particles?

[GostHacked]

Nope, they are a gear in the QM machine.

Not sure what 'higher level' refers to though. Interesting notion. Do you mean neutrinos occur at a higher level than other quantum particles?

According to CR's post, yes.

Neutrinos occur at a higher level than quantum particles travel in and so your opinion quoted above isn't worth beans in this discussion.

So your guess is as good as mine as to what he/she is referring to.

[kimmy]

I don't see where c.r is advocating for a direct link from one brain to another at the quantum level. What I see is c.r saying that in the reality as posited by the theory of quantum mechanics it would seem that all of the elements of the universe are made up of the same things and are interconnected with each other in smoe way - obviously or discreetly.

You didn't see it? She's quite explicit about it here...

Radiation occurs at the molecular level. I present that as an example that refutes your idea that thought is not effected by outside influences.

...and here:

Ideas - thoughts and brain activity - result in certain energy patterns that can be measured outside of the human body. So it is true that if your thoughts can extend outside of your brain (and exist independent of your brain - i.e. thought experiments that have established that thought can influence external energies) then all that brain information can be moved through space freely and combine with other thought energy, as well as flow through all material in the universe unencumbered at the quantum level.

Now I am not about to start a quantum traceroute exercise for an idea to pass from one to another; or an idea to pass from one to many; or for an idea to pass from many to many. But I can be assured - according to quantum theory reality - that each element in that communication path interacts with other elements on the level of the constituent particles and that each element has rules and laws that it must obey to be able to communicate that information from the ions in one brain, to the electrical transmition of signals, to the reception of photons through receptors to the reconstitution of those ions in another brain into a coherent message.

Shannon's Law on this level? According to your example, such interactions could not occur. And yet they do. Perhaps this is not the fault of Shannon's Law, but of it's usage.

You're completely wrong. Nothing in the argument I've presented is challenged by the fact that we can receive information through our senses. Every step in the communications channels available to us through our senses can be shown to have reasonably good likelihood of transmitting information from receiver to sender. While it could be difficult to assign a mathematical signal to noise ratio to the electrochemical communication between your eyes and your brain, we can assume it's quite high. And your eye (unless you have a visual impairment) is a tremendously sensitive receiver of light.

You don't want to do a "traceroute exercise"... well, tough. I can do a "traceroute exercise" on the signal path from person to person through any of our senses and demonstrate a viable communications path.

I don't think that you can show me a viable communications path from person to person that doesn't employ one of the 5 senses at some point in the process. I won't believe otherwise unless you do the "traceroute exercise" and show it to me.

-k

[Shwa]

You didn't see it? She's quite explicit about it here...

Sorry, you missed again. The only things being expressed here are "...thought is not effected by outside influences..." and "...all that brain information can be moved through space freely and combine with other thought energy..." There is no indication of direct node-to-node communications. Sounds more like a broadcast on ethernet.

You don't want to do a "traceroute exercise"... well, tough. I can do a "traceroute exercise" on the signal path from person to person through any of our senses and demonstrate a viable communications path.

Please do. And don't forget to express the interactions of all the intermediary elements, atoms, particles and energies required to do so since we are talking about QM now. I look forward to your analysis.

I don't think that you can show me a viable communications path from person to person that doesn't employ one of the 5 senses at some point in the process.

You're not understanding and are still stuck on the idea of telepathy. Are you familiar with the OSI model for modern network communications? You can have as many nodes (senses) as you like, but no signal, no network.

[GostHacked]

Please do. And don't forget to express the interactions of all the intermediary elements, atoms, particles and energies required to do so since we are talking about QM now. I look forward to your analysis.

I have a thought. I express it through my voice. Vocal chords virbtate to vibrate the air, this vibration travels from my mouth to your ears, picked up by hair follicles in the ear. This gets converted into an electric signal which then goes to your brain. Pretty easy. All 5 of our senses uses a medium we can understand. If you are not using any one of these methods, then you are not using your 5 senses. This is why Kimmy is stuck on the telepathy bit. I agree with her. If not one of the 5 senses, then how does someone's brain receive a thought from another brain?

You're not understanding and are still stuck on the idea of telepathy. Are you familiar with the OSI model for modern network communications? You can have as many nodes (senses) as you like, but no signal, no network.

The OSI model is how TCP/IP works. It is the 7 layers that make up the Internet protocol. Without it communications through the Internet would be impossible. The combination of the 7 layers gives send/recieve confirmation as well as the origin and destination information. Confirms every packet that is sent. Also it shows and traces a path from the sender to the receiver and back. Everything is accounted for. No mystery here at all.

Since we are not talking about telepathy, we are just talking about regular communications. Visual, aural, touch, smell, taste. If you are not using any of the 5 senses, then you are using supernatural or non-existent senses.

Edited February 4, 2010 by GostHacked

[kimmy]

Sorry, you missed again. The only things being expressed here are "...thought is not effected by outside influences..." and "...all that brain information can be moved through space freely and combine with other thought energy..." There is no indication of direct node-to-node communications. Sounds more like a broadcast on ethernet.

She's positing that "brain information" from one brain can move through space and influence thoughts in another brain. That's by definition a communications channel. Doesn't matter if it's node-to-node or broadcast, it's still a communications channel and can be analyzed as such.

Please do. And don't forget to express the interactions of all the intermediary elements, atoms, particles and energies required to do so since we are talking about QM now. I look forward to your analysis.

There is no need for me to speculate at the quantum-level interactions, since the signal to noise level for all of these paths can be measured experimentally. Quantum level interactions do occur, and are included in the results.

You're not understanding and are still stuck on the idea of telepathy. Are you familiar with the OSI model for modern network communications? You can have as many nodes (senses) as you like, but no signal, no network.

I'm somewhat familiar. And I keep harping on the physical layer of the model. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste all have viable physical layers associated with them. There's no viable physical layer for our brains to receive thought in the form of neutrinos or radiation or electromagnetic waves.

-k

[Shwa]

...it's still a communications channel and can be analyzed as such.

OK analyze it. We are talking QM level interactions, so I will, out of necessity, have some QM related questions to ask you once we receive your analysis.

And I keep harping on the physical layer of the model.

Quantum mechanics is all about the physical layer and yet you keep avoiding its implications.

[Shwa]

I have a thought. I express it through my voice. Vocal chords virbtate to vibrate the air, this vibration travels from my mouth to your ears, picked up by hair follicles in the ear. This gets converted into an electric signal which then goes to your brain.

You could have saved yourself a bit of typing by writing: I think, I talk, they hear. Because that is what you are getting at right?

However, why do your vocal chords vibrate? How does "the air" vibrate? And how can vibrations "travel." How does "this" get converted into an electrical signal and why wasn't there an electrical signal between your voice and vocal chord vibrations? And how does your electrical signal mean the same thing as someone else's electrical signal?

So many questions, so little time.

The OSI model is how TCP/IP works. ... No mystery here at all.

But you understand why I am using that as a model yes?

[GostHacked]

OK analyze it. We are talking QM level interactions, so I will, out of necessity, have some QM related questions to ask you once we receive your analysis.

The thing is our 5 senses don't work on the QM level.Our senses work on a higher level. Quantum mechanics work only on the sub-molecular level. Anything like atoms and molecules, QM's rules go out the window. It's like Newtonian Physics but the opposite. You can't use Newtonian physics to explain anything on the atomic and sub-atomic levels.

I don't think you can use qantnum mechanics to explain the way sound is carried.

Quantum mechanics is all about the physical layer and yet you keep avoiding its implications.

Explain to me how QM is all about the physical layer?

[whowhere]

I have a thought. I express it through my voice. Vocal chords virbtate to vibrate the air, this vibration travels from my mouth to your ears, picked up by hair follicles in the ear. This gets converted into an electric signal which then goes to your brain. Pretty easy. All 5 of our senses uses a medium we can understand. If you are not using any one of these methods, then you are not using your 5 senses. This is why Kimmy is stuck on the telepathy bit. I agree with her. If not one of the 5 senses, then how does someone's brain receive a thought from another brain?

The OSI model is how TCP/IP works. It is the 7 layers that make up the Internet protocol. Without it communications through the Internet would be impossible. The combination of the 7 layers gives send/recieve confirmation as well as the origin and destination information. Confirms every packet that is sent. Also it shows and traces a path from the sender to the receiver and back. Everything is accounted for. No mystery here at all.

Since we are not talking about telepathy, we are just talking about regular communications. Visual, aural, touch, smell, taste. If you are not using any of the 5 senses, then you are using supernatural or non-existent senses.

How do you explain dreams?

[Shwa]

Our senses work on a higher level.

Yes, just like an ethernet frame doesn't "work" on the application layer of the OSI model. But they are still the part of a coherent communications model.

Anything like atoms and molecules, QM's rules go out the window.

No, particles obey the QM rules even when they are in atoms, molecules or ear hairs.

You can't use Newtonian physics to explain anything on the atomic and sub-atomic levels.

But is the reverse true?

I don't think you can use qantnum mechanics to explain the way sound is carried.

No? How about quantum acoustics and phonons.

Explain to me how QM is all about the physical layer?

Better yet, the quantum acoustic link says it best: "At the present stage of development of physical science, quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory of physical phenomena."

[ToadBrother]

Better yet, the quantum acoustic link says it best: "At the present stage of development of physical science, quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory of physical phenomena."

Which is an odd thing to say, considering how successful General Relativity is at explaining the large scale universe.

At any rate, quantum mechanics can't be used to explained unevidenced claims like telepathy.

[Shwa]

At any rate, quantum mechanics can't be used to explained unevidenced claims like telepathy.

Agreed. But is telepathy really what c.r is after? I am not sensing that.

Which is an odd thing to say, considering how successful General Relativity is at explaining the large scale universe.

Saw this very interesting show - PBS or Discovery or something - last week which looked at the similarities between particle physics & mechanics and large body physics & mechanics. No conclusions, but some very interesting inferences.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. But is telepathy really what c.r is after? I am not sensing that.

What else would you call what he's trying to describe-without-describing? If it ain't ESP, what is it?

Saw this very interesting show - PBS or Discovery or something - last week which looked at the similarities between particle physics & mechanics and large body physics & mechanics. No conclusions, but some very interesting inferences.

There are certain symmetries of a kind in nature (ie. electron orbits around an atomic nucleus at least vaguely resembling solar systems). Some of these are more coincidental or eye-of-the-beholder. The problem with QM is that it explains interactions at the very small scale or at very high energy levels, temperatures and densities. It's effects smooth out too much once you get bigger than atoms to be of much use in describing the large scale interactions in the universe.

However, that's not to say that there aren't influences. Clearly those QM interactions have shaped the universe and in a very large way. It's pretty much a given now that the large-scale structure of the universe was a product of a period when the universe was so small, hot and dense that quantum effects were much more pronounced. That period is long in the past, and the universe is so much cooler now that QM isn't terribly useful in describing the macro-atomic universe. The effects are still there, and in some places, like the event horizon of a black hole, QM and General Relativity interact in interesting ways (ie. Hawking radiation).

But QM isn't some magic recipe for explaining alleged psychic nonsense, or minds-meeting-minds. Any influence that QM would have on the brain would be far too small. The brain is an electro-chemical computer, which means while electrical activity tells part of the story, at the synapses, we have to deal with molecular dynamics. That's much too large a scale for quantum effects to play any significant role. It's rather like saying dropping a bowling ball can alter the orbit of our planet.

[GostHacked]

Yes, just like an ethernet frame doesn't "work" on the application layer of the OSI model. But they are still the part of a coherent communications model.

Sure. It is the sum of their parts that make up the whole. One part less than the whole, and it all falls apart. It may explain a small part of it, but does not explain the whole thing. If I just explained the Application level of OSI without explaining anything else, you would not have a clue as to what it is for, what the purpose is. And if I left out the Application level and explain everything else, you still are missing something.

No, particles obey the QM rules even when they are in atoms, molecules or ear hairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a set of scientific principles describing the known behavior of energy and matter that predominate at the atomic scale.

But is the reverse true?

No. I had stated before that the rules for QM will not work on the planetary scale. Just like Newtonian physics or Einstein's GR can't be used to explain things on the atomic and sub-atomic level. Science is trying to develop a unifying theory that will reconcile the differences, and that might be string theory, or the Higgs-Bosson the LHC is looking for. Until that time, the two rule sets are not compatible with each other and cant be used to explain the other. We don't know what that will be yet.

QM simply does not operate on any higher level than the atomic and sub atomic levels. This is why it is called quantum mechanics.

No? How about quantum acoustics and phonons.

From your article you posted

In physics, quantum acoustics is the study of sound under conditions such that quantum mechanical effects are germane. For most applications, classical mechanics are sufficient to accurately describe the physics of sound. However very high frequency sounds, or sounds made at very low temperatures may be subject to quantum effects.

So I'll say we are both right in certain aspects of this. But Quantum acoustics seem to work different than normal acoustics the human ear can pick up.

Better yet, the quantum acoustic link says it best: "At the present stage of development of physical science, quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory of physical phenomena."

[charter.rights]

Agreed. But is telepathy really what c.r is after? I am not sensing that.

Saw this very interesting show - PBS or Discovery or something - last week which looked at the similarities between particle physics & mechanics and large body physics & mechanics. No conclusions, but some very interesting inferences.

Nope. I'm not discussing telepathy. I was using brain science as an example of invisible activity outside of the brain being measured for Kimmie's sake who is so stuck in physical mode that there is no hope of here understanding quantum mechanics. She made a statement that all thought started and ended in her brain. It does not.

So let me put in terms that smarter animals might consider.

Water, is H20 right?

If a scientist were to pull out a droplet of water out of the ocean, combine it with 10 other droplets of water from all over the world and then put it back one drop at a time what will he have as a result?

Water is H20, right?

In quantum mechanics we can look at some of the tiniest bits of stuff the universe is made up. Those bits are found in rock molecules, air molecules and yes even water molecules. All things have these bits. Yet when we put them back we find that they all mix back into the stuff they came from indistinguishable on a macro level from the original stuff we originally sampled. Yet they can be separate, they are part of the whole. Except in a vacuum, air touches almost everything. Every rock, every lake touches air. Yet their molecules, and atoms are very much the same. And beyond that the quantum particles (at least for this discussion) are all the same.

Yet electron, and protons are constantly in motion and when combined with other atoms even exchanging electrons to form new molecules, new substances, new rocks, air and water. Radioactive particles do this so readily that the excitement of the interchange between electrons causes a spontaneous reaction. Heavy water (deuterium oxide - D20) is used to slow down the process long enough to capture the heat from it for our commercial use. Nuclear bombs on the other hand ignore a controlled reaction letting if go at full speed to create a intensive conflagration - so hot that is vaporizes organic material and so powerful that it blows concrete structures into dust.

It is all the same stuff. The exchanges of electrons and the destruction of neutrons causes huge reactions but at a quantum level does not change into anything other than itself. Quantum particles are in contact with everything (and in contact with nothing). Quite a paradox.

So when we think we can use machines to measure not only the brain waves (energy) but that energy leaves the brain (measurement is outside of the brain). If the theory of relativity is correct the energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So the brain energy created through thought must go outward. Put many people in the same room each thinking different thoughts and viola! we have brain energy from one individual combining with other brain energy. Who knows where it ends up. Could someone capitalize on it? I'm not sure. Are our senses acute enough to pick up on those things? Where do "ah ha" experiences originate. Who knows.

So all I am postulating is that we really exist in one big electron soup bowl. Everything at the quantum level is connected, interacting and reacting. In quantum reality, our bodies, our thinking and the concrete we stand on do not exist and if we could see life at a quantum level we would likely see a whole big void - space between bits of stuff we can't capture long enough to really understand where they come from and what they might be made of. The Sudbury Neutrino Laboratory is studying that on one level. The large hadron collider has hopes of studying more. But we are really not there and then we are all connected. A curious paradox.

Edited February 4, 2010 by charter.rights

[jbg]

Quantum mechanics is about the behavior of subatomic particles, it's not about the "connection between all things". Your word salad does not science make. I'm sorry, at the end of the day, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're giving far too much dignity to an exchange that is no longer juvenile, but still highly inane.

[GostHacked]

Nope. I'm not discussing telepathy. I was using brain science as an example of invisible activity outside of the brain being measured for Kimmie's sake who is so stuck in physical mode that there is no hope of here understanding quantum mechanics.

What is the medium that the information is traveling on? If there is no physical mode, then what is it? If it is energy how do you detect it? If a thought is transfered from one mind to another, how does it do it? What medium does it travel on?

So let me put in terms that smarter animals might consider.

I love it when people do this. More often than not, this kind of response usually comes back to them.

Water, is H20 right?

Water is H20 .. two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

If a scientist were to pull out a droplet of water out of the ocean, combine it with 10 other droplets of water from all over the world and then put it back one drop at a time what will he have as a result?

Water is H20, right?

Sure but what this has to do with your point, I am not sure.

Yet electron, and protons are constantly in motion and when combined with other atoms even exchanging electrons to form new molecules, new substances, new rocks, air and water.

What you will find is that all matter is always moving everywhere.

Radioactive particles do this so readily that the excitement of the interchange between electrons causes a spontaneous reaction. Heavy water (deuterium oxide - D20) is used to slow down the process long enough to capture the heat from it for our commercial use. Nuclear bombs on the other hand ignore a controlled reaction letting if go at full speed to create a intensive conflagration - so hot that is vaporizes organic material and so powerful that it blows concrete structures into dust.

Nuclear weapons are still a controlled reaction scenario. All weapons are controlled reactions. If they could not control the reaction, you would not be able to make nuclear weapons the way they do, or any kind of weapon for that matter.

It is all the same stuff. The exchanges of electrons and the destruction of neutrons causes huge reactions but at a quantum level does not change into anything other than itself. Quantum particles are in contact with everything (and in contact with nothing). Quite a paradox.

For the most part ... hysically they are not in contact with anything.

So when we think we can use machines to measure not only the brain waves (energy) but that energy leaves the brain (measurement is outside of the brain). If the theory of relativity is correct the energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So the brain energy created through thought must go outward.

How?

Put many people in the same room each thinking different thoughts and viola! we have brain energy from one individual combining with other brain energy. Who knows where it ends up. Could someone capitalize on it? I'm not sure. Are our senses acute enough to pick up on those things? Where do "ah ha" experiences originate. Who knows.

If I am having an problem and I can't seem to solve it, I will ask someone else. The Eureka moment comes from me finally understanding the problem, which also formulates a solution in my head. I am in IT and when knowledge and past experience, and ruling items out are all said and done, the answer is arrived at.

So all I am postulating is that we really exist in one big electron soup bowl. Everything at the quantum level is connected, interacting and reacting.

I'd say the opposite, nothing in the quantum level is connected. but they are interacting and reacting. That analogy even works on the physical levels we humans understand.

In quantum reality, our bodies, our thinking and the concrete we stand on do not exist and if we could see life at a quantum level we would likely see a whole big void - space between bits of stuff we can't capture long enough to really understand where they come from and what they might be made of.

So much for things being connected

The Sudbury Neutrino Laboratory is studying that on one level. The large hadron collider has hopes of studying more. But we are really not there and then we are all connected. A curious paradox.

If we all were connected in some way, we would have a hive mind mentality like most insects. But even then, there is individual communication between them. Worker bees are a good example. They dance around telling others where the food is. That gets passed to others, it is a clear form of communication and does not seem to have any mystery to it.

Humans are very individual and we don't have a hive mentality.