|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 20:22:06 GMT -5
No all of that is an overlay on top of it. The beauty and genius of the CI is all in what it doesn't say, and how it explicitly doesn't say it: classical descriptions only apply to the results of a measurement, and in between measurements, the states of the system are only vaguely related to the classical descriptions. There is no position or velocity of a particle in between measurements because the phenomenon isn't a particle in between measurements. This is actually, in the final analysis, just the simple common-sense of quantization: particles are discrete, not continuous. Dig deep enough into what Heisenberg wrote about it both during and after the time of his work and it gets much clearer. There's an interesting metaphor available with respect to "prior-to mind", but it only remains interesting for so long as the intellect doesn't touch it. Yes, and Zen avoids this issue entirely by focusing on what we might call "actualizing isness." Einstein's question, "Does the moon exist when I'm not looking at it?" is a classic kind of koan from the field of physics. It's similar to some of the initial existential questions that bothered me, such as, "What could explain the observer paradoxes in many different fields of science?" or "What is a subatomic particle, really?" or "How could a subatomic particle move from one point to another point without crossing the space between?" or even, "What is electricity?" The obvious answers to these kinds of questions are NOT what one would imagine. The problem with all intellectual overlays, including QM, is that they're intellectual overlays. haha. The body understands how to answer these questions, but the intellect is the last to know. You've pointed at the issue with your comment about quantization. How can something continuous, unified, infinite, and non-local be quantized? Hint: Only in one's dreams. And this culture started long long before there were sub-molecular measurements, calculators or even chalkboards. Were they writing equations in the dust with flower stems, or what?? Seems that overthinking is almost as timeless as the cure.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 20:42:18 GMT -5
Sure sure, I was referring to western philosophy, which is really the only form I'm acquainted with. Although I have a vague notion of the distinction between Confucianism and Taoism and their differences, but don't think of the latter as a philosophy. What's notable about the European timeline is how non-duality was actively and violently suppressed after the Council of Nicea. Yes, that's an important date. But a more important date seems to be the year when Scaliger published his chronology (at the end of the 16th century) which basically determines until today how we think about 'ancient' times. I think I mentioned Fomenko and his book Science or Fiction? before. According to him, everything that happened before the Renaissance can't really be verified anymore and may as well never have happened (or at least didn't happen the way we think it happened or have been told it happened). Ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece may not have been that ancient, actually. It only became so ancient because civilizations that actually may have co-existed simultaneously had later been put in a consecutive timeline. Interesting theory. Now, this goes totally against established history, of course, and Fomenko's theory has earned the label 'pseudohistorical theory' based on that, but he raises some very important points about current and past dating methods and how historians actually get their timelines. Absolutely worth a read. As Tolstoy once said, history would be a wonderful thing if it only were true. So yeah, ancient times, who knows? But more importantly, who cares, hehe. It might seem an irony that the content of history is as dynamic as it is, but if you think it through it's really no surprise. If you take a step back and marvel at the complexity and richness of it all, it's very similar to marveling at the night sky in some ways. The fact that old orthodoxy has to be routinely discarded is proof enough of the underlying thesis you describe from those authors. I could easily list a dozen of those orthodoxies similar to how we now know that "Neanderthals" weren't a different species, and the history of Rome self-describes a discontinuity in their records that everyone knows had to be back-filled in later from elsewhere. The confluence of disciplines and how they can converge on the same conclusions can be compelling in terms of crafting stories, similar to how you can see the ruins of the Colosseum with your own eyes, so you can infer that not every element of the ancient stories about it are fiction. In the same way, the similarities in language and genetic trends between the areas of say, Greece, Egypt, Italy and Spain all correlate with timelines of past cultural influence. "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it" hints at why the relative question of "what happened" can be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 21:41:30 GMT -5
Zazeniac's view but partially derived from my studies of QM. Particle doesn't appear in the conventional way we use the term "real" until it is observed and the wave function collapses. Even in the C.Interpretation there is no way of saying the observation causes the collapse or vice versa. "According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse"
I'll let you have that debate with Wikipedia. This quote is from it.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 11, 2019 22:29:42 GMT -5
Even in the C.Interpretation there is no way of saying the observation causes the collapse or vice versa. "According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse"
I'll let you have that debate with Wikipedia. This quote is from it.
Problem is a quandry over cause, and Wiki uses the premise that measurement (a technical term for observation, or 'to know') is cause. It could be argued that wave function collapse causes the observation, or that an observation is a wave function collapse. Indeed, what Wiki misses here is, it is actually the wave function that is fundamental, or prior to the observation and the collapse, but no one presumes that wave function causes anything in the CI
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 7:44:50 GMT -5
Yes, I get that. Until it is experienced, it's just potentiality. My question is if QM allows for a shared reality though as Seth suggests. And my guess is that initially it did but that there might be some radical thinkers who walked straight into solipsism again. What Seth says is that the sense organs create the camouflage (our universe or reality). And since we all have more or less identical sense organs, we experience a more or less identical reality. Entities with different sense organs experience a different reality (see plants or bugs etc.). Translated in QM terms, a number of similar observers with similar tools of observation would necessarily have similar experiences. Which means the Moon would not cease to exist just because it's not in your personal field of awareness anymore. The Moon could only cease to exist when none of the participants/observers has the Moon in their field of awareness anymore. From my perspective it is a context mix anyway to assume that the Moon would cease to exist when I turn my head and stop observing it. As A-H like to say, "You as humans haven't scraped enough dirt together to launch another planet into orbit!" I'm just wondering if QM is solipsistic. And if so, then, as they say, a solipsistic interpretation of QM wouldn't be informative anymore. My guess is, it's not inherently solipsistic. It's a matter of personal interpretation. And as Laughter said, QM is not realization based anyway. I think you'd get a variety of responses depending on the physicist. According to some, the Copenhagen interpretation, violates the Realism Principle and therefore suggests there's no objective reality, but I don't think Bohr nor Heisenberg would agree with that. I don't think there's a QM answer to your question. Most physicists are materialists and though QM throws a wrench in that scheme's mechanics, I would venture to say they still desperately want to continue being materialists. I don't believe materialists are solipsistic. I think when you turn your head the world disappears, but it was never outside your mind to begin with. I ascribe to the notion that if there are ten people in a room, ten consciousnessness, you are seeing an illusion because in actuality there is one consciousness and ten perspectives, rooms, perfectly synchronized. But this is mere speculation, fun stuff to consider, thought-stuff, intellectual fodder, having nothing to do with freedom. Well, think about it, if you take a solipsistic interpretation, the whole idea of science goes out the window and they basically could have stopped right there. But they didn't. So I am assuming that they didn't take the solipsistic approach. To me, that's a context mix, i.e. applying what is only true from the perspective of Self to the perspective of self. That's how the solipsists regularly mangle Niz' message.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 8:25:04 GMT -5
I think you'd get a variety of responses depending on the physicist. According to some, the Copenhagen interpretation, violates the Realism Principle and therefore suggests there's no objective reality, but I don't think Bohr nor Heisenberg would agree with that. I don't think there's a QM answer to your question. Most physicists are materialists and though QM throws a wrench in that scheme's mechanics, I would venture to say they still desperately want to continue being materialists. I don't believe materialists are solipsistic. I think when you turn your head the world disappears, but it was never outside your mind to begin with. I ascribe to the notion that if there are ten people in a room, ten consciousnessness, you are seeing an illusion because in actuality there is one consciousness and ten perspectives, rooms, perfectly synchronized. But this is mere speculation, fun stuff to consider, thought-stuff, intellectual fodder, having nothing to do with freedom. Well, think about it, if you take a solipsistic interpretation, the whole idea of science goes out the window and they basically could have stopped right there. But they didn't. So I am assuming that they didn't take the solipsistic approach. To me, that's a context mix, i.e. applying what is only true from the perspective of Self to the perspective of self. That's how the solipsists regularly mangle Niz' message. To me it's suggested by evidence and reason, but it doesn't impact what matters, the habits of living. "Love your enemies" implies a context mix as well, but is very different than "love your enemies because they are not real."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 9:48:19 GMT -5
The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? The link is the best short explanation I've come across that explains your question. At the end it even covers Einstein's question to Abraham Pais, Does the moon exist only when I look at it? The link explains why we have our classical world, which exists without observers, in spite of proven QM and all the measurement problem business and an observation needed to change from a quantum system to a classical world business. It is a little long but worth the read (or maybe twice). www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/beyond-weird-decoherence-quantum-weirdness-schrodingers-cat/573448/IOW, no. I've read the article. Very well written, I agree. This part here stood out: I think that's the crux of the problem, assuming randomness. And it doesn't even seem like a logically correct conclusion in the first place, given the basic premise that what is observed is determined by the state of awareness of the observer, unless (!) one would assume that the observer also is ruled by randomness (which the quote rules out). The article mentions environment as a key factor that messes with these thought experiments, and this part here is basically going into Seth's camouflage direction: That's pretty close to what Seth says when he says that the outer self doesn't create the camouflage, the inner self does. The inner self is always looking. The outer self may have a part in the creation process (as an extension of the inner self), but by no means does this imply that the outer self could make things appear or disappear in any given reality system, let alone make the entire reality system appear or disappear. So, no, the Moon doesn't disappear when we turn our head and stop looking at it simply because we didn't create it in the first place, be it by looking at it or any other means. That why A-H say humans can't even scrape enough dirt together in order to launch another earth into orbit.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 9:56:48 GMT -5
The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? No all of that is an overlay on top of it. The beauty and genius of the CI is all in what it doesn't say, and how it explicitly doesn't say it: classical descriptions only apply to the results of a measurement, and in between measurements, the states of the system are only vaguely related to the classical descriptions. There is no position or velocity of a particle in between measurements because the phenomenon isn't a particle in between measurements. This is actually, in the final analysis, just the simple common-sense of quantization: particles are discrete, not continuous. Dig deep enough into what Heisenberg wrote about it both during and after the time of his work and it gets much clearer. There's an interesting metaphor available with respect to "prior-to mind", but it only remains interesting for so long as the intellect doesn't touch it. Isn't there an official statement or something? You make the CI look like a verse from Laozi's Daodejing, unfathomable, deep and mysterious, written in classical Chinese that allows a dozen alternative interpretation for each Chinese character in each verse.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 10:03:17 GMT -5
Seems that overthinking is almost as timeless as the cure. Yes! If that wouldn't be so, traditions would make no sense at all. Some things never change.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 10:11:09 GMT -5
Yes, that's an important date. But a more important date seems to be the year when Scaliger published his chronology (at the end of the 16th century) which basically determines until today how we think about 'ancient' times. I think I mentioned Fomenko and his book Science or Fiction? before. According to him, everything that happened before the Renaissance can't really be verified anymore and may as well never have happened (or at least didn't happen the way we think it happened or have been told it happened). Ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece may not have been that ancient, actually. It only became so ancient because civilizations that actually may have co-existed simultaneously had later been put in a consecutive timeline. Interesting theory. Now, this goes totally against established history, of course, and Fomenko's theory has earned the label 'pseudohistorical theory' based on that, but he raises some very important points about current and past dating methods and how historians actually get their timelines. Absolutely worth a read. As Tolstoy once said, history would be a wonderful thing if it only were true. So yeah, ancient times, who knows? But more importantly, who cares, hehe. It might seem an irony that the content of history is as dynamic as it is, but if you think it through it's really no surprise. If you take a step back and marvel at the complexity and richness of it all, it's very similar to marveling at the night sky in some ways. The fact that old orthodoxy has to be routinely discarded is proof enough of the underlying thesis you describe from those authors. I could easily list a dozen of those orthodoxies similar to how we now know that "Neanderthals" weren't a different species, and the history of Rome self-describes a discontinuity in their records that everyone knows had to be back-filled in later from elsewhere. The confluence of disciplines and how they can converge on the same conclusions can be compelling in terms of crafting stories, similar to how you can see the ruins of the Colosseum with your own eyes, so you can infer that not every element of the ancient stories about it are fiction. In the same way, the similarities in language and genetic trends between the areas of say, Greece, Egypt, Italy and Spain all correlate with timelines of past cultural influence. "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it" hints at why the relative question of "what happened" can be interesting. There's a zen story about a man looking at a graveyard for the grave of his father. A zen master shows him the site, and the man breaks down in tears. Then suddenly the Zen master tells him that he made a mistake and that his father's grave was not this one here but actually another one over there. The man looks perplexed, goes over to the other grave but this time he can't break into tears anymore no matter how hard he tries.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2019 11:44:59 GMT -5
The link is the best short explanation I've come across that explains your question. At the end it even covers Einstein's question to Abraham Pais, Does the moon exist only when I look at it? The link explains why we have our classical world, which exists without observers, in spite of proven QM and all the measurement problem business and an observation needed to change from a quantum system to a classical world business. It is a little long but worth the read (or maybe twice). www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/beyond-weird-decoherence-quantum-weirdness-schrodingers-cat/573448/IOW, no. I've read the article. Very well written, I agree. This part here stood out: I think that's the crux of the problem, assuming randomness. And it doesn't even seem like a logically correct conclusion in the first place, given the basic premise that what is observed is determined by the state of awareness of the observer, unless (!) one would assume that the observer also is ruled by randomness (which the quote rules out). The article mentions environment as a key factor that messes with these thought experiments, and this part here is basically going into Seth's camouflage direction: That's pretty close to what Seth says when he says that the outer self doesn't create the camouflage, the inner self does. The inner self is always looking. The outer self may have a part in the creation process (as an extension of the inner self), but by no means does this imply that the outer self could make things appear or disappear in any given reality system, let alone make the entire reality system appear or disappear. So, no, the Moon doesn't disappear when we turn our head and stop looking at it simply because we didn't create it in the first place, be it by looking at it or any other means. That why A-H say humans can't even scrape enough dirt together in order to launch another earth into orbit. 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~.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2019 22:12:37 GMT -5
I think you'd get a variety of responses depending on the physicist. According to some, the Copenhagen interpretation, violates the Realism Principle and therefore suggests there's no objective reality, but I don't think Bohr nor Heisenberg would agree with that. I don't think there's a QM answer to your question. Most physicists are materialists and though QM throws a wrench in that scheme's mechanics, I would venture to say they still desperately want to continue being materialists. I don't believe materialists are solipsistic. I think when you turn your head the world disappears, but it was never outside your mind to begin with. I ascribe to the notion that if there are ten people in a room, ten consciousnessness, you are seeing an illusion because in actuality there is one consciousness and ten perspectives, rooms, perfectly synchronized. But this is mere speculation, fun stuff to consider, thought-stuff, intellectual fodder, having nothing to do with freedom. Well, think about it, if you take a solipsistic interpretation, the whole idea of science goes out the window and they basically could have stopped right there. But they didn't. So I am assuming that they didn't take the solipsistic approach. To me, that's a context mix, i.e. applying what is only true from the perspective of Self to the perspective of self. That's how the solipsists regularly mangle Niz' message. What Heisenberg himself wrote on the topic is "It may be said that classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves." So you see, all this Physics after is something different. The ten gazillion thingies will march on, regardless. Some scientists are aware of this, some aren't, and noone likes the C.I., but they still have to grudgingly teach it in the schools because if anyone ever debunked it then they'd be on par with the guys from the '27 Solvay. Recognizing the absence of knowledge isn't a movement of mind, it's .. well .. you know .. an absence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2019 22:15:11 GMT -5
It might seem an irony that the content of history is as dynamic as it is, but if you think it through it's really no surprise. If you take a step back and marvel at the complexity and richness of it all, it's very similar to marveling at the night sky in some ways. The fact that old orthodoxy has to be routinely discarded is proof enough of the underlying thesis you describe from those authors. I could easily list a dozen of those orthodoxies similar to how we now know that "Neanderthals" weren't a different species, and the history of Rome self-describes a discontinuity in their records that everyone knows had to be back-filled in later from elsewhere. The confluence of disciplines and how they can converge on the same conclusions can be compelling in terms of crafting stories, similar to how you can see the ruins of the Colosseum with your own eyes, so you can infer that not every element of the ancient stories about it are fiction. In the same way, the similarities in language and genetic trends between the areas of say, Greece, Egypt, Italy and Spain all correlate with timelines of past cultural influence. "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it" hints at why the relative question of "what happened" can be interesting. There's a zen story about a man looking at a graveyard for the grave of his father. A zen master shows him the site, and the man breaks down in tears. Then suddenly the Zen master tells him that he made a mistake and that his father's grave was not this one here but actually another one over there. The man looks perplexed, goes over to the other grave but this time he can't break into tears anymore no matter how hard he tries. Funerals ain't for the dead, and history, in the final analysis, is really very much all about the living.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2019 22:29:51 GMT -5
No all of that is an overlay on top of it. The beauty and genius of the CI is all in what it doesn't say, and how it explicitly doesn't say it: classical descriptions only apply to the results of a measurement, and in between measurements, the states of the system are only vaguely related to the classical descriptions. There is no position or velocity of a particle in between measurements because the phenomenon isn't a particle in between measurements. This is actually, in the final analysis, just the simple common-sense of quantization: particles are discrete, not continuous. Dig deep enough into what Heisenberg wrote about it both during and after the time of his work and it gets much clearer. There's an interesting metaphor available with respect to "prior-to mind", but it only remains interesting for so long as the intellect doesn't touch it. Isn't there an official statement or something? You make the CI look like a verse from Laozi's Daodejing, unfathomable, deep and mysterious, written in classical Chinese that allows a dozen alternative interpretation for each Chinese character in each verse. hey, I didn't make this stuff up, I'm just a historian. Neils Bohr had to create a coat-of-arms because the Danish royalty knighted him ( from here):
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2019 22:40:03 GMT -5
I've read the article. Very well written, I agree. This part here stood out: I think that's the crux of the problem, assuming randomness. And it doesn't even seem like a logically correct conclusion in the first place, given the basic premise that what is observed is determined by the state of awareness of the observer, unless (!) one would assume that the observer also is ruled by randomness (which the quote rules out). The article mentions environment as a key factor that messes with these thought experiments, and this part here is basically going into Seth's camouflage direction: That's pretty close to what Seth says when he says that the outer self doesn't create the camouflage, the inner self does. The inner self is always looking. The outer self may have a part in the creation process (as an extension of the inner self), but by no means does this imply that the outer self could make things appear or disappear in any given reality system, let alone make the entire reality system appear or disappear. So, no, the Moon doesn't disappear when we turn our head and stop looking at it simply because we didn't create it in the first place, be it by looking at it or any other means. That why A-H say humans can't even scrape enough dirt together in order to launch another earth into orbit. 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.
|
|