|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2019 9:49:48 GMT -5
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 Now they say the notions of space-time have to be superceded. Yes, that's basically my point.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2019 10:09:02 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. The science ends where the science ends, and what comes after that, depends on the type of attention applied.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2019 10:09:19 GMT -5
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 laughter on Sept 16, 2019 10:19:00 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. Yeah R.M. was also quoted as saying (paraphrasing from memory) that "both free will and destiny are ever present". This is the way appearances appear. But as you've already written, some models are better than others, and the model that people peeps prefer should be obvious. Now, in terms of the relative patterns of appearances described by science, there's been quite a bit written and otherwise expressed that ties together the non-physical to the physical with QM as a bridge, but, as 'dusty has alluded to, that involves some speculative interpretation as to the nature of the observer.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2019 10:34:32 GMT -5
Now, in terms of the relative patterns of appearances described by science, there's been quite a bit written and otherwise expressed that ties together the non-physical to the physical with QM as a bridge, but, as 'dusty has alluded to, that involves some speculative interpretation as to the nature of the observer. That's the part I am interested in. I don't see why QM shouldn't be able to cover the non-physical realm as well. SDP said that in the QM model the world of Seth/Abraham doesn't exist. What's your take on this? Theoretically, you just have to replace quantum particles with Seth's CU's (basic units of consciousness) and then see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 13:11:19 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. 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? If you don't record the results how do you know what happened? But...you would have a bullet-like particle result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 13:25:17 GMT -5
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? If you don't record the results how do you know what happened? But...you would have a bullet-like particle result. I meant recording the result of which so called particle went through which slot, not the final outcome of bullet vs interference pattern. Actually, in said experiment, an interference pattern appeared. It seems to imply that if there's zero chance the results of which particle went through which slot being observed, you get a wave interference pattern.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 14:26:13 GMT -5
If you don't record the results how do you know what happened? But...you would have a bullet-like particle result. I meant recording the result of which so called particle went through which slot, not the final outcome of bullet vs interference pattern. Actually, in said experiment, an interference pattern appeared. It seems to imply that if there's zero chance the results of which particle went through which slot being observed, you get a wave interference pattern. Then, you weren't clear in the original question. You said the mechanism to detect which slit the particle went through was active. Is that not what you said? But in this post you are saying something different. Yes? No? If there is zero chance of observing which slot the particle went through, yes, you will always get the interference pattern (showing wave pattern, IOW it went through both slits). Get us on the same page here. By active I took to mean observing mode. Yes? No? (In which case you would get bullet-particle pattern). But yes, that's what's so weird about the double-slit experiment. This is the observer effect. Why should observing determine whether the particle went through one slit or two? This is why Richard Feynman said if anybody asked you any questions about QM, all you have to do is say: You know, it's like the double-slit experiment.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 14:34:49 GMT -5
Now, in terms of the relative patterns of appearances described by science, there's been quite a bit written and otherwise expressed that ties together the non-physical to the physical with QM as a bridge, but, as 'dusty has alluded to, that involves some speculative interpretation as to the nature of the observer. That's the part I am interested in. I don't see why QM shouldn't be able to cover the non-physical realm as well. SDP said that in the QM model the world of Seth/Abraham doesn't exist. What's your take on this? Theoretically, you just have to replace quantum particles with Seth's CU's (basic units of consciousness) and then see what happens. I'm saying the quantum world QM is getting but a glimpse of IS the Seth/A-H world, the non-physical realm. There are no physical instruments that can directly measure the non-physical realm (that's pretty-much the definition thereof). So the experiment you propose can't be done. (I'm sure you know this, I presume this what you mean, theoretically doing the experiment). Probably, tbc, in another post...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 15:20:42 GMT -5
Now, in terms of the relative patterns of appearances described by science, there's been quite a bit written and otherwise expressed that ties together the non-physical to the physical with QM as a bridge, but, as 'dusty has alluded to, that involves some speculative interpretation as to the nature of the observer. That's the part I am interested in. I don't see why QM shouldn't be able to cover the non-physical realm as well. SDP said that in the QM model the world of Seth/Abraham doesn't exist. What's your take on this? Theoretically, you just have to replace quantum particles with Seth's CU's (basic units of consciousness) and then see what happens. Thinking via post... The Seth/A-H world is the world of probabilities, either-or. So each CU consists of yes and no simultaneously. Space and time does not exist in the S/A-H in the same manner it does in our world, this is what allows for yes and no simultaneously. In QM terms the S/A-H world is a superposition of yes and no simultaneously. Our world is the world of actualization. Actualization is the collapse of possibilities via space and time. Say we have an ant crawling up a tree. Up ahead the limb branches into left branch and right branch. Ant is crawling in time, movement from here to there, and in space. For the ant, L-B or R-B is a possibility, then it comes to the fork, the future. Ant crawls up L-B. This is in essence the collapse of the wave function, a crossroads in time, crossed. Let's take this to our double-slit experiment. We shoot an ant at the two branches, two slits. If we have an active camera observing L-B, if we see ant at L-B we know ant is a particle-bullet-pattern, the ant went through one slit. If we put an active camera on R-B, and see nothing, we know that ant crawled up L-B. However, if we have no camera, neither L-B or R-B, we can't know which branch the ant crawled up, so in effect it crawled up both branches, it stays in the S/A-H world of both yes and no, no time and no space, and we have an interference pattern. So in the QM world nothing happens unless there is an observation. But how does this apply to the world we live in? In our world there is always the movement of time. Up ahead we can see a crossroads, an X-roads. Time forces us to make a decision, if we don't make a decision, it gets made automatically, as time catches up to the crossroads. Even not-deciding is a decision. So the present point of time forces the world of possibilities into an actual occurrence in time and space. And then we learn from the choice, or the not-choice. We learn consequences of choices, and maybe we learn to make better choices in the future. Eventually, this is learning that self cannot make appropriate choices. self sees only through a tiny peephole, itself. And self inevitably chooses what it thinks is best for self. But eventually self sees that it cannot choose rightly. self will always create a bigger mess than it's already in. So then something there, seeks a broader perspective, and the proper path to actualize...for the benefit of All, the Whole. OK, that was just thinking without thinking. I will post without rereading. I almost never do this, I don't know if this is even worth reading...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 15:21:14 GMT -5
I meant recording the result of which so called particle went through which slot, not the final outcome of bullet vs interference pattern. Actually, in said experiment, an interference pattern appeared. It seems to imply that if there's zero chance the results of which particle went through which slot being observed, you get a wave interference pattern. Then, you weren't clear in the original question. You said the mechanism to detect which slit the particle went through was active. Is that not what you said? But in this post you are saying something different. Yes? No? If there is zero chance of observing which slot the particle went through, yes, you will always get the interference pattern (showing wave pattern, IOW it went through both slits). Get us on the same page here. By active I took to mean observing mode. Yes? No? (In which case you would get bullet-particle pattern). But yes, that's what's so weird about the double-slit experiment. This is the observer effect. Why should observing determine whether the particle went through one slit or two? This is why Richard Feynman said if anybody asked you any questions about QM, all you have to do is say: You know, it's like the double-slit experiment. The mechanism is detecting (active) which particle went through which slot, but not recording the result. IOW, the particle IS detected, but none knows because it is not recorded.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 15:31:27 GMT -5
Then, you weren't clear in the original question. You said the mechanism to detect which slit the particle went through was active. Is that not what you said? But in this post you are saying something different. Yes? No? If there is zero chance of observing which slot the particle went through, yes, you will always get the interference pattern (showing wave pattern, IOW it went through both slits). Get us on the same page here. By active I took to mean observing mode. Yes? No? (In which case you would get bullet-particle pattern). But yes, that's what's so weird about the double-slit experiment. This is the observer effect. Why should observing determine whether the particle went through one slit or two? This is why Richard Feynman said if anybody asked you any questions about QM, all you have to do is say: You know, it's like the double-slit experiment. The mechanism is detecting (active) which particle went through which slot, but not recording the result. IOW, the particle IS detected, but none knows because it is not recorded. OK, thanks, I have never heard of that experiment.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2019 15:44:50 GMT -5
Then, you weren't clear in the original question. You said the mechanism to detect which slit the particle went through was active. Is that not what you said? But in this post you are saying something different. Yes? No? If there is zero chance of observing which slot the particle went through, yes, you will always get the interference pattern (showing wave pattern, IOW it went through both slits). Get us on the same page here. By active I took to mean observing mode. Yes? No? (In which case you would get bullet-particle pattern). But yes, that's what's so weird about the double-slit experiment. This is the observer effect. Why should observing determine whether the particle went through one slit or two? This is why Richard Feynman said if anybody asked you any questions about QM, all you have to do is say: You know, it's like the double-slit experiment. The mechanism is detecting (active) which particle went through which slot, but not recording the result. IOW, the particle IS detected, but none knows because it is not recorded. Can you give a link for this? I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59974/does-the-observer-or-the-camera-collapse-the-wave-function-in-the-double-slit-ex~~~~~~~~~~~(denotes passage of time...)~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.physicsforums.com/threads/double-slit-experiment-with-detectors-not-recording.414617/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OK, this (following) seems definitive. singlephoton.wikidot.com/quantum-eraser~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This guy seems pretty definitive, there isn't such a thing as having an observation (camera) of the slits, even if not recorded (about minute 2:40), and having an interference pattern. He gets to the erasure part (which would equal not recorded) about minute 6:35. Reefs, this gives the very mysterious nature of QM.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 17, 2019 7:47:15 GMT -5
That's the part I am interested in. I don't see why QM shouldn't be able to cover the non-physical realm as well. SDP said that in the QM model the world of Seth/Abraham doesn't exist. What's your take on this? Theoretically, you just have to replace quantum particles with Seth's CU's (basic units of consciousness) and then see what happens. I'm saying the quantum world QM is getting but a glimpse of IS the Seth/A-H world, the non-physical realm. There are no physical instruments that can directly measure the non-physical realm (that's pretty-much the definition thereof). So the experiment you propose can't be done. (I'm sure you know this, I presume this what you mean, theoretically doing the experiment). Probably, tbc, in another post... I'm talking about a different theoretical framework of QM, specifically, a change in basic assumptions, like moving away from the dead matter model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 7:55:26 GMT -5
It was a lecture on youtube I heard long ago. It involved sensors on the slits and a piece of equipment that recorded what the sensors detected. When the sensors were on as well as the recording mechanism, the experiment yielded the bullet, particle, pattern. When the sensors were turned on, but results not recorded, the experiment yielded a wave interference pattern.
|
|