I think we're in agreement here. The key point is the point of view or the viewer's perception that shapes what they interpret the phenomena to be. I deliberately bolded the parts that were about natural law, because to me this stuff works as efficiently as gravity. I also believe the supernatural is perfectively integrated with us, naturally, at all times, despite our general obliviousness to it. (for the anal sticklers out here, I am not contradicting myself, I am representing the wholeness of truth with a paradox--natural/supernatural.)
And the same goes for Ahnimus's free will/determinism debate. It's the very same principle looked at differently. I agree.
What it seems you are pointing out is also the part of such theories that necessitate quantum physics principles to give rational backup. And it is why the quantum physics view pulls rank on mechanical deterministic science acknowledging this key, integral point: It takes into consideration that one's perspective is the deciding factor of what one sees. But I'm sure you already get all this.
actually, i didnt get that last paragraph. my mind shuts down when i see quantum physics... it's a defense mechanism i think what you would consider the supernatural i would say is perfectly natural. but im kinda weird like that. ive come to kind of expect the unexpected. now if only i could get one of those miraculous/magical transformations to rid me of my tendency to procrastination...
i think what you would consider the supernatural i would say is perfectly natural. .
My point is I can see it from all angles. It's all integrated. There are not demarcations delineating the differences, except in how we each look at what we see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My point is I can see it from all angles. It's all integrated. There are not demarcations delineating the differences, except in how we each look at what we see.
i think im the same only a bit more cynical in my outlook.
i think im the same only a bit more cynical in my outlook.
Oh, you're definitely a bit more cynical in your outlook in general. I completely agree, though. I know you do see many views at once, and you can synthesize those views and see the underlying basic universal principle, no matter how people perceive the differences, or how they label them. It's a blessing, dude.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
actually, i didnt get that last paragraph. my mind shuts down when i see quantum physics... it's a defense mechanism i think what you would consider the supernatural i would say is perfectly natural. but im kinda weird like that. ive come to kind of expect the unexpected. now if only i could get one of those miraculous/magical transformations to rid me of my tendency to procrastination...
Angelica's knowledge of Quantum Mechanics comes from a movie by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment called "What the BLEEP do we know?" and it's wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, you're definitely a bit more cynical in your outlook in general. I completely agree, though. I know you do see many views at once, and you can synthesize those views and see the underlying basic universal principle, no matter how people perceive the differences, or how they label them. It's a blessing, dude.
that's cool, most of my scientific knowledge comes from michael crichton.
That's harsh man.
My sources are *.edu, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Wikipedia.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is what the double-slit experiment showed us.
The act of attempting to measure the behavior of quantum particles interferes with their behavior.
Heissenberg's Uncertainty Principle then gives us a system of prediction by creating a probabilistic model. The particles tend to a certain behavior, but not always, just probably. So that's really the only way we have of predicting their behavior as we can't actually observe it without messing with it.
Bottom line, we don't know enough about QM to make any huge conclusions like "the observer collapses the waveform".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica's knowledge of Quantum Mechanics comes from a movie by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment called "What the BLEEP do we know?" and it's wrong.
My awareness of Quantum mechanics goes back to books I've been reading since the mid-nineties--over ten years before I saw "What the Bleep". But don't let your own guesswork get in the way of understanding a situation!
Try this: the mechanistic view of the universe looked at things objectively. We thought life operated like a machine. We thought the observer was not part of the picture. We did not realize the observer's bias, and personal way of filtering information affected the quality of the information. We did not realize that if the observer was unable to perceive a concept, it limited what he was able to perceive in the physical world. In short, we did not acknowledge that the seer, the act of seeing and what is seen is one integrated whole. You cannot remove one from the other. "The point of view that you do not have a point of view is still a point of view."--Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My awareness of Quantum mechanics goes back to books I've been reading since the mid-nineties--over ten years before I saw "What the Bleep". But don't let your own guesswork get in the way of understanding a situation!
Try this: the mechanistic view of the universe looked at things objectively. We thought life operated like a machine. We thought the observer was not part of the picture. We did not realize the observer's bias, and personal way of filtering information affected the quality of the information. We did not realize that if the observer was unable to perceive a concept, it limited what he was able to perceive in the physical world. In short, we did not acknowledge that the seer, the act of seeing and what is seen is one integrated whole. You cannot remove one from the other. "The point of view that you do not have a point of view is still a point of view."--Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
The observer still isn't a part of it. It's just junk science. Trust me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The observer still isn't a part of it. It's just junk science. Trust me.
Lets try pure reason. If you look at something, and devise a theory based on your assessment, and I look at the same thing a devise a completely different theory based on my assessment, the observer--you or I--very much affects what we observe. What is observed hinges on your or my own perception. You might want to call that junk science. I call it reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Lets try pure reason. If you look at something, and devise a theory based on your assessment, and I look at the same thing a devise a completely different theory based on my assessment, the observer--you or I--very much affects what we observe. What is observed hinges on your or my own perception. You might want to call that junk science. I call it reality.
Ok, but if you have 4 cones in your retina and view the colour red with supreme clarity, where as I have only 2 cones and think it's really green. Doesn't change the actual photons that are hittin' our eyes.
So my point is that perception does not change reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, but if you have 4 cones in your retina and view the colour red with supreme clarity, where as I have only 2 cones and think it's really green. Doesn't change the actual photons that are hittin' our eyes.
So my point is that perception does not change reality.
No, perception does not change reality. However which view of reality represents reality? Quantum physics? Or Newtonion physics? What is real? Determinism or Free will? The belief in any one of these hinges on perception.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." --Niels Bohr
No, perception does not change reality. However which view of reality represents reality? Quantum physics? Or Newtonion physics? What is real? Determinism or Free will? The belief in any one of these hinges on perception.
There is nothing known about QM that suggests it's different than Newtonian phsyics.
Free-will is a product of self-awareness. Many call it a necissary illusion. Which I can see. Still, I'd rather everyone know it's an illusion.
Reality exists without perception, so if you can change your perception enough to see it different ways and squeeze and squeeze till it gets released out your brain, then finally your mind will be silently smiling.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is nothing known about QM that suggests it's different than Newtonian phsyics.
Free-will is a product of self-awareness. Many call it a necissary illusion. Which I can see. Still, I'd rather everyone know it's an illusion.
Reality exists without perception, so if you can change your perception enough to see it different ways and squeeze and squeeze till it gets released out your brain, then finally your mind will be silently smiling.
See my last post.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Complementarity or wave-particle duality is considered to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of quantum mechanics, whose theoretical and experimental development has been honoured by more than a few Nobel Prizes for Physics. It has been discussed by prominent physicists for the last 100 years, from the time of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, onwards. On the basis of Bohr's principle of complementarity, it is indeed universally accepted that the observation of two complementary properties, such as position and momentum, requires mutually exclusive experimental measurements.
The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle."
To reiterate, this principle that is so widely accepted as a basis for quantum mechanics, implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between atomic object and the measuring instruments that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear!
That means we cannot separate that which does the perceiving, from that which is perceived. This is a widely accepted basis of quantum mechanics.
I believe you can always cut a piece of something in half forever (infinity) and still have something to cut in half again. At no point can you ever end up with nothing.
The fact that we are he proves that something was always (and will continue to be) here, and not created out of from thin air at some point.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Complementarity or wave-particle duality is considered to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of quantum mechanics, whose theoretical and experimental development has been honoured by more than a few Nobel Prizes for Physics. It has been discussed by prominent physicists for the last 100 years, from the time of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, onwards. On the basis of Bohr's principle of complementarity, it is indeed universally accepted that the observation of two complementary properties, such as position and momentum, requires mutually exclusive experimental measurements.
The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle."
To reiterate, this principle that is so widely accepted as a basis for quantum mechanics, implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between atomic object and the measuring instruments that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear!
That means we cannot separate that which does the perceiving, from that which is perceived. This is a widely accepted basis of quantum mechanics.
So, you gotta read this sentence like 80 times to make sense out of it. Niels Bohr man, what a character.
"implies the impossibility" ok "suggests it's impossible"
"of a sharp separation" ok "of a seperation"
"between atomic object" or "electron"
"and the measuring instruments" ok "ruler"
"that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear" ok so the ruler "defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"
That's what I said.
"suggests it's impossible to seperate electron and the ruler that defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"
Right exactly! It's impossible to measure it because the phenonema no longer exists when you remove the measuring device. Right. Yea exactly, yup mmmhmmm, nothing new here.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What do I think of Laveyan Satanism? It is childish, and for people who do not wish to grow up.
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
There is nothing known about QM that suggests it's different than Newtonian phsyics.
There is much known about quantum mechanics that goes beyond the 'laws' and theories of Newtonian or classical physics:
"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."
Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.
"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "
"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."
"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience." http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I believe you can always cut a piece of something in half forever (infinity) and still have something to cut in half again. At no point can you ever end up with nothing.
The fact that we are he proves that something was always (and will continue to be) here, and not created out of from thin air at some point.
Yeah but what Heisenburg figured out is that at some point, even with a theoretically perfect blade, you couldn't continue cutting that something in half because you would not be able to accurately predict both the position and momentum at any given moment in time.
You don't end up with nothing. You end up with 100% something and 100% nothing all at the same time.
Right exactly! It's impossible to measure it because the phenonema no longer exists when you remove the measuring device. Right. Yea exactly, yup mmmhmmm, nothing new here.
The observer still isn't a part of it. It's just junk science. Trust me.
Niels Bohr, one of the fathers of quantum physics, is saying it's impossible to separate what is being measured from that which is doing the measuring. There is no separation between the seer and what is being seen. The observer, and by extension, the measuring instruments, define the conditions under which the phenomena are assessed. Therefore the observer has a specific role in the outcome of the experiment. For example, in wave/particle duality, the observer, and the terms he decides for the experiment, will dictate whether the observable outcome is a particle or a wave phenomenon. The observer cannot be objective or removed from the experiment. The observer is relative and related to what is being observed. This is not junk science.
"The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantatative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously." --Wolfgang Pauli
An esteemed, well-known theoretical physicist such as Pauli says the ONLY acceptable point of view seems to acknowledge BOTH the physical view AND the psychical aspect of viewing reality simultaneously.
"Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from seventeenth to nineteenth century forebearers on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data." http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTB6.pdf
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, I had no idea that all this time, you've been going on the assumption that my understanding of quantum physics was purely derived from "What the Bleep".
edit: for me this is all the more comical, considering the science in "What the Bleep" did not impress upon me. I don't remember what it was about, so when you dispute it assuming it to be my view, I completely ignore you. It's science that is not on my radar screen.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Guy has a sexual attraction to children, if determinism is true, then some factor beyond his control is causing it and we can develop therapy, or treat the illness in a more humane way. If free-will is true, which is the reigning percpet, then we just lock 'em up and toss away the key. That is the practical difference between the two realities, one is self-servant the other is logically understanding.
Less than a full two pages later, you were claiming this to me:
So my point is that perception does not change reality.
You were adamant to soulsinging, about how our perception actually changes the practical outcome of the situation. ie: if we perceive we have free will, we lock the guy up and throw away the key. and conversely, if we believe in determinism, we create an entirely different outcome to the same situation. But shortly after, when I was making the exact same point, backed up by quantum physics, you denied the validity of what I was saying. I believe the reason for this is because you do have not been understanding what I have been saying re: quantum physics. I also believe much of it is because you have believed my quantum physics awareness to be limited to a movie, therefore not acknowledging my actual background of physics awareness. You and I are talking about the exact same thing even though under different circumstances where we are not relating to one another. It is our perception of what each other is saying that is confused.
I realize our perception does not change reality, but it changes the only reality we know, which is our perception of it. That can change our entire idea of what is possible and how much power we actually have. This is why I always use the analogy of the drop of water and the ocean. I realize we are always the drop of water within the ocean. We do not change the ocean, but we change our perception of our world within that ocean. Back to this quote: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." --Niels Bohr.....science does not describe reality, it describes our understanding of reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
actually, i didnt get that last paragraph. my mind shuts down when i see quantum physics... it's a defense mechanism
http://www.nhl.com/players/8459534.html
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i think im the same only a bit more cynical in my outlook.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica's knowledge of Quantum Mechanics comes from a movie by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment called "What the BLEEP do we know?" and it's wrong.
that's cool, most of my scientific knowledge comes from michael crichton.
if only that would get my brief written
That's harsh man.
My sources are *.edu, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Wikipedia.
The act of attempting to measure the behavior of quantum particles interferes with their behavior.
Heissenberg's Uncertainty Principle then gives us a system of prediction by creating a probabilistic model. The particles tend to a certain behavior, but not always, just probably. So that's really the only way we have of predicting their behavior as we can't actually observe it without messing with it.
Bottom line, we don't know enough about QM to make any huge conclusions like "the observer collapses the waveform".
Try this: the mechanistic view of the universe looked at things objectively. We thought life operated like a machine. We thought the observer was not part of the picture. We did not realize the observer's bias, and personal way of filtering information affected the quality of the information. We did not realize that if the observer was unable to perceive a concept, it limited what he was able to perceive in the physical world. In short, we did not acknowledge that the seer, the act of seeing and what is seen is one integrated whole. You cannot remove one from the other. "The point of view that you do not have a point of view is still a point of view."--Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The observer still isn't a part of it. It's just junk science. Trust me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but if you have 4 cones in your retina and view the colour red with supreme clarity, where as I have only 2 cones and think it's really green. Doesn't change the actual photons that are hittin' our eyes.
So my point is that perception does not change reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is nothing known about QM that suggests it's different than Newtonian phsyics.
Free-will is a product of self-awareness. Many call it a necissary illusion. Which I can see. Still, I'd rather everyone know it's an illusion.
Reality exists without perception, so if you can change your perception enough to see it different ways and squeeze and squeeze till it gets released out your brain, then finally your mind will be silently smiling.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle."
To reiterate, this principle that is so widely accepted as a basis for quantum mechanics, implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between atomic object and the measuring instruments that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear!
That means we cannot separate that which does the perceiving, from that which is perceived. This is a widely accepted basis of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The fact that we are he proves that something was always (and will continue to be) here, and not created out of from thin air at some point.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So, you gotta read this sentence like 80 times to make sense out of it. Niels Bohr man, what a character.
"implies the impossibility" ok "suggests it's impossible"
"of a sharp separation" ok "of a seperation"
"between atomic object" or "electron"
"and the measuring instruments" ok "ruler"
"that define the conditions under which the phenomena appear" ok so the ruler "defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"
That's what I said.
"suggests it's impossible to seperate electron and the ruler that defines the conditions that are required for the phenomena to appear"
Right exactly! It's impossible to measure it because the phenonema no longer exists when you remove the measuring device. Right. Yea exactly, yup mmmhmmm, nothing new here.
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."
Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.
"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "
"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."
"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
All hail number eleven!
All hail number eleven!
All hail number eleven!
What a great rule! I'd go to regular Jesus church if they had a rule like this one.
Yeah but what Heisenburg figured out is that at some point, even with a theoretically perfect blade, you couldn't continue cutting that something in half because you would not be able to accurately predict both the position and momentum at any given moment in time.
You don't end up with nothing. You end up with 100% something and 100% nothing all at the same time.
Or so they say
Niels Bohr, one of the fathers of quantum physics, is saying it's impossible to separate what is being measured from that which is doing the measuring. There is no separation between the seer and what is being seen. The observer, and by extension, the measuring instruments, define the conditions under which the phenomena are assessed. Therefore the observer has a specific role in the outcome of the experiment. For example, in wave/particle duality, the observer, and the terms he decides for the experiment, will dictate whether the observable outcome is a particle or a wave phenomenon. The observer cannot be objective or removed from the experiment. The observer is relative and related to what is being observed. This is not junk science.
"The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantatative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously." --Wolfgang Pauli
An esteemed, well-known theoretical physicist such as Pauli says the ONLY acceptable point of view seems to acknowledge BOTH the physical view AND the psychical aspect of viewing reality simultaneously.
"Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from seventeenth to nineteenth century forebearers on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data." http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTB6.pdf
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
edit: for me this is all the more comical, considering the science in "What the Bleep" did not impress upon me. I don't remember what it was about, so when you dispute it assuming it to be my view, I completely ignore you. It's science that is not on my radar screen.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I realize our perception does not change reality, but it changes the only reality we know, which is our perception of it. That can change our entire idea of what is possible and how much power we actually have. This is why I always use the analogy of the drop of water and the ocean. I realize we are always the drop of water within the ocean. We do not change the ocean, but we change our perception of our world within that ocean. Back to this quote: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." --Niels Bohr.....science does not describe reality, it describes our understanding of reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!