|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2017 22:17:34 GMT -5
'pilgrim: I'm gonna' put up a different thread on the topic, and I don't mean you any disrespect in that. It's just a different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2017 22:33:13 GMT -5
Good post ZD, a few comments. But present scientific abstractions, specifically QM, allow scientists and inventors and then manufacturers to manipulate the world. In the '50's the transistor became inventable because of QM, IOW, no QM, no transistors. I read recently that 25% of products we use today have come-from QM in some way or another, TV's, computers and smart phones for example. IOW, the world we live in today, another example, smart houses, comes about from these abstractions, figuring out to the extent possible, how reality works. Agreed. I have no problem with QM because the math works. My only stumbling block was the idea of thingness. Despite the math, we don't really know what a photon is beyond an abstract idea. Trying to visualize it as if it were a wave, particle, or something else, is a visualization exercise rather than a non-conceptual knowing of whatever it's isness is. Unlike the macro-world we see and feel, everything about the composition of the micro-world must be inferred, and all we really see are patterns on the screens of our test equipment or trails in a cloud chamber. Particle/wave/field/woo-woo weirdness. We simply know that if we do such and such, our test equipment responds by doing such and such. What we call "energy" and "matter" are more like states of something energetic that manifests in QM experiments as spooky stuff--even spooky stuff at a distance (non-locality). Our math simulates reality, so the meta-reality of math can be used to predict unknown things about reality, itself. Einstein's e=mc2 made scientists realize that the right kind of matter could be converted to an enormous amount of energy, and Hiroshima was a concrete result. Einstein was a visualizer, and I understand why he had a problem with QM because I'm also a visualizer. I wanted to understand what a photon looks like at the level of a photon, so that I could intellectually grasp it, but it can't be done. Any attempt to imagine it as a sparkler, a ray, sequential quantized flashes, a particle, a wave, etc. is doomed to failure. If my physics professor had understood what I was asking, he would have said, "Bob, a photon is just a useful concept; it's not a discrete thing in any ordinary sense, so don't try to picture it in any strongly-defined or bounded way. All we can know is that if light strikes a photo-electric cell, our voltmeter will register that an electric current has been generated." Physicists first imagined that an atom was like a group of small spherical balls (protons and neutrons) stuck together by a strong force with tiny balls (electrons) flying around them at a distance. They called it "the planetary model," and everyone could picture that like planets orbiting a star. Later, electrons became imagined more like a cloud of probability, surrounding a somewhat diffuse energetic core, but even this idea finally collapsed, and only the math continued. These days I have no idea how physicists try to imagine an atom, but I suspect that it's more like a field of probability. What I know is that the ordinary world we sense is, fundamentally, beyond human comprehension, and our ideas ABOUT it are like simplistic cartoons compared to the ineffable complexity of the living truth. Nice post again. I like David Bohm's 'idea' of our Explicate world arising out-from the hidden-invisible Implicate Order.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2017 22:34:33 GMT -5
'pilgrim: I'm gonna' put up a different thread on the topic, and I don't mean you any disrespect in that. It's just a different perspective. Sure, no problem.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2017 23:02:46 GMT -5
Anybody can chime in at any time, views, questions. At some point down the road laughter is going to disagree with me, as we've disagreed in the past. One thing which will come up could be called Einstein's Moon. There is a pretty good book on quantum entanglement with that name by F David Peat. With all the quantum discussion going on and the observer effect, Einstein once in exasperation asked, Does the Moon disappear if nobody is looking at it? So, what do you see as our point of disagreement? Borrowing a notion from ZD, my answer to Al would be one of three types: (1) existential, (2) practical, or (3) philosophical My existential answer: Excellent question. how do you propose to go about answering it? My practical answer would be one of: (a) What? (b) Yes. or (c) My philosophical answer is that there is a continuity to the experience of the Moon that we can trace through time either indirectly by the physical effects we can measure all the way back to the time of the formation of the Earth, or even directly by posing the question, how often in this day and age is there ever an instant when there isn't someone, somewhere here on Earth looking up at the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2017 10:08:23 GMT -5
Anybody can chime in at any time, views, questions. At some point down the road laughter is going to disagree with me, as we've disagreed in the past. One thing which will come up could be called Einstein's Moon. There is a pretty good book on quantum entanglement with that name by F David Peat. With all the quantum discussion going on and the observer effect, Einstein once in exasperation asked, Does the Moon disappear if nobody is looking at it? So, what do you see as our point of disagreement? Borrowing a notion from ZD, my answer to Al would be one of three types: (1) existential, (2) practical, or (3) philosophical My existential answer: Excellent question. how do you propose to go about answering it? My practical answer would be one of: (a) What? (b) Yes. or (c) My philosophical answer is that there is a continuity to the experience of the Moon that we can trace through time either indirectly by the physical effects we can measure all the way back to the time of the formation of the Earth, or even directly by posing the question, how often in this day and age is there ever an instant when there isn't someone, somewhere here on Earth looking up at the Moon? I'm sort of got lost in your post, I don't know what you are referring to by Al. Beyond that, everything I wrote was pretty straightforward, that is, the first four long posts, up until Now we come to a crossroads (I just bolded) the start of the last paragraph, 5th long post (toward the end of page one). In the past you seemed to be sold on the Copenhagen Interpretation. So, crossroads meant, opinions diverge here (in general). But basically, I don't know where we disagree, until you post a disagreement. And I'm not sure of the point you are making in the last paragraph, the second half seems to contradict the first half (or the first half makes irrelevant the second half).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 29, 2017 15:48:07 GMT -5
So, what do you see as our point of disagreement? Borrowing a notion from ZD, my answer to Al would be one of three types: (1) existential, (2) practical, or (3) philosophical My existential answer: Excellent question. how do you propose to go about answering it? My practical answer would be one of: (a) What? (b) Yes. or (c) My philosophical answer is that there is a continuity to the experience of the Moon that we can trace through time either indirectly by the physical effects we can measure all the way back to the time of the formation of the Earth, or even directly by posing the question, how often in this day and age is there ever an instant when there isn't someone, somewhere here on Earth looking up at the Moon? I'm sort of got lost in your post, I don't know what you are referring to by Al. Beyond that, everything I wrote was pretty straightforward, that is, the first four long posts, up until Now we come to a crossroads (I just bolded) the start of the last paragraph, 5th long post (toward the end of page one). In the past you seemed to be sold on the Copenhagen Interpretation. So, crossroads meant, opinions diverge here (in general). But basically, I don't know where we disagree, until you post a disagreement. And I'm not sure of the point you are making in the last paragraph, the second half seems to contradict the first half (or the first half makes irrelevant the second half). Al refers to Albert Einstein. The first and 2nd half of the paragraphs offer two different perspectives on the same philosophical notion, that the experience of the Moon is continuous. Yes, the CI is still, as far as I know, the official scientific consensus on the meaning of waveform collapse. It's unpopular and there are many alternative metaphysical interpretations on offer, but if someone had proved it wrong they would have won a Nobel, and I'm sure I would have heard about that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2017 21:07:54 GMT -5
Good post ZD, a few comments. But present scientific abstractions, specifically QM, allow scientists and inventors and then manufacturers to manipulate the world. In the '50's the transistor became inventable because of QM, IOW, no QM, no transistors. I read recently that 25% of products we use today have come-from QM in some way or another, TV's, computers and smart phones for example. IOW, the world we live in today, another example, smart houses, comes about from these abstractions, figuring out to the extent possible, how reality works. I'm pretty sure my view is the same as ZD's, as he seems to be 'looking' at the same thing I am. I've said that science is more an act of creation than discovery. Before the scientist asks 'how', there literally IS no how. There doesn't need to be an explanation for that which happens only in Consciousness until somebody asks for one. The fact that explanations are created doesn't keep them from working as created. On the contrary. Of course, the scientists aren't creating all on their own, but the scientific process lends itself well to that process. It doesn't seem too out of place to view the scientific process of exploring the boundaries of the known, as the ultimate law of attraction example. (Assuming you ignore virtually everything LOA enthusiasts say about LOA)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2017 21:24:24 GMT -5
Good post ZD, a few comments. But present scientific abstractions, specifically QM, allow scientists and inventors and then manufacturers to manipulate the world. In the '50's the transistor became inventable because of QM, IOW, no QM, no transistors. I read recently that 25% of products we use today have come-from QM in some way or another, TV's, computers and smart phones for example. IOW, the world we live in today, another example, smart houses, comes about from these abstractions, figuring out to the extent possible, how reality works. I'm pretty sure my view is the same as ZD's, as he seems to be 'looking' at the same thing I am. I've said that science is more an act of creation than discovery. Before the scientist asks 'how', there literally IS no how. There doesn't need to be an explanation for that which happens only in Consciousness until somebody asks for one. The fact that explanations are created doesn't keep them from working as created. On the contrary. Of course, the scientists aren't creating all on their own, but the scientific process lends itself well to that process. It doesn't seem too out of place to view the scientific process of exploring the boundaries of the known, the ultimate law of attraction example. (Assuming you ignore virtually everything LOA enthusiasts say about LOA) We just disagree here. This is what I've tried to point out on the QM for dummies thread. The physical universe has existed about 13.8 billion years. Discovering decoherence is the key to understanding this (as opposed to things just coming out of Consciousness). So I say science is more discovery than creation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2017 21:44:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure my view is the same as ZD's, as he seems to be 'looking' at the same thing I am. I've said that science is more an act of creation than discovery. Before the scientist asks 'how', there literally IS no how. There doesn't need to be an explanation for that which happens only in Consciousness until somebody asks for one. The fact that explanations are created doesn't keep them from working as created. On the contrary. Of course, the scientists aren't creating all on their own, but the scientific process lends itself well to that process. It doesn't seem too out of place to view the scientific process of exploring the boundaries of the known, the ultimate law of attraction example. (Assuming you ignore virtually everything LOA enthusiasts say about LOA) We just disagree here. This is what I've tried to point out on the QM for dummies thread. The physical universe has existed about 13.8 billion years. Discovering decoherence is the key to understanding this (as opposed to things just coming out of Consciousness). So I say science is more discovery than creation. I had this nagging suspicion that we might.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 6, 2017 9:01:28 GMT -5
Erwin Schrodinger (of cat fame) Just finished book 5 of The Early Sessions and in this book Seth talks a lot about time and probable events. Basically, the outer ego can only perceive linear time and one event per moment and so multiple events have to be put in a past-present-future sequence. The inner ego, however, perceives past-present-future simultaneously and multiple events per moment and so there's no need to put them into a sequence. Now, to the outer ego, what makes an event real is when it is perceived in the physical format. To the inner ego, however, what is real is what is perceived in any format. Which means to the inner ego, dream events or probable events are as real as physical events. So this should settle the cat paradox.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 6, 2017 9:05:54 GMT -5
Nice work, SDP. Seth often mentions our faulty cause and effect theory which is based on a misconception of time and the fact that scientist only acknowledge this physical plane of existence because they only look at things with the outer senses, which are built to perceive camouflage patterns (time, space, matter). And so the deeper they look into those camouflage patterns with the camouflage senses, the deeper they go into camouflage and confusion. The conventional cause and effect theory is faulty for 2 main reasons: 1) the illusion of successive time 2) interlocking planes of existence. Thanks. Yes, QM seems to fit quite well with Seth. Oh...just want to add here, briefly, concerning the famous quantum leap (we would get to it eventually, but it's important). Say we have an electron in an atom. If you add energy to it (and photons are the energy currency), it absorbs a photon, it jumps to a higher energy "orbit". Now, it does this without traversing either time or space. It just disappears from one place, and appears at the place (allowed) for its higher energy. (But this doesn't seem to be such a big deal, as the quantum world seems to already exist outside time and space, as we know them. It's just peculiar from our normal classical-Newtonian-physics-world). Einstein never believed QM was the final theory, because it doesn't deal with cause and effect. But, and for a lot of reasons we will eventually get into, it seems the universe is set up specifically, with this quantum nature, so as to be malleable, be able to be subject to "plasticity", not just psychologically, but "physically", that is, subject to be able to be manipulated and molded, by consciousness, by individuated consciousness. Yes, this has something to do with what Seth calls the dream universe and the what he calls the electric universe. It's what keeps this physical reality alive.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 6, 2017 9:10:50 GMT -5
We just disagree here. This is what I've tried to point out on the QM for dummies thread. The physical universe has existed about 13.8 billion years. Discovering decoherence is the key to understanding this (as opposed to things just coming out of Consciousness). So I say science is more discovery than creation. Science has to stop relying on the outer senses only. QM is a step in the right direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 7:46:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 14:02:09 GMT -5
Very nice. Near the bottom of the link you find that it's the quantum information of the particle (entangled particles) that is teleported, not the actual particle itself (so it's not like, "Beam me up Scotty" ).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2017 17:16:13 GMT -5
Very nice. Near the bottom of the link you find that it's the quantum information of the particle (entangled particles) that is teleported, not the actual particle itself (so it's not like, "Beam me up Scotty" ). First question: Is a photon an "actual particle," and, if so, what does that mean? Second question: Boundaries that define things are assumed to exist, but do they have any independent or separate existence other than as an idea?
|
|