|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2019 23:37:57 GMT -5
Yes, nice. Your post prompted an analogy. I've discussed this previously with laughter, in relation to Bohm's Implicate order and our Explicate order, but he didn't buy (he says physics has proven there are no hidden variables, thus no ordering principle "on the other side"). The analogy is new. If we take QM as foundational, there isn't any kind of ordering principle *on the other side*. That means Seth's world does not exist, the world of A-H doesn't exist (for starters). QM is based on discrete "units", packets of energy. Planck "size" is the smallest unit, and we cannot get anywhere near that level in experimentation. But on the quantum level randomness reigns, this is why it seems there is no ordering principle "on the other side". I made the case with laughter that the quantum level merely represents a kind of fuzziness, beyond which physicists cannot see. Again, he didn't buy. But let's make encryption an analogy for our present level of science. Let's say the basis of the quantum world is not randomness, but encryption. If you look at an encrypted message, it looks like gobbledygook, randomness. Physicists have not been able to make any sense out of the randomness, not because it makes no sense, but because it cloaks encryption, it encrypts the Implicate world. (All this is also virtually the very definition of Maya, in classical Vedanta). I would also maintain that CC breaks through the wall of encryption, and sees a vast underlying interconnected order, and the seeing is so significant that it cannot be forgotten, even after ~coming down from the mountain~. Well, you have to take our (L, R & SDP) different backgrounds into consideration. I haven't really researched QM, but I have thoroughly researched Seth and Abraham. Laughter, on the other hand, seems to have thoroughly researched QM but not Seth or Abraham. So, in terms of depth of understanding, my level of understanding of QM is probably equal to his level of understanding of Seth and Abraham. Nevertheless, we both can appreciate these other perspectives/models we are not familiar with, even though we clearly prefer one over the other. You, however, seem to have thoroughly researched both QM and Seth. So you probably have the bigger picture here and can be some sort of bridge. Said that, we should keep in mind that QM is just a theory, that these guys are just speculating, and from a rather narrow perspective that is (the intellect). It's not realization based. So that already defines the limits and usefulness of the QM model. The Seth and Abraham model, however, is realization based, CC in particular. As such, this model of reality is actually built on solid ground as compared to QM. However, in the Abraham-Seth model, the SR aspect seems to be absent. Which is why the Abraham-Seth model also has its clear limits. I can't fully embrace either model. So in that sense, both models are equal. But in terms of informativeness and groundedness, the Abraham-Seth model is by far superior (at least to me, and most likely to you too), even though it needs the non-duality model as a counterbalance or broadening. As you probably both remember, some time ago I urged both of you to start a thread on QM because I've seen the similarities. I've been browsing thru this thread again lately because I wanted to get clear if digging deeper into QM is worth the effort. And based on what we've discussed recently and what I've just said, I don't think it's worth the effort. The way I see it, the QM model is naturally moving into the direction of the Abraham-Seth model. But that will require them to take a bold next step in order to take it to the next level. When they are going to take this next step, no one knows. That probably will take a few more years or decades. Anyway, from my amateurish perspective of QM, there seem to be some inconsistencies in terms of logic and also definitions. If you really think thru the idea of 'randomness', I don't think this actually applies here. There obviously are inviolable 'rules' and as soon as you've got that established, the idea of randomness goes out the window and the idea of 'objective' reality comes back in again. So I think the QM folks would benefit from exploring LOA and also non-duality. Which in Seth terms means the QM folks would have to rely more on the inner senses instead of the outer senses only. QM is a theory, yes, but it's a theory that's stood the most extensive and expensive empirical tests that man-kind has ever endeavored to make. One of the reasons for the magnitude of the effort is that this idea of the collapse of the material, objectivist assumption isn't one that most people ever wanted to have to accept. Einstein, in particular, really did make that comment about God not playing dice, that particular quote has been documented. There are many people interested in the sort of progression you suggest toward an outlook expressed by those "channeled" materials, and some have even tried to repeat experiments based on various theories of non-local, monistic consciousness, but I'm only vaguely aware of how that's gone. This is a source of what I know about it. You might find this interesting as well. In terms of the way appearances appear, there is both the appearance of randomness, and the appearance of clockwork/predetermined outcomes. Reality is neither random, nor pre-determined and clockwork, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective. There is no saying what reality is, only what it isn't. The way that appearances appear cannot reveal the nature of reality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2019 3:28:32 GMT -5
Yes, nice. Your post prompted an analogy. I've discussed this previously with laughter, in relation to Bohm's Implicate order and our Explicate order, but he didn't buy (he says physics has proven there are no hidden variables, thus no ordering principle "on the other side"). The analogy is new. If we take QM as foundational, there isn't any kind of ordering principle *on the other side*. That means Seth's world does not exist, the world of A-H doesn't exist (for starters). QM is based on discrete "units", packets of energy. Planck "size" is the smallest unit, and we cannot get anywhere near that level in experimentation. But on the quantum level randomness reigns, this is why it seems there is no ordering principle "on the other side". I made the case with laughter that the quantum level merely represents a kind of fuzziness, beyond which physicists cannot see. Again, he didn't buy. But let's make encryption an analogy for our present level of science. Let's say the basis of the quantum world is not randomness, but encryption. If you look at an encrypted message, it looks like gobbledygook, randomness. Physicists have not been able to make any sense out of the randomness, not because it makes no sense, but because it cloaks encryption, it encrypts the Implicate world. (All this is also virtually the very definition of Maya, in classical Vedanta). I would also maintain that CC breaks through the wall of encryption, and sees a vast underlying interconnected order, and the seeing is so significant that it cannot be forgotten, even after ~coming down from the mountain~. Well, you have to take our (L, R & SDP) different backgrounds into consideration. I haven't really researched QM, but I have thoroughly researched Seth and Abraham. Laughter, on the other hand, seems to have thoroughly researched QM but not Seth or Abraham. So, in terms of depth of understanding, my level of understanding of QM is probably equal to his level of understanding of Seth and Abraham. Nevertheless, we both can appreciate these other perspectives/models we are not familiar with, even though we clearly prefer one over the other. You, however, seem to have thoroughly researched both QM and Seth. So you probably have the bigger picture here and can be some sort of bridge. Said that, we should keep in mind that QM is just a theory, that these guys are just speculating, and from a rather narrow perspective that is (the intellect). It's not realization based. So that already defines the limits and usefulness of the QM model. The Seth and Abraham model, however, is realization based, CC in particular. As such, this model of reality is actually built on solid ground as compared to QM. However, in the Abraham-Seth model, the SR aspect seems to be absent. Which is why the Abraham-Seth model also has its clear limits. I can't fully embrace either model. So in that sense, both models are equal. But in terms of informativeness and groundedness, the Abraham-Seth model is by far superior (at least to me, and most likely to you too), even though it needs the non-duality model as a counterbalance or broadening. As you probably both remember, some time ago I urged both of you to start a thread on QM because I've seen the similarities. I've been browsing thru this thread again lately because I wanted to get clear if digging deeper into QM is worth the effort. And based on what we've discussed recently and what I've just said, I don't think it's worth the effort. The way I see it, the QM model is naturally moving into the direction of the Abraham-Seth model. But that will require them to take a bold next step in order to take it to the next level. When they are going to take this next step, no one knows. That probably will take a few more years or decades. Anyway, from my amateurish perspective of QM, there seem to be some inconsistencies in terms of logic and also definitions. If you really think thru the idea of 'randomness', I don't think this actually applies here. There obviously are inviolable 'rules' and as soon as you've got that established, the idea of randomness goes out the window and the idea of 'objective' reality comes back in again. So I think the QM folks would benefit from exploring LOA and also non-duality. Which in Seth terms means the QM folks would have to rely more on the inner senses instead of the outer senses only. I share your background, but if you want to look at a bridge, I would recommend Lynne McTaggart. lynnemctaggart.com/the-books/
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 14, 2019 3:32:54 GMT -5
Randomness is expressed in terms of probability, which implies uncertainty, but the frequency of events becomes very well defined over millions of iterations, and in that sense, very accurate predictions can be made. Still, a single event can be considered random just like a roll of the dice will produce a random outcome, but the more you roll the dice the more consistent the frequency of outcomes are, and we can predict that one million rolls will produce the predicted frequency of outcomes within a fraction of a percent.
This implies objectivity, but in a certain sense; not in the sense of 'a definite thing'. Only in the sense that probability is measurable as a mean of multiple measurements. A single event, however, is unpredictable, which we might refer to as random. But, given many 'random' singular events, a predictable pattern emerges.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2019 6:13:35 GMT -5
Randomness is expressed in terms of probability, which implies uncertainty, but the frequency of events becomes very well defined over millions of iterations, and in that sense, very accurate predictions can be made. Still, a single event can be considered random just like a roll of the dice will produce a random outcome, but the more you roll the dice the more consistent the frequency of outcomes are, and we can predict that one million rolls will produce the predicted frequency of outcomes within a fraction of a percent. This implies objectivity, but in a certain sense; not in the sense of 'a definite thing'. Only in the sense that probability is measurable as a mean of multiple measurements. A single event, however, is unpredictable, which we might refer to as random. But, given many 'random' singular events, a predictable pattern emerges. Yes, there's a relevant distinction between a random process and a stochastic process, and - depending on perspective - physical objectivity either emerges as a pattern expressed over time, or, is a systemic assumption. In either event, it is, ultimately, mind-made. That's as far as the thinking process can go: to mark it's boundary. Or not. It can, instead, always just continually spin-along, sideways, following the contours of the wall. Like an n-dimensional ant, on an n-dimensional mobius strip.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2019 11:58:09 GMT -5
Yes, nice. Your post prompted an analogy. I've discussed this previously with laughter, in relation to Bohm's Implicate order and our Explicate order, but he didn't buy (he says physics has proven there are no hidden variables, thus no ordering principle "on the other side"). The analogy is new. If we take QM as foundational, there isn't any kind of ordering principle *on the other side*. That means Seth's world does not exist, the world of A-H doesn't exist (for starters). QM is based on discrete "units", packets of energy. Planck "size" is the smallest unit, and we cannot get anywhere near that level in experimentation. But on the quantum level randomness reigns, this is why it seems there is no ordering principle "on the other side". I made the case with laughter that the quantum level merely represents a kind of fuzziness, beyond which physicists cannot see. Again, he didn't buy. But let's make encryption an analogy for our present level of science. Let's say the basis of the quantum world is not randomness, but encryption. If you look at an encrypted message, it looks like gobbledygook, randomness. Physicists have not been able to make any sense out of the randomness, not because it makes no sense, but because it cloaks encryption, it encrypts the Implicate world. (All this is also virtually the very definition of Maya, in classical Vedanta). I would also maintain that CC breaks through the wall of encryption, and sees a vast underlying interconnected order, and the seeing is so significant that it cannot be forgotten, even after ~coming down from the mountain~. Well, you have to take our (L, R & SDP) different backgrounds into consideration. I haven't really researched QM, but I have thoroughly researched Seth and Abraham. Laughter, on the other hand, seems to have thoroughly researched QM but not Seth or Abraham. So, in terms of depth of understanding, my level of understanding of QM is probably equal to his level of understanding of Seth and Abraham. Nevertheless, we both can appreciate these other perspectives/models we are not familiar with, even though we clearly prefer one over the other. You, however, seem to have thoroughly researched both QM and Seth. So you probably have the bigger picture here and can be some sort of bridge. Said that, we should keep in mind that QM is just a theory, that these guys are just speculating, and from a rather narrow perspective that is (the intellect). It's not realization based. So that already defines the limits and usefulness of the QM model. The Seth and Abraham model, however, is realization based, CC in particular. As such, this model of reality is actually built on solid ground as compared to QM. However, in the Abraham-Seth model, the SR aspect seems to be absent. Which is why the Abraham-Seth model also has its clear limits. I can't fully embrace either model. So in that sense, both models are equal. But in terms of informativeness and groundedness, the Abraham-Seth model is by far superior (at least to me, and most likely to you too), even though it needs the non-duality model as a counterbalance or broadening. As you probably both remember, some time ago I urged both of you to start a thread on QM because I've seen the similarities. I've been browsing thru this thread again lately because I wanted to get clear if digging deeper into QM is worth the effort. And based on what we've discussed recently and what I've just said, I don't think it's worth the effort. The way I see it, the QM model is naturally moving into the direction of the Abraham-Seth model. But that will require them to take a bold next step in order to take it to the next level. When they are going to take this next step, no one knows. That probably will take a few more years or decades. Anyway, from my amateurish perspective of QM, there seem to be some inconsistencies in terms of logic and also definitions. If you really think thru the idea of 'randomness', I don't think this actually applies here. There obviously are inviolable 'rules' and as soon as you've got that established, the idea of randomness goes out the window and the idea of 'objective' reality comes back in again. So I think the QM folks would benefit from exploring LOA and also non-duality. Which in Seth terms means the QM folks would have to rely more on the inner senses instead of the outer senses only. The mathematics of QM is settled, nobody disputes the math. Without the math we would never have had transistors, no microwave ovens, no computers no cell phones. At least 25% of our economy is dependent upon what we have learned from QM, so without QM we wouldn't have our modern world. The problem is that nobody really understands what the math is saying in terms of our ordinary understanding of the world. I presume this is what you mean by inconsistencies. This is where ND can help in understanding what the math is saying. The prime example is entanglement, as well as Bell's Theorem, showing that reality is non-local (meaning, stuff is interconnected surpassing the speed of light**, surpassing how the ordinary world works). QM goes so far as saying that once two particles (which aren't particles in the first place, ultimately) interact, they are essentially now-one-particle, they are forever connected. (As an aside, this is how quantum computers work. Richard Feynman first saw the possibility of quantum computers because of this principle. The problem to overcome in quantum computing is how to keep quantum bits, qubits, from touching anything, thus causing decoherence and losing computability). John Bell gave the example of heads and tails of a coin. With a mirrored surface, you can create two entangled particles, "1/2" traveling one path and the other "1/2" traveling another path. Bell says this is like cutting a coin into two, edgewise, heads traveling one path, tails traveling another path. There are now two *pieces* of the original coin, you could put one in your left pocket and one in your right pocket. But in some mysterious way, despite how far apart the *pieces* may be in the future (or experimentally proven, even in the past in an experiment devised by John Wheeler, the delayed observing experiment, observing after particles have gone through slits in the double-slit experiment can determine whether the particle went through one or two slits, that "will bake your noodle". One of two things is occurring here, either backwards causation or a kind of precognition), even superseding the speed of light, which was one of Einstein's objections to QM, his "spooky action at a distance". All of these things have been proven in the laboratory numerous times. But anyway, the "two 1/2 coins", heads and tails, behave as if they are still one coin, if you effect one it automatically and instantaneously effects the other (instantaneous is the faster than the speed of light** thingy). To say more clearly, to effect one is to have a corresponding effect on the other. In the case of measuring spin, this is complementary, if in the measurement one is spin up, the other will always be spin down. (As an almost aside, but not quite, here is where randomness is proven/shown in QM. Because of randomness in QM, entanglement can never be used to send encrypted messages faster than light. Famously Alice and Bob are traditionally used to label entangled particles, our heads and tails. Even if you assigned A for Alice, in a quantum experiment you can never know whether "Alice" or "Bob", because of randomness, will show up, so Alice can't be used to encrypt A. (Or more usefully, Alice cannot encrypt 1 or 0. And as an aside to the aside to the aside, this was also Einstein's primary objection, his "God does not play dice with the universe", that is, he objected to the fact that we could never know if "Alice or Bob" would show up). Now, as an aside to the aside, QM can be used for encryption, but just not superseding the speed of light. The decoding mechanism must always travel by "snail mail", that is, below light speed). Now, anybody familiar with ND will see this as an example of the very nature of the universe. But the problem is most hard-nosed scientists are not going to explore the world of Seth or A-H to try to come to understand QM. But some will. David Bohm explored these worlds. I think Max Tegmark is also exploring these worlds. laughter gave some good sources.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2019 12:26:26 GMT -5
Well, you have to take our (L, R & SDP) different backgrounds into consideration. I haven't really researched QM, but I have thoroughly researched Seth and Abraham. Laughter, on the other hand, seems to have thoroughly researched QM but not Seth or Abraham. So, in terms of depth of understanding, my level of understanding of QM is probably equal to his level of understanding of Seth and Abraham. Nevertheless, we both can appreciate these other perspectives/models we are not familiar with, even though we clearly prefer one over the other. You, however, seem to have thoroughly researched both QM and Seth. So you probably have the bigger picture here and can be some sort of bridge. Said that, we should keep in mind that QM is just a theory, that these guys are just speculating, and from a rather narrow perspective that is (the intellect). It's not realization based. So that already defines the limits and usefulness of the QM model. The Seth and Abraham model, however, is realization based, CC in particular. As such, this model of reality is actually built on solid ground as compared to QM. However, in the Abraham-Seth model, the SR aspect seems to be absent. Which is why the Abraham-Seth model also has its clear limits. I can't fully embrace either model. So in that sense, both models are equal. But in terms of informativeness and groundedness, the Abraham-Seth model is by far superior (at least to me, and most likely to you too), even though it needs the non-duality model as a counterbalance or broadening. As you probably both remember, some time ago I urged both of you to start a thread on QM because I've seen the similarities. I've been browsing thru this thread again lately because I wanted to get clear if digging deeper into QM is worth the effort. And based on what we've discussed recently and what I've just said, I don't think it's worth the effort. The way I see it, the QM model is naturally moving into the direction of the Abraham-Seth model. But that will require them to take a bold next step in order to take it to the next level. When they are going to take this next step, no one knows. That probably will take a few more years or decades. Anyway, from my amateurish perspective of QM, there seem to be some inconsistencies in terms of logic and also definitions. If you really think thru the idea of 'randomness', I don't think this actually applies here. There obviously are inviolable 'rules' and as soon as you've got that established, the idea of randomness goes out the window and the idea of 'objective' reality comes back in again. So I think the QM folks would benefit from exploring LOA and also non-duality. Which in Seth terms means the QM folks would have to rely more on the inner senses instead of the outer senses only. QM is a theory, yes, but it's a theory that's stood the most extensive and expensive empirical tests that man-kind has ever endeavored to make. One of the reasons for the magnitude of the effort is that this idea of the collapse of the material, objectivist assumption isn't one that most people ever wanted to have to accept. Einstein, in particular, really did make that comment about God not playing dice, that particular quote has been documented. There are many people interested in the sort of progression you suggest toward an outlook expressed by those "channeled" materials, and some have even tried to repeat experiments based on various theories of non-local, monistic consciousness, but I'm only vaguely aware of how that's gone. This is a source of what I know about it. You might find this interesting as well. In terms of the way appearances appear, there is both the appearance of randomness, and the appearance of clockwork/predetermined outcomes. Reality is neither random, nor pre-determined and clockwork, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective. There is no saying what reality is, only what it isn't. The way that appearances appear cannot reveal the nature of reality. Also PEAR: psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/princeton-engineering-anomalies-research-pear
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2019 13:13:05 GMT -5
Yes, nice. Your post prompted an analogy. I've discussed this previously with laughter, in relation to Bohm's Implicate order and our Explicate order, but he didn't buy (he says physics has proven there are no hidden variables, thus no ordering principle "on the other side"). The analogy is new. If we take QM as foundational, there isn't any kind of ordering principle *on the other side*. That means Seth's world does not exist, the world of A-H doesn't exist (for starters). QM is based on discrete "units", packets of energy. Planck "size" is the smallest unit, and we cannot get anywhere near that level in experimentation. But on the quantum level randomness reigns, this is why it seems there is no ordering principle "on the other side". I made the case with laughter that the quantum level merely represents a kind of fuzziness, beyond which physicists cannot see. Again, he didn't buy. But let's make encryption an analogy for our present level of science. Let's say the basis of the quantum world is not randomness, but encryption. If you look at an encrypted message, it looks like gobbledygook, randomness. Physicists have not been able to make any sense out of the randomness, not because it makes no sense, but because it cloaks encryption, it encrypts the Implicate world. (All this is also virtually the very definition of Maya, in classical Vedanta). I would also maintain that CC breaks through the wall of encryption, and sees a vast underlying interconnected order, and the seeing is so significant that it cannot be forgotten, even after ~coming down from the mountain~. Well, you have to take our (L, R & SDP) different backgrounds into consideration. I haven't really researched QM, but I have thoroughly researched Seth and Abraham. Laughter, on the other hand, seems to have thoroughly researched QM but not Seth or Abraham. So, in terms of depth of understanding, my level of understanding of QM is probably equal to his level of understanding of Seth and Abraham. Nevertheless, we both can appreciate these other perspectives/models we are not familiar with, even though we clearly prefer one over the other. You, however, seem to have thoroughly researched both QM and Seth. So you probably have the bigger picture here and can be some sort of bridge. Said that, we should keep in mind that QM is just a theory, that these guys are just speculating, and from a rather narrow perspective that is (the intellect). It's not realization based. So that already defines the limits and usefulness of the QM model. The Seth and Abraham model, however, is realization based, CC in particular. As such, this model of reality is actually built on solid ground as compared to QM. However, in the Abraham-Seth model, the SR aspect seems to be absent. Which is why the Abraham-Seth model also has its clear limits. I can't fully embrace either model. So in that sense, both models are equal. But in terms of informativeness and groundedness, the Abraham-Seth model is by far superior (at least to me, and most likely to you too), even though it needs the non-duality model as a counterbalance or broadening. As you probably both remember, some time ago I urged both of you to start a thread on QM because I've seen the similarities. I've been browsing thru this thread again lately because I wanted to get clear if digging deeper into QM is worth the effort. And based on what we've discussed recently and what I've just said, I don't think it's worth the effort. The way I see it, the QM model is naturally moving into the direction of the Abraham-Seth model. But that will require them to take a bold next step in order to take it to the next level. When they are going to take this next step, no one knows. That probably will take a few more years or decades. Anyway, from my amateurish perspective of QM, there seem to be some inconsistencies in terms of logic and also definitions. If you really think thru the idea of 'randomness', I don't think this actually applies here. There obviously are inviolable 'rules' and as soon as you've got that established, the idea of randomness goes out the window and the idea of 'objective' reality comes back in again. So I think the QM folks would benefit from exploring LOA and also non-duality. Which in Seth terms means the QM folks would have to rely more on the inner senses instead of the outer senses only. The problem for materialists-scientists is that the Seth/A-H world is a bridge too far. The problem for purist-NDist is that the Seth/A-H world necessitates a three-layer-cake universe. (That seems a bridge too far too, I don't really understand why. The "middle layer"(s) are just as real as This World). Yes, the Abraham-Seth model is superior. (My Seth info is pretty much decades old, so it's pretty fuzzy, I enjoy the quotes. I've only browsed A-H, but browsed extensively, I have the first book).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 14, 2019 22:40:44 GMT -5
QM is a theory, yes, but it's a theory that's stood the most extensive and expensive empirical tests that man-kind has ever endeavored to make. One of the reasons for the magnitude of the effort is that this idea of the collapse of the material, objectivist assumption isn't one that most people ever wanted to have to accept. Einstein, in particular, really did make that comment about God not playing dice, that particular quote has been documented. There are many people interested in the sort of progression you suggest toward an outlook expressed by those "channeled" materials, and some have even tried to repeat experiments based on various theories of non-local, monistic consciousness, but I'm only vaguely aware of how that's gone. This is a source of what I know about it. You might find this interesting as well. In terms of the way appearances appear, there is both the appearance of randomness, and the appearance of clockwork/predetermined outcomes. Reality is neither random, nor pre-determined and clockwork, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective. There is no saying what reality is, only what it isn't. The way that appearances appear cannot reveal the nature of reality. Does the QM model somehow cover thought? Or just 'physical' reality in the largest sense of the word? Yes, noetic sciences. I've heard of it, but haven't looked into it. But it goes into the direction Seth is proposing and it is naturally crossing over into philosophy. Philosophy got a bad reputation with the rise of modern science, but originally, it was considered to be the mother of all sciences. And it seems that's going to be the case again very soon. The Tesla quote in the first article you've linked is basically what Seth keeps saying: The question for me here is, if scientists go the 'mental scientist' route as suggested by Seth, could this still be called science the way we understand the word? Because going this route requires a certain level of awareness and spiritual 'maturity' (for lack of a better word) that is beyond what is considered standard. Which would mean limited access and therefore uncertainty in terms of testing and replicating. About the second article you've linked, it's no secret that the military had been seriously looking into the application of remote viewing. Just think of the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats. And it's also no secret that certain political groups have been very much into the occult and, as some stories go, have been working with channeled material that allowed them to actually construct appliances and machinery that you would only know from novels or movies. And that allegedly happened as early as the 1920's. There's even theories about a so-called 'breakaway civilization'. Which makes one wonder how much of so-called science fiction is actually science reality somewhere. To the general public it certainly is fiction (myself included). But to some esoteric scientific groups, it may be reality already. As A-H keep saying, if you can conceive it, you can achieve it. And science fiction has been around for a long long time. So it's likely that it had been achieved a long time ago already. But as I've read somewhere, it requires a different kind of math with different kind of rules in order to make it work. And that's usually the part where I start losing interest, hehe. But I try to keep an open mind about this rather far out stuff. Right, random is a mental category. But it is an interesting one because thinking is inherently associative. So, wouldn't that make actual randomness kinda unthinkable?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 14, 2019 22:54:25 GMT -5
Funerals ain't for the dead, and history, in the final analysis, is really very much all about the living. That's what A-H keep saying, too!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 14, 2019 23:02:11 GMT -5
Yes, I think instead of oneness, interconnectedness could be the bridge between science and spirituality because it is something the intellect can grasp. Actual oneness, the intellect cannot grasp. So the intellect has to go play with oneness' little cousin, interconnectedness, instead.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2019 10:21:03 GMT -5
QM is a theory, yes, but it's a theory that's stood the most extensive and expensive empirical tests that man-kind has ever endeavored to make. One of the reasons for the magnitude of the effort is that this idea of the collapse of the material, objectivist assumption isn't one that most people ever wanted to have to accept. Einstein, in particular, really did make that comment about God not playing dice, that particular quote has been documented. There are many people interested in the sort of progression you suggest toward an outlook expressed by those "channeled" materials, and some have even tried to repeat experiments based on various theories of non-local, monistic consciousness, but I'm only vaguely aware of how that's gone. This is a source of what I know about it. You might find this interesting as well. In terms of the way appearances appear, there is both the appearance of randomness, and the appearance of clockwork/predetermined outcomes. Reality is neither random, nor pre-determined and clockwork, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective. There is no saying what reality is, only what it isn't. The way that appearances appear cannot reveal the nature of reality. Does the QM model somehow cover thought? Or just 'physical' reality in the largest sense of the word? Yes, noetic sciences. I've heard of it, but haven't looked into it. But it goes into the direction Seth is proposing and it is naturally crossing over into philosophy. Philosophy got a bad reputation with the rise of modern science, but originally, it was considered to be the mother of all sciences. And it seems that's going to be the case again very soon. The Tesla quote in the first article you've linked is basically what Seth keeps saying: The question for me here is, if scientists go the 'mental scientist' route as suggested by Seth, could this still be called science the way we understand the word? Because going this route requires a certain level of awareness and spiritual 'maturity' (for lack of a better word) that is beyond what is considered standard. Which would mean limited access and therefore uncertainty in terms of testing and replicating. About the second article you've linked, it's no secret that the military had been seriously looking into the application of remote viewing. Just think of the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats. And it's also no secret that certain political groups have been very much into the occult and, as some stories go, have been working with channeled material that allowed them to actually construct appliances and machinery that you would only know from novels or movies. And that allegedly happened as early as the 1920's. There's even theories about a so-called 'breakaway civilization'. Which makes one wonder how much of so-called science fiction is actually science reality somewhere. To the general public it certainly is fiction (myself included). But to some esoteric scientific groups, it may be reality already. As A-H keep saying, if you can conceive it, you can achieve it. And science fiction has been around for a long long time. So it's likely that it had been achieved a long time ago already. But as I've read somewhere, it requires a different kind of math with different kind of rules in order to make it work. And that's usually the part where I start losing interest, hehe. But I try to keep an open mind about this rather far out stuff. Right, random is a mental category. But it is an interesting one because thinking is inherently associative. So, wouldn't that make actual randomness kinda unthinkable? oh, man, this made me smile. It's actually very easily conceived, it's simply the "uniform distribution", where the probability of any one outcome is equal to any other. Easily conceived, but difficult to achieve in practice. Computer scientists have dozens if not hundreds of different solutions to the problem of generating a random number, but none of them are perfect. I'm not sure but it might be similar to absolute zero or a total vacuum in that it can only be approached asymptotically, but d@mnit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a mathematician. The physical sciences, starting with Physics, hits a wall when it comes to the non-physical, and that's precisely what the notion of observation and "waveform collapse" represent. There's no physical solution to that problem, and the reason for this should be obvious: the existential error inherent in thinking of reality as definable in terms of the observer/observed duality. I stopped short of writing the conclusion you suggest about how "science" based on the non-physical wouldn't be "science" anymore, because I didn't want to come off as dismissive. The reason is the same root: the scientific method is founded on that objective, material assumption. As lolz pointed out, at the sub-molecular level, objectivity is now a pattern that emerges over time based on probability, and everyone just ignores the elephant in the room. Two things fascinate me here. One is that there's likely no end to discoveries and technologies in the future based on the scientific method, despite it having hit this wall and inviting the elephant. This is the nature of form, the nature of the 10 gazillion thingies. Sit down anywhere outside, and try to count the different objects you see. The other is the reason for (as in the historical origins of) this rigidity of the scientific method, and is tangentially related to your point about how people might want to start tapping into "non-physical methodologies", so to speak. The mind-body divide is, at least in part, the result of late medieval/early Renaissance scholars adapting to the persecution of Galileo and guys like him. Newton, Descartes and others that followed conceived of science in terms of the mind/body divide in part to avoid the ire of the Vatican. It was the ultimate in passive-aggressive resistance: "hey! no need to worry 'bout us. we're just looking at what God has to tell us in all his glory by the way his creation works. you guys are still the bosses. nothing to see here. ". That changed after the French Revolution, as marked by what Laplace quipped to Napoleon, and eventually science became the bedrock of the cultural movement in opposition to religion. In Europe and North America at least, until the advent of psychology, anyways. it's been the spiritualists of all stripe who've always held the cards in the non-physical field. In the case of the Tarot, that would be, rather literally. The Christians call it the power of prayer, the new-agers have all sorts of different ideas and practices, like the golden domes, for instance. For what you envision, somehow, this divide would have to be bridged, but there are plenty of examples of that bridging going back many decades now. Personally, I'm relatively new to not just dismissing that all out of hand and will likely never completely shake the old conditioning, but I've always been a sensitive soul and it's hard to miss what's happening during a Catholic mass. And I've got absolutely no ken of any secret labs run by either governments, corporations or the wealthy, but I'm certain that Jeff Bezos is a time traveler from the future.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 11:19:33 GMT -5
Randomness is expressed in terms of probability, which implies uncertainty, but the frequency of events becomes very well defined over millions of iterations, and in that sense, very accurate predictions can be made. Still, a single event can be considered random just like a roll of the dice will produce a random outcome, but the more you roll the dice the more consistent the frequency of outcomes are, and we can predict that one million rolls will produce the predicted frequency of outcomes within a fraction of a percent. This implies objectivity, but in a certain sense; not in the sense of 'a definite thing'. Only in the sense that probability is measurable as a mean of multiple measurements. A single event, however, is unpredictable, which we might refer to as random. But, given many 'random' singular events, a predictable pattern emerges. That's certainly not my definition of random.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 11:23:12 GMT -5
Yes, there's a relevant distinction between a random process and a stochastic process, and - depending on perspective - physical objectivity either emerges as a pattern expressed over time, or, is a systemic assumption. In either event, it is, ultimately, mind-made. That's as far as the thinking process can go: to mark it's boundary. Or not. It can, instead, always just continually spin-along, sideways, following the contours of the wall. Like an n-dimensional ant, on an n-dimensional mobius strip. When you talk about random, you seem to have a specific closed system in mind, right?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 11:44:34 GMT -5
The mathematics of QM is settled, nobody disputes the math. Without the math we would never have had transistors, no microwave ovens, no computers no cell phones. At least 25% of our economy is dependent upon what we have learned from QM, so without QM we wouldn't have our modern world. The problem is that nobody really understands what the math is saying in terms of our ordinary understanding of the world. I presume this is what you mean by inconsistencies. This is where ND can help in understanding what the math is saying. The prime example is entanglement, as well as Bell's Theorem, showing that reality is non-local (meaning, stuff is interconnected surpassing the speed of light**, surpassing how the ordinary world works). QM goes so far as saying that once two particles (which aren't particles in the first place, ultimately) interact, they are essentially now-one-particle, they are forever connected. (As an aside, this is how quantum computers work. Richard Feynman first saw the possibility of quantum computers because of this principle. The problem to overcome in quantum computing is how to keep quantum bits, qubits, from touching anything, thus causing decoherence and losing computability). John Bell gave the example of heads and tails of a coin. With a mirrored surface, you can create two entangled particles, "1/2" traveling one path and the other "1/2" traveling another path. Bell says this is like cutting a coin into two, edgewise, heads traveling one path, tails traveling another path. There are now two *pieces* of the original coin, you could put one in your left pocket and one in your right pocket. But in some mysterious way, despite how far apart the *pieces* may be in the future (or experimentally proven, even in the past in an experiment devised by John Wheeler, the delayed observing experiment, observing after particles have gone through slits in the double-slit experiment can determine whether the particle went through one or two slits, that "will bake your noodle". One of two things is occurring here, either backwards causation or a kind of precognition), even superseding the speed of light, which was one of Einstein's objections to QM, his "spooky action at a distance". All of these things have been proven in the laboratory numerous times. But anyway, the "two 1/2 coins", heads and tails, behave as if they are still one coin, if you effect one it automatically and instantaneously effects the other (instantaneous is the faster than the speed of light** thingy). To say more clearly, to effect one is to have a corresponding effect on the other. In the case of measuring spin, this is complementary, if in the measurement one is spin up, the other will always be spin down. (As an almost aside, but not quite, here is where randomness is proven/shown in QM. Because of randomness in QM, entanglement can never be used to send encrypted messages faster than light. Famously Alice and Bob are traditionally used to label entangled particles, our heads and tails. Even if you assigned A for Alice, in a quantum experiment you can never know whether "Alice" or "Bob", because of randomness, will show up, so Alice can't be used to encrypt A. (Or more usefully, Alice cannot encrypt 1 or 0. And as an aside to the aside to the aside, this was also Einstein's primary objection, his "God does not play dice with the universe", that is, he objected to the fact that we could never know if "Alice or Bob" would show up). Now, as an aside to the aside, QM can be used for encryption, but just not superseding the speed of light. The decoding mechanism must always travel by "snail mail", that is, below light speed). Now, anybody familiar with ND will see this as an example of the very nature of the universe. But the problem is most hard-nosed scientists are not going to explore the world of Seth or A-H to try to come to understand QM. But some will. David Bohm explored these worlds. I think Max Tegmark is also exploring these worlds. laughter gave some good sources. Exactly. The fundamental difference I see between Seth/A-H and QM is that the QM perspective is rooted in separation while the Seth/A-H perspective is rooted in oneness. Which means QM can't move beyond mere interconnectedness. Interesting, so Einstein didn't buy into this proposed idea of randomness either? Does expectation of the observer play any role in QM theory? And what would QM most likely say, seeing is believing, or believing is seeing?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 12:07:28 GMT -5
The problem for materialists-scientists is that the Seth/A-H world is a bridge too far. The problem for purist-NDist is that the Seth/A-H world necessitates a three-layer-cake universe. (That seems a bridge too far too, I don't really understand why. The "middle layer"(s) are just as real as This World). Yes, the Abraham-Seth model is superior. (My Seth info is pretty much decades old, so it's pretty fuzzy, I enjoy the quotes. I've only browsed A-H, but browsed extensively, I have the first book). Yes, it would require a looking from prior to mind. Which is unlikely. I never understood this big deal about layer cakes either. The distinctions are arbitrary anyway as Seth keeps pointing out. Abraham is like Seth 2. Seth 2 is big picture, Seth 1 is very detailed, almost technical. Most of the intricacies of reality Seth is educating his audience about, Abraham would just say, "You don't need to know that stuff and please don't take it all too literally..." If you take Seth's 'probable selves' theory literally, you'll get the many worlds theory of QM. If you don't take it literally, you'll get Abraham's vortex model, which will give a more balanced picture or reality.
|
|