|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 8:11:08 GMT -5
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. David Bohm would be your man. He thoroughly understood QM, wrote a QM textbook in the '50's most physicists loved. Then he turned to a deeper explanation of reality, his Implicate Order. In 1980 came out with the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. But I don't know if he wrote specifically about QM from this standpoint (if he connected the math of QM to the Implicate Order). But if anybody could, it would be him. (His relationship with J Krishnamurti influenced his Implicate Order theory). I have the book but it's in storage. I will google concerning this later.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 8:56:54 GMT -5
I'm talking about a different theoretical framework of QM, specifically, a change in basic assumptions, like moving away from the dead matter model. David Bohm would be your man. He thoroughly understood QM, wrote a QM textbook in the '50's most physicists loved. Then he turned to a deeper explanation of reality, his Implicate Order. In 1980 came out with the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. But I don't know if he wrote specifically about QM from this standpoint (if he connected the math of QM to the Implicate Order). But if anybody could, it would be him. (His relationship with J Krishnamurti influenced his Implicate Order theory). I have the book but it's in storage. I will google concerning this later. I recall he had a visual representation for entangled particles. Fish in a fish tank. Two cameras at right angles filming the fish. The two views represent entangled particles, they seems to show two different things. Fish faces one camera. On the other camera you get a side view of the fish. It you didn't know what a fish looked like you could think you were seeing two different "particles". Bohm says this is like two entangled particles. They seem to be two-separated, but are in fact one. (This was done without my glasses).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 9:47:16 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. 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... But there's an obvious commonsense flaw with this bifurcation into two different "worlds" or whatever: the diffraction pattern of the double-slit, lasers, diodes, transistors and graphene are all examples of macroscopic manifestations of QM phenomena. And the double-slit has now been demonstrated with objects as large as bucky-balls.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 9:57:24 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. Was it Tom Campell of the Monroe institute by any chance? I remember watching one of his lectures and thinking his explanation to be one of the clearest and best that I'd ever heard. But then, when I was debating Tzu' years ago, I came across Tom correcting this claim. .. let me know if you're interested I might be able to dig that up.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 10:14:57 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. There are three different valid ways to answer this, or, we could say, three different contextual prongs to the answer. Only one prong isn't TMT, from the perspective of the topic of self-realization, or rather, existential curiosity, generally. I don't mind writing about the other two, but not before the first one is clarified. So, lets go back to this first. I'd hoped the 'pilgrim would have responded, because I'd wanted to face him with this. Isn't there a glaring existential question on the table?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 12:57:15 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. Was it Tom Campell of the Monroe institute by any chance? I remember watching one of his lectures and thinking his explanation to be one of the clearest and best that I'd ever heard. But then, when I was debating Tzu' years ago, I came across Tom correcting this claim. .. let me know if you're interested I might be able to dig that up. I think one of the links I gave contained a Tom Campbell explanation. I will check and highlight it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 13:10:41 GMT -5
This link contains the Tom Campbell video, a question raised about the validity of his claim. The Youtube video I linked (quantum erasure) seems to say that if you make it impossible to look at the data (I could imagine destroying the data, not burying it for 100 years) from the cameras (even if they are turned on) you will indeed get an interference pattern. (That's my recollection after two views). But that being the case that is as if the camera was turned off, which results in getting an interference pattern. (I didn't actually look at the Tom Campbell video itself).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 13:13:04 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. There are three different valid ways to answer this, or, we could say, three different contextual prongs to the answer. Only one prong isn't TMT, from the perspective of the topic of self-realization, or rather, existential curiosity, generally. I don't mind writing about the other two, but not before the first one is clarified. So, lets go back to this first. I'd hoped the 'pilgrim would have responded, because I'd wanted to face him with this. Isn't there a glaring existential question on the table? You need to specify. I looked at it again, I don't know what you are pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 13:18:34 GMT -5
This link contains the Tom Campbell video, a question raised about the validity of his claim. The Youtube video I linked (quantum erasure) seems to say that if you make it impossible to look at the data (I could imagine destroying the data, not burying it for 100 years) from the cameras (even if they are turned on) you will indeed get an interference pattern. (That's my recollection after two views). But that being the case that is as if the camera was turned off, which results in getting an interference pattern. (I didn't actually look at the Tom Campbell video itself). It's an interesting topic, interesting question, but the bottom line is that the non-linearity between the two patterns (interference or scatter) is really all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 13:22:55 GMT -5
There are three different valid ways to answer this, or, we could say, three different contextual prongs to the answer. Only one prong isn't TMT, from the perspective of the topic of self-realization, or rather, existential curiosity, generally. I don't mind writing about the other two, but not before the first one is clarified. So, lets go back to this first. I'd hoped the 'pilgrim would have responded, because I'd wanted to face him with this. Isn't there a glaring existential question on the table? You need to specify. I looked at it again, I don't know what you are pointing to. ok ... 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. So this question is then, "what is the nature of the observer?". I gave my answer here.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 13:52:52 GMT -5
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. This link is what you are looking for. I browsed through it and refreshed my memory. Laughter is correct, Bohm's Implicate Order is a hidden variable theory, a quantum explanation introducing higher dimensions as a source for explanation of quantum quirkiness. He says all this is is an interconnected whole. His Implicate Order explains the ins and outs of the wholeness, the link article gives a very good taste of it. Laughter says the door is closed on hidden variable theories, experimentally. Closed as in slam shut. I have two current sources that say the door is almost closed, but not yet absolutely. (One is from the new book Quantum Strangeness, the other is also a new book, the name escapes me). But this is still from a physics standpoint. I am quite sure that there are higher dimensions as ordering "laws" which are the deeper fundamental basis for our world. Bohm goes into this. The principle holds that the higher comprehends the lower but the lower (physics) cannot comprehend the higher. Almost closed does not mean closed. In the 1890's all of physics was explained, except for two tiny clouds upon the horizon, black body radiation and explaining the nature of light in relation to the Michelson-Morley experiments which eliminated the theory of aether as the medium through-which light propagated (more or less). Those two tiny clouds resulted in quantum mechanics (explaining black body radiation), 1901, Planck and Relativity, that is, Special Relativity, 1905, Einstein. So not shut is not shut. www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 13:57:15 GMT -5
This link contains the Tom Campbell video, a question raised about the validity of his claim. The Youtube video I linked (quantum erasure) seems to say that if you make it impossible to look at the data (I could imagine destroying the data, not burying it for 100 years) from the cameras (even if they are turned on) you will indeed get an interference pattern. (That's my recollection after two views). But that being the case that is as if the camera was turned off, which results in getting an interference pattern. (I didn't actually look at the Tom Campbell video itself). Sounds like what I listened to years ago is BS. Sorry to propogate it here. Not sure if it was Campbell.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 14:14:48 GMT -5
You need to specify. I looked at it again, I don't know what you are pointing to. ok ... 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. So this question is then, "what is the nature of the observer?". I gave my answer here. The here answer is basically a tautology. Of course observer and the observation are linked, that's the whole point of the results of the double-slit experiment. You observe one or the other of the slits (it doesn't matter which) you get one result (particle-bullet pattern), if you don't observe you get another result (interference pattern). I think Bohr maintained consciousness is not necessary for observing. I definitely say consciousness is not necessary for observing (not necessary to collapse the superposition). What is the nature of the observer? The question is what brings the superposition to a definite result in time and space (what brings the collapse of the wave function)? It seems that it can be anything that breaks the coherence. It can be natural processes. Consciousness does not have to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 14:17:48 GMT -5
This link contains the Tom Campbell video, a question raised about the validity of his claim. The Youtube video I linked (quantum erasure) seems to say that if you make it impossible to look at the data (I could imagine destroying the data, not burying it for 100 years) from the cameras (even if they are turned on) you will indeed get an interference pattern. (That's my recollection after two views). But that being the case that is as if the camera was turned off, which results in getting an interference pattern. (I didn't actually look at the Tom Campbell video itself). Sounds like what I listened to years ago is BS. Sorry to propogate it here. Not sure if it was Campbell. Oh no problem. It just seems like an impossible experiment to set up, as you described it. I appreciate anything that makes me dig a little deeper.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 14:34:11 GMT -5
|
|