all it takes for something to exist is...

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

And even if, by some strange system, we can mentally affect the behavior of quantum particles, we can't mentally affect the behavior of a regular object, even though it consists of quantum particles. If our minds could affect the quantum reality, it should be able to affect the macro reality as well, which it cannot, so the whole idea is ludicrous.

If you thought I meant we can affect something mentally alone, you are misunderstanding my position. Remember, I firmly believe in the whole-istic view. What I am saying is how we approach the experiment, and what our personal perspective decides upon will determine what measuring device we will select, including whether we will invent a new system of measuring for the task. In classical physics, we believed that the universe operated like a machine, and we could test it however we wanted and an objective truth would appear. We now realize that the very act that we choose to test it and how we do so, depending on the variables we set into play, plays a part in determining and creating the outcome. The observer's very act of interfering becomes an integral part of the experiment, rather than beig objectively detached as was once thought. This interference, depending on choices made by the observer, creates either a particle or a wave outcome, which are entirely different phenomena. Therefore the idea that the universe plays out objectively independent of our interaction with it is shown to be inaccurate at the quantum level.

This is considered a distinct law and as stated below, distinguishes quauntum mechanics.

"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."

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

If you thought I meant we can affect something mentally alone, you are misunderstanding my position. Remember, I firmly believe in the whole-istic view. What I am saying is how we approach the experiment, and what our personal perspective decides upon will determine what measuring device we will select, including whether we will invent a new system of measuring for the task. In classical physics, we believed that the universe operated like a machine, and we could test it however we wanted and an objective truth would appear. We now realize that the very act that we choose to test it and how we do so, depending on the variables we set into play, plays a part in determining and creating the outcome. The observer's very act of interfering becomes an integral part of the experiment, rather than beig objectively detached as was once thought. This interference, depending on choices made by the observer, creates either a particle or a wave outcome, which are entirely different phenomena. Therefore the idea that the universe plays out objectively independent of our interaction with it is shown to be inaccurate at the quantum level.

This is considered a distinct law and as stated below, distinguishes quauntum mechanics.

"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."

I don't think that's exactly true, I think classical physics has always been concerned with the scientific method. For example, you wouldn't test the behavior of ants by stepping on them, you'd kill them.

Jeanie · April 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Does it matter? So, we got it wrong... what's the damage?
I mean... does the current structure work for you?

How can we know what the outcome would be if we aren't even sure we got it wrong?

What if another structure worked better?

As it stands the current structure sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think that's exactly true, I think classical physics has always been concerned with the scientific method. For example, you wouldn't test the behavior of ants by stepping on them, you'd kill them.

At the quantum level the universe does not operate like a machine as we once thought in classical physics. It does not act with strict cause and effect. So on a scientifically testable and observable level of reality our actions directly affect and alter the physical matter we interact with in terms of manifesting either a particle or wave, which are entirely different. And it's by the observing mechanisms, alone. And not because we are stepping on something, or using a hammer or saw which are traditional methods of upsetting the outcome. We are talking observation only, affecting what is being observed.

Try meditating for 5 years and you'll see the real life practical relevence of this. The very act of observation changes reality on a fundamental level.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

At the quantum level the universe does not operate like a machine as we once thought in classical physics. It does not act with strict cause and effect. So on a scientifically testable and observable level of reality our actions directly affect and alter the physical matter we interact with in terms of manifesting either a particle or wave, which are entirely different. And it's by the observing mechanisms, alone. And not because we are stepping on something, or using a hammer or saw which are traditional methods of upsetting the outcome. We are talking observation only, affecting what is being observed.

Try meditating for 5 years and you'll see the real life practical relevence of this. The very act of observation changes reality on a fundamental level.

Again your stabbing at the dark, we are discussing things which we have a very primative understanding of. I would be cautious of making any absolute judgements.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Again your stabbing at the dark, we are discussing things which we have a very primative understanding of. I would be cautious of making any absolute judgements.

and so now you admit that there are things we don't understand yet? what if they reviel that what you thought was reality; is now illusion?

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

At the quantum level the universe does not operate like a machine as we once thought in classical physics. It does not act with strict cause and effect. So on a scientifically testable and observable level of reality our actions directly affect and alter the physical matter we interact with in terms of manifesting either a particle or wave, which are entirely different. And it's by the observing mechanisms, alone. And not because we are stepping on something, or using a hammer or saw which are traditional methods of upsetting the outcome. We are talking observation only, affecting what is being observed.

Try meditating for 5 years and you'll see the real life practical relevence of this. The very act of observation changes reality on a fundamental level.

It clearly isn't observation only, because the observation methods affect or cause the effect we observe. Thus proving that the observations are also a perturbation and the quantum world is affected, and therefor causal.

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and so now you admit that there are things we don't understand yet? what if they reviel that what you thought was reality; is now illusion?

Then I'd be in your position, but I'm not. Because I chose to not understand it, until it became understandable.

Jeanie · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://nativopartenopeo.blogspirit.com/images/medium_homer_donuts.jpg

Aah!! Thank you Roland!!!!

mmmm...................donuts!!!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and so now you admit that there are things we don't understand yet? what if they reviel that what you thought was reality; is now illusion?

If nothing in this universe is as it appears, then we are all very much, and completely fucking insane....

lol

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Again your stabbing at the dark, we are discussing things which we have a very primative understanding of. I would be cautious of making any absolute judgements.

"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."

This principle is not disputed within the science community. It happens and it happens all the time. And it has been acknowledged by the most eminent scientists for 100 years. That's pretty absolute. In practical outcome, it happens, time and again. It is not in question, any more than your claim of hallucinations and delusions being objectively proven are in question.

What you are addressing is the "why" questions of philosphy that people bring to any science principle, yourself included. (according to your view on the validity of using scientism for value like you spoke of in the scientism thread).

For my own personal philosophies, I must develop them so that they are congruent with all of the knowledge I have accumulated through the years. And I have personally spent years weeding out my own personal contradictions, and honing such philosophies into a nice balanced, congruent package.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

"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."

This principle is not disputed within the science community. It happens and it happens all the time. And it has been acknowledged by the most eminent scientists for 100 years. That's pretty absolute. In practical outcome, it happens, time and again. It is not in question, any more than your claim of hallucinations and delusions being objectively proven are in question.

What you are addressing is the "why" questions of philosphy that people bring to any science principle, yourself included. (according to your view on the validity of using scientism for value like you spoke of in the scientism thread).

For my own personal philosophies, I must develop them so that they are congruent with all of the knowledge I have accumulated through the years. And I have personally spent years weeding out my own personal contradictions, and honing such philosophies into a nice balanced, congruent package.

But Bohr says that it has nothing to do with observation. I quoted that earlier. Einstein believed in hidden variables and so on...

onelongsong · April 2007

catefrances wrote:

i'm with you OSL for the most part. but i see only the measurement of time as the invention, not time itself. animals deal with time as i'm sure you know. however they do not have the 'intelligence' nor the inclination, to subject it to the constraints Man does. nor is it necessary for them to do so. they are part of the same Nature that time is.

that's the word. contraints man puts on the day. i still have no use for time but that's the point. time on mars is different. we see a comet suspended in the sky and we're told it's moving at 45,000 mph. and in 100 or whatever years it will be in that same spot. maybe that's 1 year in comet time. the time it takes to come full circle.
"he" said reality was absolute. time is not absolute. thus in his train of thought; time is not real.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Aah!! Thank you Roland!!!!

mmmm...................donuts!!!!

I like to keep it bubbly

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

that's the word. contraints man puts on the day. i still have no use for time but that's the point. time on mars is different. we see a comet suspended in the sky and we're told it's moving at 45,000 mph. and in 100 or whatever years it will be in that same spot. maybe that's 1 year in comet time. the time it takes to come full circle.
"he" said reality was absolute. time is not absolute. thus in his train of thought; time is not real.

Your perception of time is not absolute, but time is. Maybe you can't see it, but there it is.

"The truth is incontrovertible, ignorance may deride it, malice may attack it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Then I'd be in your position, but I'm not. Because I chose to not understand it, until it became understandable.

now if everyone thought like that; we'd be sitting around the fire wondering how it got there.

Jeanie · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, judging by the beliefs on this board, you are all wrong

Seriously though Jeanie, this is a defetus point. We can sit here all day talking about how we are all of one consciousness with an experience of ourselves, there is no such thing as death and life is only a dream. But at the end of the day, we are still here in whatever reality we are in. The best we can do is to make sense out of reality objectively, empirically, or scientifically if you will. All the rest, pales in comparison.

You really gotta stop putting words into my mouth, or assuming my position.

I never said anything about one consciousness or no death and life is a dream.
I simply posed the question, what if all that we think we know up to this point is based on a flawed premise and we are wrong? Everything thus far being theory upon theory, experiment upon experiment. All stacked up. Flowing on from each other. Well what if somewhere we got a small but intrisic part of that wrong and it reshapes everything when we discover it?
I mean it could make everything better or it worse.
It bears thinking about.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Your perception of time is not absolute, but time is. Maybe you can't see it, but there it is.

"The truth is incontrovertible, ignorance may deride it, malice may attack it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill

still no proof of time i see.
i'll wait.

norm · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, judging by the beliefs on this board, you are all wrong

Seriously though Jeanie, this is a defetus point. We can sit here all day talking about how we are all of one consciousness with an experience of ourselves, there is no such thing as death and life is only a dream. But at the end of the day, we are still here in whatever reality we are in. The best we can do is to make sense out of reality objectively, empirically, or scientifically if you will. All the rest, pales in comparison.

defetus?? A new word for abortion?

Just having a laugh, Ryan.

Carry on.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Jeanie wrote:

You really gotta stop putting words into my mouth, or assuming my position.

I never said anything about one consciousness or no death and life is a dream.
I simply posed the question, what if all that we think we know up to this point is based on a flawed premise and we are wrong? Everything thus far being theory upon theory, experiment upon experiment. All stacked up. Flowing on from each other. Well what if somewhere we got a small but intrisic part of that wrong and it reshapes everything when we discover it?
I mean it could make everything better or it worse.
It bears thinking about.

No it doesn't. Thinking about that proves pointless. It gets us no further ahead. I challenge you to even give me an example of something that could be wrong that would change everything we know. Red-shift may be wrong, but that will only change what we know about the structure of the universe, not what happens here on earth. It won't change the contribution corn gives to the atmosphere.

I used those other statements as examples of things that prove pointless. What if we are all wrong, doesn't matter, because unless we are all wrong, it serves no purpose to suppose we might be, it's only purposeful to suppose we might be wrong if you intend on discovering how we are wrong, otherwise it's a pointless thought experiment. What if I was a turtle?

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories