|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:55:51 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! To be clear, even with a relatively still mind, such as in ATA-T, the experience is not of a grey-blob, and I'm pretty confident the other side aren't implying that. However, I think it's problematic to infer that the 'distinctive' colours and shapes which are perceived, (and I say even in ATA-T) are merely imagined into apparency. In terms of 'separate [inherently existing and abiding] thingness', it's certainly easier to talk about that in terms of imagination and delusion, and I think there is some agreement there. It's useful in order to point away from the CT perspective. But perceived variation and contrast, as you put it, is surely happening prior to imagination and labelling. It's that which I am calling a process of distinction, and saying that is akin to the process that is perception itself. A creative process. Which happens largely sub-consciously. At this stage I'm still not quite sure to what extent we may be merely arguing about the definition of distinction. Which I'm confident all parties would agree would be pretty futile. I suspect it's more about the application of the phrase, and the implications of a given application. Even a philosopher can use his intellect to arrive at "ceci nes pas une pipe", but dismissing such a man as merely philosophizing is to discredit other faculties that might be at play. That said, reading what philosophers write beyond that point, one can certainly discern quite a bit of confusion.  That's not to imply that there isn't something beyond that point of abandoning names, there certainly is. To reiterate, there are certain somatic experiences that acid trippers or other sorts of extreme experience can inform us of. Such informing is best done with one form of poetry, or another. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:59:11 GMT -5
You are good at explaining stuff. I think most folks here are flexible with words, and I agree that if the word 'distinction' isn't going to work as a way of talking about discernment of variation and contrast, then we need a word that does.....i.e that distinguishes between that discernment, and mental conceptual naming. Maybe the word you used there.... 'discernment'.... is a good one. Thanks Andrew. Yes, I think many of the issues around here are simply to do with how we define (and as ouroboros points out, apply) words. There's no making of any permanent piecemeal peace sewn together with the threads of linguistic compromise. I'm trying to blend as many metaphors as possible into as compact an expression as I can manage. How'my doin'?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 5:05:07 GMT -5
You are good at explaining stuff. I think most folks here are flexible with words, and I agree that if the word 'distinction' isn't going to work as a way of talking about discernment of variation and contrast, then we need a word that does.....i.e that distinguishes between that discernment, and mental conceptual naming. Maybe the word you used there.... 'discernment'.... is a good one. Yes, I think you're right. We need words to make these distinctions. There is never separation, end of story. The brain-connections-between-neurons make distinctions. Discernment already exist in the world (ouroboros continually makes this point with his tree-thwacking, a good point). But the word discernment doesn't work for me, sounds too much like brain-doing. We need a word for non-abstracting-stuff already existing in the world (distinction doesn't make the thingy we call a tree, just appear out of nowhere). Einstein once asked one of his QM friends, Do you think the moon disappears when I'm not looking at it?! Maybe we need to make up a word, like glurch. Maybe we can call it a zlitchd. A zlitchd is anything in the world, that is, previous to (ZD's) distinction. A blind man can walk into a zlitched and get knocked down. We can call that getting zlitchded. Einstein. The original doooooofus guy. Imagine getting trolled. By Einstein. (.. poor Neils ..) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 5:21:38 GMT -5
Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to. The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind. The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail. In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition." Again, not how it works. I knew the following once up a time, but, decoherence does not destroy entanglement for example. Once two paired quantum thingys are entangled, they are forever entangled. But decoherence muddies the waters so that we cannot distinguish entangled quantum properties. "What we understand to be decoherence is not actually a loss of superposition but a loss of our ability to detect it in the origional system". pg 208. The quotes below discuss decoherence. Ball says we had everything we needed to discover decoherence back to the '30's, but later it became obvious to physicists (by the '90's). Decoherence is what destroys the possibility if observing microscopic superpositions - including Schrodinger's live/dead cat. And this has nothing to do with observation in the normal sense: we don't need a conscious mind to 'look' in order to 'collapse the wave function'. All we need is for the environment to disperse the quantum coherence. This happens with extraordinary efficiency-it's probably the most efficient process known to science. And it is very clear why size matters here: there is simply more interaction with the environment, and therefore faster decoherence, for larger objects. IOW, what we previously called measurement can, at least in larger part (not completely, as we'll see), be instead called decoherence. We obtain classical uniqueness from quantum multiplicity when decoherence has taken its toll. pg 212 Decoherence is not only real but is accurately described by quantum theory. That theory, IOW, can tell us not just what happens in the quantum world but how quantum becomes classical. (IOW, through decoherence, note sdp). pg 216 From Beyond Weird by Philip Ball, 2018 Just another matter of degree though. Notice how they're still defining "decohrence" in the relative terms that are, in turn, defined by the event of observation. Hamsters. All the way down. Turtle-hamsters. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 13, 2023 7:17:41 GMT -5
Again, not how it works. I knew the following once up a time, but, decoherence does not destroy entanglement for example. Once two paired quantum thingys are entangled, they are forever entangled. But decoherence muddies the waters so that we cannot distinguish entangled quantum properties. "What we understand to be decoherence is not actually a loss of superposition but a loss of our ability to detect it in the origional system". pg 208. The quotes below discuss decoherence. Ball says we had everything we needed to discover decoherence back to the '30's, but later it became obvious to physicists (by the '90's). Decoherence is what destroys the possibility if observing microscopic superpositions - including Schrodinger's live/dead cat. And this has nothing to do with observation in the normal sense: we don't need a conscious mind to 'look' in order to 'collapse the wave function'. All we need is for the environment to disperse the quantum coherence. This happens with extraordinary efficiency-it's probably the most efficient process known to science. And it is very clear why size matters here: there is simply more interaction with the environment, and therefore faster decoherence, for larger objects. IOW, what we previously called measurement can, at least in larger part (not completely, as we'll see), be instead called decoherence. We obtain classical uniqueness from quantum multiplicity when decoherence has taken its toll. pg 212 Decoherence is not only real but is accurately described by quantum theory. That theory, IOW, can tell us not just what happens in the quantum world but how quantum becomes classical. (IOW, through decoherence, note sdp). pg 216 From Beyond Weird by Philip Ball, 2018 Just another matter of degree though. Notice how they're still defining "decohrence" in the relative terms that are, in turn, defined by the event of observation. Hamsters. All the way down. Turtle-hamsters. Yes, well-stated, and to return to an earlier point, the intellect is a distinction-making mechanism. Although animals and human babies do not see a gray blob when looking at the world, what they see is a unified field of being. They see what we call "a tree" without imagining it as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Anyone who can remain mentally quiescent and who has seen through the illusion of separation will understand what's being pointed to. The idea of decoherence only appears in the mind after millions of distinctions have already been mistakenly accepted as actual and internalized subconsciously. The idea that there is a quantum world distinct from a classical world is another idea far removed from the actuality of what is fundamentally indivisible. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 14, 2023 0:56:43 GMT -5
Just another matter of degree though. Notice how they're still defining "decohrence" in the relative terms that are, in turn, defined by the event of observation. Hamsters. All the way down. Turtle-hamsters. Yes, well-stated, and to return to an earlier point, the intellect is a distinction-making mechanism. Although animals and human babies do not see a gray blob when looking at the world, what they see is a unified field of being. They see what we call "a tree" without imagining it as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Anyone who can remain mentally quiescent and who has seen through the illusion of separation will understand what's being pointed to. The idea of decoherence only appears in the mind after millions of distinctions have already been mistakenly accepted as actual and internalized subconsciously. The idea that there is a quantum world distinct from a classical world is another idea far removed from the actuality of what is fundamentally indivisible. "Every perception is a micro-narrative." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 7:16:32 GMT -5
Just another matter of degree though. Notice how they're still defining "decohrence" in the relative terms that are, in turn, defined by the event of observation. Hamsters. All the way down. Turtle-hamsters. Yes, well-stated, and to return to an earlier point, the intellect is a distinction-making mechanism. Although animals and human babies do not see a gray blob when looking at the world, what they see is a unified field of being. They see what we call "a tree" without imagining it as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Anyone who can remain mentally quiescent and who has seen through the illusion of separation will understand what's being pointed to. The idea of decoherence only appears in the mind after millions of distinctions have already been mistakenly accepted as actual and internalized subconsciously. The idea that there is a quantum world distinct from a classical world is another idea far removed from the actuality of what is fundamentally indivisible. Last sentence, if you read the quotes Ball says exactly that. I made up an analogy for what he says. Say we have an ant waking, see clearly on the plain (this is our coherent quantum-thingy). Decoherence is when it walks into the jungle, nothing happens to the ant, we just cannot distinguish "it" in the surrounding jungle. Ball says that's decoherence. I've never read anywhere some of the points Ball makes, this is the most-current quantum understanding. (Makes me think you didn't read the quotes). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 7:27:12 GMT -5
Again, not how it works. I knew the following once up a time, but, decoherence does not destroy entanglement for example. Once two paired quantum thingys are entangled, they are forever entangled. But decoherence muddies the waters so that we cannot distinguish entangled quantum properties. "What we understand to be decoherence is not actually a loss of superposition but a loss of our ability to detect it in the origional system". pg 208. The quotes below discuss decoherence. Ball says we had everything we needed to discover decoherence back to the '30's, but later it became obvious to physicists (by the '90's). Decoherence is what destroys the possibility if observing microscopic superpositions - including Schrodinger's live/dead cat. And this has nothing to do with observation in the normal sense: we don't need a conscious mind to 'look' in order to 'collapse the wave function'. All we need is for the environment to disperse the quantum coherence. This happens with extraordinary efficiency-it's probably the most efficient process known to science. And it is very clear why size matters here: there is simply more interaction with the environment, and therefore faster decoherence, for larger objects. IOW, what we previously called measurement can, at least in larger part (not completely, as we'll see), be instead called decoherence. We obtain classical uniqueness from quantum multiplicity when decoherence has taken its toll. pg 212 Decoherence is not only real but is accurately described by quantum theory. That theory, IOW, can tell us not just what happens in the quantum world but how quantum becomes classical. (IOW, through decoherence, note sdp). pg 216 From Beyond Weird by Philip Ball, 2018 Just another matter of degree though. Notice how they're still defining "decohrence" in the relative terms that are, in turn, defined by the event of observation. Hamsters. All the way down. Turtle-hamsters. I can't quote the whole book. The first quote above (pg 208) says it better. At the end, he could have said it better, gives the *appearance* of a classical world. He says there is no "line is the sand" separating quantum from classical. Ant on the plain walking into the jungle (analogy by sdp), that's the difference (IOW, no actual difference). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 7:34:47 GMT -5
This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at. It's a hamster wheel for the mind. They realized back in '27 that you can never prove the belief you've expressed here by physical means to a human being. Heisenberg wrote that the geiger counter would be (and I'm paraphrasing) .. THIS clicking, if noone was in the room. All those folks, they're ghosts now, but, like .. wow. .. oh, and I almost forgot. You, are not a machine. It looks to me that Heisenberg's point makes my point. (It doesn't take human consciousness to ziltchd [or not-grey-blob] the universe). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 7:44:02 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! I'm totally on board with that distinction about distinctions. Yes, a baby sees colors and shapes and things (no gray blob) before the concept of things has arisen, but the baby hasn't yet imagined that what it sees is divided into separate things. There's not even a sense of object constancy until later. I prefer the term "discern" over distinction at that early age. But my point is, WHAT is it that's there for the baby to discern? (*Why* is it a color-pattern and NOT a grey blob? Thus, the word ziltchd, but not-a-grey-blob works for me). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 7:48:29 GMT -5
To be clear, even with a relatively still mind, such as in ATA-T, the experience is not of a grey-blob, and I'm pretty confident the other side aren't implying that. However, I think it's problematic to infer that the 'distinctive' colours and shapes which are perceived, (and I say even in ATA-T) are merely imagined into apparency. In terms of 'separate [inherently existing and abiding] thingness', it's certainly easier to talk about that in terms of imagination and delusion, and I think there is some agreement there. It's useful in order to point away from the CT perspective. But perceived variation and contrast, as you put it, is surely happening prior to imagination and labelling. It's that which I am calling a process of distinction, and saying that is akin to the process that is perception itself. A creative process. Which happens largely sub-consciously. At this stage I'm still not quite sure to what extent we may be merely arguing about the definition of distinction. Which I'm confident all parties would agree would be pretty futile. I suspect it's more about the application of the phrase, and the implications of a given application. Yes, separation/inherent-ness can be called imagination - it’s a delusion, a mis-perception. Anybody - right now - can glimpse this and separation will (at least, momentarily) dissolve. Distinction as I describe it above is not subject to the same consideration as it’s not a product of the thinking mind. To say otherwise would be to hold that when thought dissolves, the grey blob arises. It's not a product of the thinking, is also my point. (There is something there for the baby to discern). |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 14, 2023 9:58:21 GMT -5
It's a hamster wheel for the mind. They realized back in '27 that you can never prove the belief you've expressed here by physical means to a human being. Heisenberg wrote that the geiger counter would be (and I'm paraphrasing) .. THIS clicking, if noone was in the room. All those folks, they're ghosts now, but, like .. wow. .. oh, and I almost forgot. You, are not a machine. It looks to me that Heisenberg's point makes my point. (It doesn't take human consciousness to ziltchd [or not-grey-blob] the universe). There's the old bugaboo double slit experiment that can't be explained. That is, when the measurements are automatically discarded decoherence goes kaput. So if there's no chance of contact with consciousness, the interference pattern returns. We have a wave once more. The fact that every particle, every object, is a wave should cast doubt on the notion of matter. But it's so ingrained in us that folks cling to it like monkeys with their fists trapped in a jar. The fact light which has no mass can produce matter( objects with mass) is another clue. "Let there be light." Haha. That's all there is? This is a projection, a hologram. The question is who is projecting this? I think, think, we are. Zd says he knows we are. I don't trust his proclamation. No disrespect intended. It's just the " meet the Buddha on the road" instruction is ingrained in me. But this kind of speculation is just fun for me. It has nothing to with experiencing who we are. Other than perhaps to soften the binding and allow for self exploration, self inquiry, meditation. You can get distracted by this. It really doesn't matter whether you think the external world is real or not. I think it's a actually a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, believing the world is not real. It's fools' candy. I understand your perspective. It's "God wouldn't lie to us." It was Descartes' reasoning as well. We are eating the apple. Tsk. Tsk. For all intents and purposes we live as if the hologram were real. We do. Zd won't share his credit card numbers. What's his motivation? Just messing. |
|
|
|
Quantum ZD
Jun 14, 2023 12:04:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 12:04:49 GMT -5
It looks to me that Heisenberg's point makes my point. (It doesn't take human consciousness to ziltchd [or not-grey-blob] the universe). There's the old bugaboo double slit experiment that can't be explained. That is, when the measurements are automatically discarded decoherence goes kaput. So if there's no chance of contact with consciousness, the interference pattern returns. We have a wave once more. The fact that every particle, every object, is a wave should cast doubt on the notion of matter. But it's so ingrained in us that folks cling to it like monkeys with their fists trapped in a jar. The fact light which has no mass can produce matter( objects with mass) is another clue. "Let there be light." Haha. That's all there is? This is a projection, a hologram. The question is who is projecting this? I think, think, we are. Zd says he knows we are. I don't trust his proclamation. No disrespect intended. It's just the " meet the Buddha on the road" instruction is ingrained in me. But this kind of speculation is just fun for me. It has nothing to with experiencing who we are. Other than perhaps to soften the binding and allow for self exploration, self inquiry, meditation. You can get distracted by this. It really doesn't matter whether you think the external world is real or not. I think it's a actually a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, believing the world is not real. It's fools' candy. I understand your perspective. It's "God wouldn't lie to us." It was Descartes' reasoning as well. We are eating the apple. Tsk. Tsk. For all intents and purposes we live as if the hologram were real. We do. Zd won't share his credit card numbers. What's his motivation? Just messing. First, Ball says we have taken consciousness out of the "equation". I agree. (I think you could do the experiment, save the results and not look at the results for a year, that is, no consciousness involved at the point of experiment. Looking would change what happened. I might ask ChatGPT about that). Concerning double-slit, not sure what you mean by discarded. If there is a "camera" observing even just one slit, there is always a particle-bullet-pattern. If a measurement made, you have a superposition collapse-into-a-"localization"-particle. That's where I don't know what you mean by discard (you don't get a reverse back to superposition. You have to start with another experiment. 3rd. Most physicists today consider quantum field theory to be correct. That means no particles exist, only *spread-out) fields exist. Particles "appear" out of the interaction of fields. In 2012 when they found the Higgs boson, which shows why (some) particles have mass, finding Higgs bosoms means they found the Higgs field. (But in the news hardly anyone said we proved the Higgs field exists). About light becoming matter, if you were laughter I'd have to blast you on that. Otherwise, I'll have think on or Google. Light/photons are a kind of energy currency. At the end of his life Einstein said: Having studied light and pondered it most of life, I still don't know what light is. (Paraphrased, but pretty close). Scientifically, God can't be proved. It's just that I can't see intelligence arising from dirt (the 100+ elements). Seems to me intelligence (Consciousness) must come first, it's a predilection. I've said this at least 23 times, I don't understand the big deal about nonduality/Oneness-non-separation. I solved that in my 20's and moved on. E Pluribus Unum. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 14, 2023 12:34:07 GMT -5
Yes, separation/inherent-ness can be called imagination - it’s a delusion, a mis-perception. Anybody - right now - can glimpse this and separation will (at least, momentarily) dissolve. Distinction as I describe it above is not subject to the same consideration as it’s not a product of the thinking mind. To say otherwise would be to hold that when thought dissolves, the grey blob arises. It's not a product of the thinking, is also my point. ( There is something there for the baby to discern). From the moment the "soul" decides the point and conditions of its materialization, the process of its conditioning starts with focusing on the telepathic connections with all the others participants in that specific physical-reality. That is what's there to discern. If the soul chose a different point and conditions, its resultant physical conditioning would be different. That conditioning includes both constructive and impeding suggestions, that are accepted according to the soul's level of evolvement. This conditioning gradually takes over the forming ego, process observed on children's mental adaptability stages, which is practically set by the age of 12. The ego forgets what it is, getting fully immersed in the physical reality. This full immersion while awake is necessary for a genuine physical experience, and is balanced by the sleep states of consciousness when the awake performance is reviewed and tuned accordingly. At some point, it could be helpful that when awake to know more about what you are and what you're doing, and there are realities where this is the way, but we chose this physical-reality setup wanting a more physically oriented perspective. It is a tougher test of our abilities when we don't know that we have a safety net. Calling our experience a "delusion" is missing the point, and it is detrimental as perspective. It is like being in school and saying / thinking that being a pupil is a delusion, or playing a video game, identifying with your avatar while playing, and calling it a delusion. "Delusion" has a pejorative connotation that doesn't fit our condition. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 14, 2023 12:44:52 GMT -5
There's the old bugaboo double slit experiment that can't be explained. That is, when the measurements are automatically discarded decoherence goes kaput. So if there's no chance of contact with consciousness, the interference pattern returns. We have a wave once more. The fact that every particle, every object, is a wave should cast doubt on the notion of matter. But it's so ingrained in us that folks cling to it like monkeys with their fists trapped in a jar. The fact light which has no mass can produce matter( objects with mass) is another clue. "Let there be light." Haha. That's all there is? This is a projection, a hologram. The question is who is projecting this? I think, think, we are. Zd says he knows we are. I don't trust his proclamation. No disrespect intended. It's just the " meet the Buddha on the road" instruction is ingrained in me. But this kind of speculation is just fun for me. It has nothing to with experiencing who we are. Other than perhaps to soften the binding and allow for self exploration, self inquiry, meditation. You can get distracted by this. It really doesn't matter whether you think the external world is real or not. I think it's a actually a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, believing the world is not real. It's fools' candy. I understand your perspective. It's "God wouldn't lie to us." It was Descartes' reasoning as well. We are eating the apple. Tsk. Tsk. For all intents and purposes we live as if the hologram were real. We do. Zd won't share his credit card numbers. What's his motivation? Just messing. First, Ball says we have taken consciousness out of the "equation". I agree. (I think you could do the experiment, save the results and not look at the results for a year, that is, no consciousness involved at the point of experiment. Looking would change what happened. I might ask ChatGPT about that). Concerning double-slit, not sure what you mean by discarded. If there is a "camera" observing even just one slit, there is always a particle-bullet-pattern. If a measurement made, you have a superposition collapse-into-a-"localization"-particle. That's where I don't know what you mean by discard (you don't get a reverse back to superposition. You have to start with another experiment. 3rd. Most physicists today consider quantum field theory to be correct. That means no particles exist, only *spread-out) fields exist. Particles "appear" out of the interaction of fields. In 2012 when they found the Higgs boson, which shows why (some) particles have mass, finding Higgs bosoms means they found the Higgs field. (But in the news hardly anyone said we proved the Higgs field exists). About light becoming matter, if you were laughter I'd have to blast you on that. Otherwise, I'll have think on or Google. Light/photons are a kind of energy currency. At the end of his life Einstein said: Having studied light and pondered it most of life, I still don't know what light is. (Paraphrased, but pretty close). Scientifically, God can't be proved. It's just that I can't see intelligence arising from dirt (the 100+ elements). Seems to me intelligence (Consciousness) must come first, it's a predilection. I've said this at least 23 times, I don't understand the big deal about nonduality/Oneness-non-separation. I solved that in my 20's and moved on. E Pluribus Unum. Talking about Quantum erasure variation of the double slit experiment. What happens when marked particles are unmarked. We know matter can be created with high energy radiation (high frequency light) "collisions". I put that last word in quotes because how can massless objects like photons collide? "Einstein predicted it a century ago, scientists only just observed it. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, first published in 1905, light can be converted into matter when two light particles collide with intense force." |
|
