The Nature of Time

I may be old fashioned, but I generally prefer academic papers, and books by legitimate authors and so forth for my research---I don't usually go to youtube to research such things. However the few videos I have seen on the double split experiment do not have such hidden agendas---for example those posted by Newscientist (those are the only ones I have actually seen until recently). I have been telling a friend about this and he pulled up some videos on the subject to try to make sense of it, and I watched those with him---the first couple that he pulled up---I found those to be very straight forward about the experiment and did not have any spiritual message or hidden agendas. They stated the experiment for what it was and explained the problems that it presented---and a couple of them went on into the multiple universe theory which is the most popular attempt to explain the collapse of the wave function from a scientific (materialist) viewpoint----though that theory it is quite problematic. I did not watch any other videos on the subject after that. (And yes, I probably don't watch to many because there is too much crap out there that attributes things to UFO's and other crazy things, or tries to promote religion or other things. I don't have time to waste on that---which is also why I watch very little History channel or any of those other channels like that on TV).

Or more correctly, the position of the particle, as long as we are simply measuring momentum, there is no collapse of the wave function.

However if we allow one particle to enter without measuring the position, we get a wave function---the interference pattern---which is the point of why it appears to enter both slits---but as your video showed may actually be the result of a field around that particle. (Allowing on particle to pass through is basically zooming down to tis smallest unit of time as you say---you cannot get any smaller than a single particle). On the other hand we could have many particles pass through but by measuring the position the wave function collapses. But again, as at least one experiment shows, if we measure the position without any way of indicating the results to the experimenter (taking the tape out of the machine), than strangely enough we revert to an interference pattern of a wave.

It is like Newscientist said, no matter how we do the experiment, or how many times we do it, the results are still stranger than fiction, and are very hard to get around.

 

I mean---yeah---I am an essentialist---I am a baby boomer hippy---and am an animist. It would be easy to assume that I have my own spiritual agenda in what I post. But I have struggled with the materialist and existentialist philosophies for years---and I believe in objective truth (I just also believe that we have gone too far with rationalistic objectivism to the detriment of our whole being as individuals, and our culture as a whole). But I approach such things as academically as possible and will throw out anything and everything when the empirical truth points to something else.

For example, just try to teach my kid creationism or anything other than evolution in school, and I will come down on you harder than a pit bull on an intruders arm.

But I work hard to stay free of reductionism and dogma. If empirical results point to something different than what I think the implications will be, than I will accept that. I am a writer, and am working on things that deal with these very questions. If I find that something like the double slit experiment does not suggest what I say it does, then I want to know about that---because I don't want to publish something that is wrong. If I write something and critics come back and say---this is wrong because the empirical results are XYZ which is completely different from what I thought, I would rather not write it. If they come back and say, we think you are wrong because this, this, and this, but I can still say that the results of the experiment say ABC, and this suggests exactly what I said, which is to say they cannot have the final answer---than I will be happy I published it. And will gladly face any critic.

I was an analyst in the stockmarket. A stock I recommended could go down, something terrible could happen to it----but no one will ever be able to blame me for steering them wrong---because I always said it the way it was. I can back up every recommendation I made with the actual results, and financial, economic, and accounting realities of the firm. Any assumptions I made, I clearly stated that they were assumptions and the reasons why I made them----which were always backed up by factual data, and realistic expectations. I strive to follow the same integrity with my own writing.

 

Why?
Isn't that exhibiting the same closed minded, myopic view of reality that you would ascribe to those who believe in Creationism?

Why not allow your children to be exposed to ALL ideas.
Isn't that how you have come to arrive at the worldview you now possess?

 

touche'!

In my defense though, back when he was young enough that it could have been an issue---my original argument was that if they are going to teach something other than the standard scientific view, then they should also teach alternative views too---to be fair, such as the Lakota creation story...

My point however is that regardless of alternative views, I do not think the school is a place to teach religious values---because the teaching will tend to be restricted to a dominant belief. At home I have exposed my kids to many belief systems, and I leave it to them to choose their own path. If they want my opinion, I will share it, and they know that. But I also let them know that they have their own paths to choose.

 

:2thumbsup:

I agree with your feelings and approach, just playin' a little :devil:.

It is the underlying sentiment I wanted to bring light to.


*sorry Meagain, got off on a little tangent rant...may get me banned, oh well.*

 

So a question, at the macro level are we destroying photons in able to see or have a mental picture of the world?

 

Can our conscious, our thoughts, and intents and will, actually transmute these waveforms to match our thought waves? So something is actually being destroyed? Or is something being created ? Very good posts relaxxx , this is along the lines of how I think things operate.

 

Both.

 

I Think thought waves are mostly confined to electrical signals between our neurons. Even when they MRI brain activity, they're picking up bloodflow or other physical things. Our body doesn't give off visible light but certainly heat and different types of radiation.

Conservation of energy is another subject. It works on closed observable systems, the energy of the photon transfers into the electrons and such.... On a larger universe lifespan billion-trillion light year scale, I do not believe it is really relevant to any degree.

 

How can you describe Tulpa energy then, or thought forms? Our intentions definetly put out some sort of frequencies on an emotional level which our etheric bodies put out. Without out etheric bodies our physical body would only be aware of sensations and have no emotion to them. Our light bodies travel through all planes and dimensions and are independent of time .

 

Imaginary.

 

What of monads, mind body dualism (biological naturalism) or hylozoism?

 

Newtons theory of absolute time and space, you even mention conservation of energy which states kinetic energy can transmute into matter. Kinetic energy such as, say our magnetism or thermal heat can't be intended or willed upon?

Substance dualism is interesting:

When a person decides to walk across a room, it is generally understood that the decision to do so, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in that person's brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in his walking across the room. The problem is that if there is something totally nonphysical causing a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no physical event which causes the firing. This means that some physical energy is required to be generated against the physical laws of the deterministic universe — this is by definition a miracle and there can be no scientific explanation of (repeatable experiment performed regarding) where the physical energy for the firing came from.[66] Such interactions would violate the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, if some external source of energy is responsible for the interactions, then this would violate the law of the conservation of energy.[67] Dualistic interactionism has therefore been argued against in that it violates a general heuristic principle of science: the causal closure of the physical world.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[6] and Catholic Encyclopedia[68] give two possible replies to these objections. The first reply is that the mind may influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity, but such an influence still violates energy conservation. The second possibility is to deny that the human body is causally closed, as the conservation of energy applies only to closed systems. However, this contradicts a core axiom of science, the causal closure of the universe, and furthermore no evidence exists for the causal non-closure of the human body.[69]
Another reply is akin to parallelism — Mills holds that behavioral events are causally overdetermined, and can be explained by either physical or mental causes alone.[70] An overdetermined event is fully accounted for by multiple causes at once.[71] However, J. J. C. Smart and Paul Churchland have pointed out that if physical phenomena fully determine behavioral events, then by Occam's razor an unphysical mind is unnecessary.[72]
Another reply to this objection, given by Robinson, is that there is a possibility that the interaction may involve dark energy, dark matter or some other currently unknown scientific process.[15] However, such processes would necessarily be physical, and in this case dualism is replaced with physicalism, or the interaction point is left for study at a later time when these physical processes are understood.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dualism#Substance_dualism

 

Kant denies that either space or time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience. Spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are, and temporal measurements are used to quantitatively compare the interval between (or duration of) events. Although space and time are held to be transcendentally ideal in this sense, they are also empirically real—that is, not mere illusions.

 

Check out the book, Conscious Acts of Creation, The emergence of a new physics, by the researchers, William A. Tiller Ph.D, Walter E. Dibble Jr., Ph.D, and Michael J. Kohane, Ph.D.

They used a select group of people to place intention into a host device, which was simply an oscillator (they provide a schematic but say that it is based on ones that are commercially available so the experiments can be repeated.

They then do various experments to increase or decrease the pH of water; activate cellular enzymes and coenzymes; influence development time of fruit fly larval, random number generation and other experiments. (I think there might be one on the coagulation of blood but I could not find it.

This was so effective that they found the host device started influencing the control host device, and theyhad to keep the control host device in a faraday cage or a seperate location. The book details the experiments and details very intricately. They have empirically demonstrated that human consciousness through intention can influence the physical world.

 

Yes, I know, but we have to put these things in a context that all the others trapped in a Cartesian mode of thinking can understand

I'm joking---ok half joking----I do agree with you Meagain.

 

But also transcends the physical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(esotericism)

 

That's correct---did you see my posts 30, and 35, in this thread? They refer to a gedankenexperiment (mind trip, or thought experiment) I wrote about in the thread 'Is Thought Independent of Time' that Tastyweat started. That was post 107 in that thread, and I summed up a few things for Meagain in post 181 in that thread too.

I have had experiences that tell me that the physical world is a manifestation of consciousness in the 3-dimensions (or 4) of the pysical universe. I also think that who we are, even physically, is a manifestation of our own individual consciousness into the physical dimensions from a higher dimension.

I had trouble buying into the belief of spirit, and had to even embrace a level of atheism before I could actually find my own experiences that proved to me there is more to life than just the physical material existence.