|
|
Quantum ZD
Jun 14, 2023 13:12:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 13:12:38 GMT -5
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." Thanks. |
|
|
|
Quantum ZD
Jun 14, 2023 13:18:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2023 13:18:36 GMT -5
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. Have one problem with this: ego forgets what it is. For me ego consists of conditioning which covers over what-we-are. So, ego just is what it is, ego doesn't forget what it is. What we are is buried, whole. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 14, 2023 13:36:04 GMT -5
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. Have one problem with this: ego forgets what it is. For me ego consists of conditioning which covers over what-we-are. So, ego just is what it is, ego doesn't forget what it is. What we are is buried, whole. , but with conditioning it forgets, as the child grows up. The ego forms, and it doesn't stay unchanged. Part of its goals is to harmonize with the other aspects of the self that, through conditioning, it was hypnotized into forgetting about. The conditioning isn't a one time event, but a process started before birth, and includes constructive and impeding (telepathic) suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2023 13:49:23 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). Your point about "a world of rocks and stars and trees out there"? Not really, no. Reality, is neither objective, nor subjective. That's as far as the metaphysics goes. The " physics" continues, of course. Heisenberg also wrote something to the effect that Copenhagen wasn't the end of objectivity. Copenhagen did, however, put objectivity in context, in perspective. THIS clicking is not a world of rocks and stars and trees "out there". It's just .. you know .. THIS. Clicking.
It's quite subtle 'pilgrim. We must be very very quiet. We are hunting rabbits, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2023 13:50:07 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. 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). Do you want me to respond in terms of the relative world of intellect, or in existential terms where I have to point? |
|
All those folks, they're ghosts now, but, like .. wow. 
.. oh, and I almost forgot. You, are not a machine.