Sophie
What I find strange on this thread, especially coming from people who call themselves scientists, is the idea that all physicists agree with each other on all these weighty (or should I say weightless?!) matters. There are lots of areas that remain in dispute.
For instance, this statement by the Crowned One: "While it is possible to convert matter to energy, and vice a versa, there is no confusion about what is matter and what is energy."
Well, not quite. Some serious folk backed by serious research wrote a paper in 1994, published in the Physical Review, in which matter and energy were implied to be one and same thing. They showed that inertia - what Newton said was the central propert of matter - was simply a friction force in the zero point field. (Haisch, Rueda, Puthof, "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force", Physical Review A, 1994). Later they wrote explicitly that matter and energy were one - or rather, that there is no matter, only charge (in an article called "Beyond E=mc2").
Some other serious folk have made all sorts of long-term, double-bind experiments involving the zero-point-field, human and non-human intention, the observer effect (which is not only human - experiments were done with rabbits, ducks, as well as robots). Some of these scientists have suggested - again, backed by their research - that the zero-point-field is a giant storage and retrieval system, as well as the conductor of our thoughts, our consciousness, our unconscious desires, etc. (again, not only for humans).
I find it very odd, therefore, to read the categorical way in which some posters have flicked away any kind of scientifically-based discussion of energy or intention - things that might link them to tarot and explain how tarot might work - when some solid experiments have been conducted into those very matters in the past 40 years. They have been considered serious enough for the CIA and NASA to invest a large amount of money into some of them, and for Princeton University to run a program on some aspect of them (intention) for the past 30+ years. Several of these scientists have written - again, based on their research - that far from being random, the universe and everything in it, was a great sea of energy tending towards coherence. This has led some of them to say that there is an intelligence at work in the universe.
I am not a scientist, though I have a decent enough education in science, and a life-long interest. I am not able to test these theories and experiments myself, but I am able to point out where there are discrepancies between scientists, and where there seems to be a certain amount of conservative inertia at work, in the face of new ideas and experiments by some scientists - or indeed, questions by non-scientists. I'd love it if the discussion were less polarized, because what we are discussing here is fascinating, and also, isn't nearly as simply divided between "those who know" and "those who don't know" as some would have it.
For instance, this statement by the Crowned One: "While it is possible to convert matter to energy, and vice a versa, there is no confusion about what is matter and what is energy."
Well, not quite. Some serious folk backed by serious research wrote a paper in 1994, published in the Physical Review, in which matter and energy were implied to be one and same thing. They showed that inertia - what Newton said was the central propert of matter - was simply a friction force in the zero point field. (Haisch, Rueda, Puthof, "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force", Physical Review A, 1994). Later they wrote explicitly that matter and energy were one - or rather, that there is no matter, only charge (in an article called "Beyond E=mc2").
Some other serious folk have made all sorts of long-term, double-bind experiments involving the zero-point-field, human and non-human intention, the observer effect (which is not only human - experiments were done with rabbits, ducks, as well as robots). Some of these scientists have suggested - again, backed by their research - that the zero-point-field is a giant storage and retrieval system, as well as the conductor of our thoughts, our consciousness, our unconscious desires, etc. (again, not only for humans).
I find it very odd, therefore, to read the categorical way in which some posters have flicked away any kind of scientifically-based discussion of energy or intention - things that might link them to tarot and explain how tarot might work - when some solid experiments have been conducted into those very matters in the past 40 years. They have been considered serious enough for the CIA and NASA to invest a large amount of money into some of them, and for Princeton University to run a program on some aspect of them (intention) for the past 30+ years. Several of these scientists have written - again, based on their research - that far from being random, the universe and everything in it, was a great sea of energy tending towards coherence. This has led some of them to say that there is an intelligence at work in the universe.
I am not a scientist, though I have a decent enough education in science, and a life-long interest. I am not able to test these theories and experiments myself, but I am able to point out where there are discrepancies between scientists, and where there seems to be a certain amount of conservative inertia at work, in the face of new ideas and experiments by some scientists - or indeed, questions by non-scientists. I'd love it if the discussion were less polarized, because what we are discussing here is fascinating, and also, isn't nearly as simply divided between "those who know" and "those who don't know" as some would have it.
. But I wish you - and other scientists - felt able to explore and discuss these matters on a tarot forum without getting frustrated - even if it does mean reminding non-scientists like myself that theory and hypothesis do not constitute fact, and that we need to approach the idea that what happens in tarot might in any way be linked to quantum physics - or any other kind of physics - with prudence and a healthy dose of scepticism. 