Quantum Theory and Tarot Inquiry...

[Manjusri]

hmm

Let me post my view point on this matter...

1.
I don't think it really matters when we climb to atom, molecular scale.
I think atom or molecule can be described through newton mechanics(of course, approximated)
and it won't change the situation much.

2.
Let's assume that the Universe's destiny depends on a tiny electron.
Can we alter that?
even if the electron is ruled by wave funtions and probablity densities,
it's still out of our grasp.
It's purely mathematical principles, just like newtonian mechanics.
I think quantum mechanic is rather in favor of Predestination, or at least its "atmosphere".
At least, It certainly won't encourage free will viewpoint.


And to those who are interested in Quantum Mechanics,
I sincerly advise you to buy a descent Physics or Chemistry Textbook, and
read related chapters.
(Yea, That may amount to whole textbook,
but is it not that the world held its own mystery, and studying occulted wisdom may help your spiritual study)

 

[Umbrae]

Can you quote a source for this claim? I mean a reputable scientific authority, not just another website.

BTW quantum theory has to do with sub-atomic particles. Molecules are actually bunches of atoms stuck together.

Yes - you are correct. Sub-atomic rather than moleculer.

Source? Reputable scientific authority? you might try any of the books I listed. You may try hunting down the works of William A Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf (for kinda fringe stuff), David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" and "Time and Chance" is good for a hoot, ANYTHING by Richard Feynman - and no I won't provide much more than that (and no websites), some things have to be discovered on yer own.

 

[Manjusri]

hmm

Yes - you are correct. Sub-atomic rather than moleculer.

Source? Reputable scientific authority? you might try any of the books I listed. You may try hunting down the works of William A Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf (for kinda fringe stuff), David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" and "Time and Chance" is good for a hoot, ANYTHING by Richard Feynman - and no I won't provide much more than that (and no websites), some things have to be discovered on yer own.

He probably wanted references for this one :
"""time and space do not exist on a molecular level."""
It is rather... Revolutionary.
Do the books you cited contain authentic theories regarding this?

Moreover, I doubt authors such as William A Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf, David Albert can be considered as "scientific authority"... at least they are not as authentic as Richard Feynman.

Come to think of it, we may examine the idea haphazardly, right now.
Wave function, which is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, deals with
coordinates, that is to say, with space. When one denies space, one would have to invent other ways to describe phenomena.
Also, as our world is built on molecules, the individual would have to explain how timeless molecules can act in accordance with time in Macro world...

 

[Umbrae]

He probably wanted references for this one :
"""time and space do not exist on a molecular level."""
It is rather... Revolutionary.
Do the books you cited contain authentic theories regarding this?

Moreover, I doubt authors such as William A Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf, David Albert can be considered as "scientific authority"... at least they are not as authentic as Richard Feynman.

Well you have to give folks a place to begin...beginnings are important.

and yes, I should have said something more like "time and space do not exist on a sub atomic level" which is actually more correct, but you know what? I don't really give a rat's patootie! In the words of Dr Kanard (Physicist), "It depends"

Source? How about Albert Einstein...

Now Feynman...that's a good place to start too. Feynman who said, "We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"

 

[fferyllt]

Since we live in the Quantum (and are aware of the Newtonian) world, once we learn to create quantum changes with Newtonian results…well now ain’t that what alchemy is all about? And once we learn that we can choose not to be mere observers…

No. We live in the Newtonian world. We are macroscopic beings living in the macroscopic world. Our neurons are macroscopic objects. Quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics at large length scales.

I don't know a LOT about quantum theory, only what I have read and thought of on my own... but it does seem to support the idea that destiny (or the fabric of our lives) are NOT set in stone... that there are many levels of interrelated, interconnected levels of reality, dimensions even, that are connected down to the level of the tiniest particles.

You are conflating quantum theory with string theory. Quantum theory is well supported by experiment. There is no experimental evidence to support the validity of string theory, it's just a bunch of math right now.

These particles are not bits of matter, they are pure energy posing as bits of matter, and they are influenced by whether you are observing them.

"Observing" means something very specific in quantum theory, and it's not what you think it means.

BTW quantum theory has to do with sub-atomic particles. Molecules are actually bunches of atoms stuck together.

Quantum theory has to do with atoms, molecules, photons, phonons, etc. Sub-atomic particles are the realm of quantum chromodynamics. And be clear, the point of these theories is to describe the motions and interactions of particles on these scales.

Folks, be careful. It's clear some of you don't understand these theories. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics (or any other kind of science for that matter) in terms of a metaphor, you have passed beyond science and beyond the purpose of the theory, which is simply to describe the motion and interactions of quantum particles such as atoms and photons.

Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein could philosophize about physics because they understood the theories. Be careful about jumping on their philosophizing in the absence of understanding the physics it refers to.

There is more out there than basic physics. Why do some people want to leap on quantum mechanics as some magical explanation for metaphysical ideas? What about the collective unconscious?

 

[Manjusri]

a

\, but you know what? I don't really give a rat's patootie! In the words of Dr Kanard (Physicist), "It depends"
Source? How about Albert Einstein...
Now Feynman...that's a good place to start too. Feynman who said, "We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"

It depends.
But scientific theory depends on actual phenomena, and being reviewed by peers.
(in addition, surely it does not depend on authorities.
A theory should stand on its own feet - What Einstein said, or what some physicists said, is not of importance, unless it is relevant.)

And, as I edited a little late,
I copy this once again.
------------
Come to think of it, we may examine the idea haphazardly, right now.
Wave function, which is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, deals with
coordinates, that is to say, with space. When one denies space, one would have to invent other ways to describe phenomena.
Also, as our world is built on molecules, the individual would have to explain how timeless molecules can act in accordance with time in Macro world...
--------------------------

 

[Master_Margarita]

There is more out there than basic physics. Why does everyone want to leap on quantum mechanics as some magical explanation for metaphysical ideas? What about the collective unconscious?

This is an excellent question, although I think "everyone" is an overstatement.

M_M~

 

[Umbrae]

I don’t pretend to be an expert on physics, I may have read a bunch, but I’m not a physicist.

That said…when I stated ‘Since we live in the Quantum (and are aware of the Newtonian) world ‘

No. We live in the Newtonian world. We are macroscopic beings living in the macroscopic world. Our neurons are macroscopic objects. Quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics at large length scales.

Well now since the world as we know it (which responds to Newtonian laws) is made up of sub atomic particles (which respond to different laws (Quantum laws)) how can we be in two places at once when we’re really no where at all? (LOL). So we’re constructed of particles, which are constructed of sub-atomic particles – and our awareness (consciousness) is only able to grasp the big stuff, this means the sub-atomic particles matter not? WHAT??? I live in a world that encompasses both Newtonian and Quantum laws. It’s my neighborhood, but it might be dangerous – don’t come here alone at night.

"Observing" means something very specific in quantum theory, and it's not what you think it means.

Uh – how do you know, what another person thinks (it means)?

Folks, be careful. It's clear most of you don't understand these theories. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics (or any other kind of science for that matter) in terms of a metaphor, you have passed beyond science and beyond the purpose of the theory, which is simply to describe the motion and interactions of quantum particles such as atoms and photons.

There is more out there than basic physics. Why does everyone want to leap on quantum mechanics as some magical explanation for metaphysical ideas? What about the collective unconscious?

I don’t think anybody said it did – I think what’s being said it that it could…which lands us in the realm of probabilities and possibilities. (nudge nudge wink wink)

What about consciousness? What about Reality? They’ve not even begun to work on what that/they are.

We're playin' here...

Listen – the field of Quantum Physics ain’t nothin’ new. It’s not Weird Science. It’s actually kind of old. Dating back to the early twentieth century.

And it’s not rocket science (roflmao).

It does however lend itself well to rhetorical arguments and linguistic gymnastics. A first year physics student with a grasp of rhetorical language can prove anybody wrong in this field. And be completely wrong themselves.

Me?

Schödinger asked me to look after his cat…I seem to have left it in Copenhagen. Anybody seen my trousers?

 

[fferyllt]

This is an excellent question, although I think "everyone" is an overstatement.

M_M~

Fair enough.

 

[memries]

phibelus

You say that prayer does not influence the working of the Universe.

Prayer is Action whether you know it or not. Prayer is thought form. Tell me that thoughts are not manifested into our reality ? Many times they are and sometimes they do not show but they go out from us and become action and are manifested.