Church of Satan

hailhailkc

Satan. He's no joke.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

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...

norm

Damn. I thought this thread was about this guy.

http://www.nhl.com/players/8459534.html

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

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.

if only that would get my brief written

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

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".

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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"

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

that's cool, most of my scientific knowledge comes from michael crichton.

lol

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

angelica

"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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.