|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2019 13:22:02 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? More or less, yes. In this case I'm just acknowledging the distinction between random and stochastic. The probability distributions generated by the QM equations aren't random. They're not uniform. They follow a shape related to the properties of what they represent. You see this, for example, in the pattern on the screen of the double-slit experiment. It's not equally likely that the diffracted "particles" wind up all over the room, they tend to be in certain places, and predictably so, in the aggregate. In contrast, if you throw dice or flip a coin, in idealistic terms anyway - and for all practical purposes - you really do get something like a uniform distribution: an essentially random variable. To understand randomness and how it happens you have to get into non-linearity and chaos theory. Very slight changes in the angle of a die with the felt of the table result in very large changes to the orientation of it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2019 14:07:45 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. Yes, that's right. 'Communication' is one of the big themes of her research if I remember, and it gets very close to 'oneness' but perhaps not quite there. I find the word 'instant' to be a popularly used concept in her work (and other similar books), but I'm not quite clear if 'instant' means 'simultaneous' or not. To give an example, there have been tests that show that a plant can experience 'fear' when it believes it is threatened, and that this fear is communicated 'instantly' to other surrounding plants. Does 'instantly' mean 'very fast indeed i.e faster than superman can fly?'. Or does it mean that the other plants experience fear in exactly the same moment as the first plant? I guess you don't know, you haven't read it. But, either way, the research shows a 'communication' that is currently not well understood. In my view, if it's 'instant', then that's very interesting, but it's still interconnectivity. If it's simultaneous, I would say that it's taking us into a 'beyond intellect' place.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2019 17:05:03 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? QM says the fundamental basis of what occurs in the subatomic world, is randomness, cause and effect is nonexistent. This is what Einstein would never buy into. For him the term God, or the Old Man, was an Intelligent Ordering Something, that was the fundamental basis. He did not believe in a God like the God of the Bible. He liked Spinoza's idea of God, a kind of pantheism if I remember correctly. In QM observer doesn't necessarily mean conscious observer (I think laughter will disagree with this). Any kind of suitable mechanical measuring device, for instance a camera, is an observer. Richard Feynman said all quantum problems can be brought back to the double-slit experiment. This boils down to either observing at least one slit, it doesn't matter which, then we have particle phenomenon, or not-observing, then we have wave phenomenon. Basically, flipping a switch on or switch off determines particle or wave. (Laughter would say, yes, but at some point consciousness is going to look at the "film"). So believing has nothing to do with it. Seeing is manifesting. Or I guess E is right, perception is creation, in QM.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 21:54:50 GMT -5
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. We may have a slightly different understanding of random. Your understanding of random seems to come from math and the computer sciences. Maybe unthinkable wasn't the right choice of words, but what I mean by that is that it's one thing to throw out concepts like infinite or God and define them as the opposite of something utterly familiar, but it's quite another to actually comprehend it. And from my perspective, the intellect cannot actually comprehend what infinite means, or what God means. And I would include random there as well. What I took away from Lolly's post was that what we call random, in practical terms, is context based. What in a smaller context may be considered random, in a larger context may not. And depending on your model of reality, random my not actually exist. From my perspective, you don't need to hit this wall the way it happens at the moment. You just have to allow for a larger context (see Seth's model). Granted, in terms of non-duality, you will hit a wall again sooner or later, but allowing for a larger context will sufficiently move the goal post. About new inventions, I think it was A-H who once said that no thought we ever thought was an original thought, nor will it ever be. That's worth pondering for a while. And I'm not really into the linear model of history anyway, I prefer the cyclical model. Which means, all recent 'inventions' are just re-discoveries (see the Edison quote in the article you've linked). Many years ago when I started listening to A-H there were regularly questions about ancient times and how such primitive people could have possibly constructed something like the pyramids of Egypt, how could they have possibly moved these huge blocks of rock with their primitive tools? And A-H replied, they did it with the help of sound, they didn't need those tools. That seemed preposterous when I first heard it, but years later I was researching sound and it's applications on a different topic on youtube and there I saw a video in the suggestion box about how they use sound in Tibet for huge construction projects. Voila!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 22:04:09 GMT -5
When you talk about random, you seem to have a specific closed system in mind, right? More or less, yes. In this case I'm just acknowledging the distinction between random and stochastic. The probability distributions generated by the QM equations aren't random. They're not uniform. They follow a shape related to the properties of what they represent. You see this, for example, in the pattern on the screen of the double-slit experiment. It's not equally likely that the diffracted "particles" wind up all over the room, they tend to be in certain places, and predictably so, in the aggregate. In contrast, if you throw dice or flip a coin, in idealistic terms anyway - and for all practical purposes - you really do get something like a uniform distribution: an essentially random variable. To understand randomness and how it happens you have to get into non-linearity and chaos theory. Very slight changes in the angle of a die with the felt of the table result in very large changes to the orientation of it. Yes, that's what I've suspected. I'm looking at it from the perspective of open systems, however. So we get different results/conclusions. The math of the dice experiment is based on a closed system environment. That's why I was asking SDP if QM takes expectation into account (or intent). As Seth teaches, there are no closed systems. All systems are open systems. Which means models that are based on closed systems may prove correct in certain limited contexts, but eventually, when the context gets large enough, they will miss the mark.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 22:13:09 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. Yes, that's right. 'Communication' is one of the big themes of her research if I remember, and it gets very close to 'oneness' but perhaps not quite there. I find the word 'instant' to be a popularly used concept in her work (and other similar books), but I'm not quite clear if 'instant' means 'simultaneous' or not. To give an example, there have been tests that show that a plant can experience 'fear' when it believes it is threatened, and that this fear is communicated 'instantly' to other surrounding plants. Does 'instantly' mean 'very fast indeed i.e faster than superman can fly?'. Or does it mean that the other plants experience fear in exactly the same moment as the first plant? I guess you don't know, you haven't read it. But, either way, the research shows a 'communication' that is currently not well understood. In my view, if it's 'instant', then that's very interesting, but it's still interconnectivity. If it's simultaneous, I would say that it's taking us into a 'beyond intellect' place. Well, as you've suspected, I can't answer that question because I haven't read her books. What I can say though is, in the Seth model, it would be the latter because once you are free from the confines of space and time, the concept of speed becomes obsolete, it doesn't make sense anymore. Since I don't know what scientific theories she's referencing, my guess would be that it could go into both direction because there are new scientific models that allow for the latter interpretation (see the Electric Universe model).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2019 23:11:37 GMT -5
QM says the fundamental basis of what occurs in the subatomic world, is randomness, cause and effect is nonexistent. This is what Einstein would never buy into. For him the term God, or the Old Man, was an Intelligent Ordering Something, that was the fundamental basis. He did not believe in a God like the God of the Bible. He liked Spinoza's idea of God, a kind of pantheism if I remember correctly. In QM observer doesn't necessarily mean conscious observer (I think laughter will disagree with this). Any kind of suitable mechanical measuring device, for instance a camera, is an observer. Richard Feynman said all quantum problems can be brought back to the double-slit experiment. This boils down to either observing at least one slit, it doesn't matter which, then we have particle phenomenon, or not-observing, then we have wave phenomenon. Basically, flipping a switch on or switch off determines particle or wave. (Laughter would say, yes, but at some point consciousness is going to look at the "film"). So believing has nothing to do with it. Seeing is manifesting. Or I guess E is right, perception is creation, in QM. (I just wrote a long reply but then my computer crashed. Maybe that was some kind of sign, but I'll try again, this time shorter and more to the point, hehe) But what Einstein is suggesting is still a far cry from what Seth is saying, CU's etc., I mean he's still part of the 'dead matter' club, right? Well, it could be argued that the camera is just an extension of the scientist who does the experiment. Which means the scientist is still part of the picture even though he doesn't show up in the picture, only his camera. And if you look at it that way, you basically are looking at it from an open system perspective. And from that perspective, the no cause and effect axiom actually makes sense. Because then everything is the cause of everything with only one ultimate cause (as Niz kept pointing out). But to speak of random and no cause and effect in a closed system model, that's what I meant by logical inconsistencies and not really thinking things thru. Well, according to Enigma, the Moon ceases to exist when he turns his head, Marie could potentially give birth to a tank and in actuality he doesn't even know (and can never know for sure, he thinks) if Marie is actually a perceiver. I'm not sure if QM is on board with any of these statements. Obviously perceiving is creating means something different in QM. The main difference between QM and Enigma seems to be that QM assumes an objective reality and Enigma doesn't (even though he unknowingly implies it as well).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2019 23:11:47 GMT -5
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? QM says the fundamental basis of what occurs in the subatomic world, is randomness, cause and effect is nonexistent. This is what Einstein would never buy into. For him the term God, or the Old Man, was an Intelligent Ordering Something, that was the fundamental basis. He did not believe in a God like the God of the Bible. He liked Spinoza's idea of God, a kind of pantheism if I remember correctly. In QM observer doesn't necessarily mean conscious observer (I think laughter will disagree with this). Any kind of suitable mechanical measuring device, for instance a camera, is an observer. Richard Feynman said all quantum problems can be brought back to the double-slit experiment. This boils down to either observing at least one slit, it doesn't matter which, then we have particle phenomenon, or not-observing, then we have wave phenomenon. Basically, flipping a switch on or switch off determines particle or wave. (Laughter would say, yes, but at some point consciousness is going to look at the "film"). So believing has nothing to do with it. Seeing is manifesting. Or I guess E is right, perception is creation, in QM. No I neither agree nor disagree with that statement. Rather, I say, QM tells us nothing about the observer. It does report to us, however, that the objects it describes are not independent of the act of observation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2019 23:20:34 GMT -5
More or less, yes. In this case I'm just acknowledging the distinction between random and stochastic. The probability distributions generated by the QM equations aren't random. They're not uniform. They follow a shape related to the properties of what they represent. You see this, for example, in the pattern on the screen of the double-slit experiment. It's not equally likely that the diffracted "particles" wind up all over the room, they tend to be in certain places, and predictably so, in the aggregate. In contrast, if you throw dice or flip a coin, in idealistic terms anyway - and for all practical purposes - you really do get something like a uniform distribution: an essentially random variable. To understand randomness and how it happens you have to get into non-linearity and chaos theory. Very slight changes in the angle of a die with the felt of the table result in very large changes to the orientation of it. Yes, that's what I've suspected. I'm looking at it from the perspective of open systems, however. So we get different results/conclusions. The math of the dice experiment is based on a closed system environment. That's why I was asking SDP if QM takes expectation into account (or intent). As Seth teaches, there are no closed systems. All systems are open systems. Which means models that are based on closed systems may prove correct in certain limited contexts, but eventually, when the context gets large enough, they will miss the mark. In the largest of contexts, there is no mark, nor projectile. Neither random nor an opposite of random, and in this sense, it is the entirety of eternity and every atom in the Universe that conspire for the die to come up seven. "Entirety of eternity" is either borrowed, or at least inspired, by Niz, and Heisenberg wrote essentially the same, just with slightly different wording. This is not an intellectual conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2019 23:45:22 GMT -5
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. We may have a slightly different understanding of random. Your understanding of random seems to come from math and the computer sciences. Maybe unthinkable wasn't the right choice of words, but what I mean by that is that it's one thing to throw out concepts like infinite or God and define them as the opposite of something utterly familiar, but it's quite another to actually comprehend it. And from my perspective, the intellect cannot actually comprehend what infinite means, or what God means. And I would include random there as well. What I took away from Lolly's post was that what we call random, in practical terms, is context based. What in a smaller context may be considered random, in a larger context may not. And depending on your model of reality, random my not actually exist.From my perspective, you don't need to hit this wall the way it happens at the moment. You just have to allow for a larger context (see Seth's model). Granted, in terms of non-duality, you will hit a wall again sooner or later, but allowing for a larger context will sufficiently move the goal post. About new inventions, I think it was A-H who once said that no thought we ever thought was an original thought, nor will it ever be. That's worth pondering for a while. And I'm not really into the linear model of history anyway, I prefer the cyclical model. Which means, all recent 'inventions' are just re-discoveries (see the Edison quote in the article you've linked). Many years ago when I started listening to A-H there were regularly questions about ancient times and how such primitive people could have possibly constructed something like the pyramids of Egypt, how could they have possibly moved these huge blocks of rock with their primitive tools? And A-H replied, they did it with the help of sound, they didn't need those tools. That seemed preposterous when I first heard it, but years later I was researching sound and it's applications on a different topic on youtube and there I saw a video in the suggestion box about how they use sound in Tibet for huge construction projects. Voila! Yes, history will continue to be a dynamic process, similar to science and technology. What I see from folks who are bold enough to speculate about ancient civilizations though, is often laced with unconscious projection of our own situations onto very sparse evidence. The flip side of this is the arrogance of the fixed orthodoxies that they're speculating against, which are quite obviously naked emperors. I suspect one of the reasons that the new-age has this cafeteria-Hindu selection of reincarnation is because if you examine "linear history" in enough detail the cycles of it become very, very clear. But the flip side to this is how two arrangements of the qualities involved are never exactly the same, despite their apparent similarities: this is a shadow of the reality of the present asserting itself in form. The conventional explanation for this is that "the Universe is evolving", but while this is an accurate observation, in relative terms, it's misconceived on a monism of "the Universe" as an interconnected totality of what can be observed. As Albert Low wrote, "in seeing/saying 'One', there are two". Intellectual confusion over the nature of the infinite is quite clear in some of the absurdities the concept generates, which are actually active topics of research in the field of mathematics. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of their use of it, despite the underlying misconception. Much of our technology is based on that use. In terms of this, aren't you really challenging the idea of predictability? The way I understand what you're writing (and what lolz wrote) is that in a larger context, what seems unpredictable, isn't. Do I have that right? What I mean by "reality", isn't anything that can ever be apprehended by any model.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 15, 2019 23:47:28 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. Physics involves the specific context of laws which when applied accurately predict outcomes. QM just deas with probabilities. No one knows where the electron is, but it has a probability of being 'around about here somewhere'. That's not random as such, it's just that it's probable and not certain. Even when you measure it you have a choice of saying it's point like (has no constituent parts) or it's 'spread out', but the electron itself an entity (if it is one) doesn't have a space it occupies. Now they say the notions of space-time have to be superceded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 7:49:51 GMT -5
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? QM says the fundamental basis of what occurs in the subatomic world, is randomness, cause and effect is nonexistent. This is what Einstein would never buy into. For him the term God, or the Old Man, was an Intelligent Ordering Something, that was the fundamental basis. He did not believe in a God like the God of the Bible. He liked Spinoza's idea of God, a kind of pantheism if I remember correctly. In QM observer doesn't necessarily mean conscious observer (I think laughter will disagree with this). Any kind of suitable mechanical measuring device, for instance a camera, is an observer. Richard Feynman said all quantum problems can be brought back to the double-slit experiment. This boils down to either observing at least one slit, it doesn't matter which, then we have particle phenomenon, or not-observing, then we have wave phenomenon. Basically, flipping a switch on or switch off determines particle or wave. (Laughter would say, yes, but at some point consciousness is going to look at the "film"). So believing has nothing to do with it. Seeing is manifesting. Or I guess E is right, perception is creation, in QM. There have been double-slit experiments where the mechanism to detect which slit the so-called particle passes through is active, but the ability to record the event is turned off. The result of this experiment is ... . Guess?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2019 8:43:59 GMT -5
No I neither agree nor disagree with that statement. Rather, I say, QM tells us nothing about the observer. It does report to us, however, that the objects it describes are not independent of the act of observation. Wouldn't that basically leave the door open to including expectation and intent of the observer? Seems there isn't actually a 'correct' interpretation of QM. Interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2019 8:57:00 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I've suspected. I'm looking at it from the perspective of open systems, however. So we get different results/conclusions. The math of the dice experiment is based on a closed system environment. That's why I was asking SDP if QM takes expectation into account (or intent). As Seth teaches, there are no closed systems. All systems are open systems. Which means models that are based on closed systems may prove correct in certain limited contexts, but eventually, when the context gets large enough, they will miss the mark. In the largest of contexts, there is no mark, nor projectile. Neither random nor an opposite of random, and in this sense, it is the entirety of eternity and every atom in the Universe that conspire for the die to come up seven. "Entirety of eternity" is either borrowed, or at least inspired, by Niz, and Heisenberg wrote essentially the same, just with slightly different wording. This is not an intellectual conclusion. Yes, that's basically Niz. But Niz had his heyday in the 1970's, and Heisenberg as early as the 1930's. Conclusion: Niz stole that from Heisenberg.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2019 9:45:47 GMT -5
Yes, history will continue to be a dynamic process, similar to science and technology. What I see from folks who are bold enough to speculate about ancient civilizations though, is often laced with unconscious projection of our own situations onto very sparse evidence. The flip side of this is the arrogance of the fixed orthodoxies that they're speculating against, which are quite obviously naked emperors. I suspect one of the reasons that the new-age has this cafeteria-Hindu selection of reincarnation is because if you examine "linear history" in enough detail the cycles of it become very, very clear. But the flip side to this is how two arrangements of the qualities involved are never exactly the same, despite their apparent similarities: this is a shadow of the reality of the present asserting itself in form. The conventional explanation for this is that "the Universe is evolving", but while this is an accurate observation, in relative terms, it's misconceived on a monism of "the Universe" as an interconnected totality of what can be observed. As Albert Low wrote, "in seeing/saying 'One', there are two". Intellectual confusion over the nature of the infinite is quite clear in some of the absurdities the concept generates, which are actually active topics of research in the field of mathematics. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of their use of it, despite the underlying misconception. Much of our technology is based on that use. In terms of this, aren't you really challenging the idea of predictability? The way I understand what you're writing (and what lolz wrote) is that in a larger context, what seems unpredictable, isn't. Do I have that right? What I mean by "reality", isn't anything that can ever be apprehended by any model. Sure, the concept of infinity is a bit of a teaser or pointer as we say here. I'm not challenging the idea of predictability per se because I can see that - as Jed says - Maya is very orderly, almost to the degree of mathematical precision, on the one hand; but I can also see that prediction in an absolute sense of the word is an impossibility because there are no closed systems. There's always a wild card. And that wild card gets usually translated as free will (or chance or random, depending on your model of reality). Now, Ramana said that neither free will nor predestination is the final truth. Which I would generally agree with. But in this discussion, I'd probably say both and neither. So while I can't predict my next thought, what I can say though is that whatever my next thought will be, it won't be a surprise either. Well, sure. No disagreement here about the ultimate reality being beyond any models. But the term reality can be used in many contexts. So in the context of QM and Seth, what you call reality, I'd probably call actuality, because there are many realities in the context of this discussion.
|
|