Quantum Theory and Tarot Inquiry...

[Dave.vdv]

Thank you for the interesting reads.

A bit how i seen it.
I can grasp the partical/wave behaviour at the moment or momentum of observation it is seen as a partical, but it has wave behaviour as test shows.
I still can virtualy imagene that.

Then when the measurement occurs, in both occations with or without the measurement device before the reciever plate.
You could say both times with or without device there is an intent of measuring how the particals will react.
But if you put in a device before the plate to see where the particals go it actualy changes the behaviour of the particals, i thought mmm, this device could physicly change things there.
Until i read this

Even less in line with the expectations of human scale interactions with nature, if the information about which slit a given particle came through is "erased" before a photon has time to interact with the detector screen, interference will be restored.

Then i was like oh my freaki.. ..d .
That's quiet amazing, so do i have to throw away all expectations now to grasp this, i dunno.

Both times there is intent, but only when something is there that has a way of being aware of the travelling particals and brings the information to a "conscious" observer it changes.
Intent, physical interaction and conscious.
Oh btw, it's behaviour changes not the partical itself as far as i can tell.

Still there is at the moment no way of nowing what excatcly is happening only the result of it.

 

[Sophie]

Umbrae, I'm enjoying this

Frelkins - I can well believe the Double Slit must have been impressive to see!

We're lucky on this forum to have several members with backgrounds in physics and mathematics.

I'd like to hear more from them and am sorry they've been put on the defensive for showing their knowledge..

Well, the trouble is that some scientists - not only on this forum! - believe that science only belongs to them; and that science and spirituality have nothing in common. They erect barriers in their own minds, and between them and the rest of the world, which pushes laypeople away from science even more.

Some of these came onto this thread and started pooh-poohing the opening question for even being asked. Then, when asked questions about theories and experiments that appeared to contradict what they were saying, there was no reply, or only cursory replies. It's no point having a background in physics and mathematics if you are going to deny laypeople the right to question you, and if all you answer is - "you're wrong I'm right", and when challenged on that attitude, given references and asked what you think of those, you don't answer.

Fortunately, others with that background have chosen to continue to participate in this thread in the spirit of open exploration in which it was intended - and I'm delighted with that, because their knowledge and friendly scepticism is invaluable. Science is all about asking questions, after all.

To me, a science that has no spiritual application and only belongs to a few boffins in a white coat has no place in an open society. I've been very fortunate in my life that I've met a number of scientists who are not at all like that - who have created bridges with laypeople, and are open to a bridge between science and spirituality too, even when they retain their sceptical approach. These are people who can be very useful on such a thread.

BTW - thanks for the Wiki link on consciousness, very interesting. I'm surprised they didn't mention Penrose and Hameroff, the mathematician and anesthetist, who together and separately worked on the link between physics and consciousness. (Penrose is mentioned in the references at the bottom, that's all). A good thing with Wiki is that it includes references we can follow up. I remember reading about Russell Targ in relation to his research in remote viewing for the CIA - he either headed or directed much of that programme.

 

[frelkins]

Well we have to see how Umbrae develops his argument. If he is going to argue consciousness, as I suspect, he knows the objections to overcome and we will al watch with interest to see how he synthesizes a respsonse. If on the other hand he goes for the parallel universes argument, which I think is much more scientifically acceptable, then he also has known problems to answer. So we will see which way Umbrae goes.

 

[Umbrae]

Most theologians get excited with Genesis 1:3, ‘and God said, "Let there be light"’, to me, the interesting stuff has already occurred.

I once heard a story (from a friend about his friend) about a guy who went to Israel to study do theological studies. They say down, a rabbi came out and said, “In the beginning, let’s talk about the word ‘In’” and they did. For two weeks.

Let’s review:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light"

Plagiarized from The Bible​

So we don’t begin with ‘At the beginning (of the beginning)’, or ‘at the end of the beginning’ or even ‘in the middle of the beginning’; it states that there is an indeterminate point in a time period before where we are now, which implies a linear time-flow.

In Hebrew, that’s ‘Bereshit Elohim’, or beth (preposition beth) resh – aleph – shin, or “Within + (front of head, the area of reason, common sense, quality, leadership) + (Force of creation, pressure/force, breath the idea of 'yoke' includes the idea of 'to be with' and 'covenant'. By 'yoke' is meant union of two parties, perhaps of a young ox and older in training) + (Tooth, claw, horn, and hoof, a person, the head, the highest, warn or guard (like a sheep-dog) monster teeth, Divine peace, power and mastery)” + Elohim

We all know that Elohim is a collective dual gendered label.

So at some specific yet indeterminate point of time, before this time which specifically implies a linear one-dimensional time-stream superior male/female collective created (past tense) the heavens and the earth.

Heavens and earth implies two places.

Now the earth was formless and empty.

So we have two places which may or may not be similar, we have implied differences, they could both be gas clouds – but they are different gas clouds.

Darkness was over the surface.

WHOA…take a look here. Darkness implies light (which we’ve not created), and surface implies something deeper and with darkness over we now have an above.

And the spirit of Elohim hovered over the waters. Now we’ve added spirit/non-spirit.

Later we learn that this Elohim could not be Ain Soph because it’s a jealous God, and ego indicates the ability to be separate from the allnesst that is Ain Soph.

We’ve in two sentences established a linear one-dimensional time stream, the concept of light/dark, three dimensional space, perhaps even matter and energy (heavens and the earth), spirit non-spirit, in short – in two sentences we have the recipe for how mankind views the world.

Only after we have the recipe for how we’re gonna be examining this aspect that we call ‘our universe’ does God flick the switch, and let there be light.

The opening two sentences are brilliant! And so often ignored.

We also learn that in those two sentences the formation of Keter and Heh. Chokmah doesn’t happen till the switch gets flicked.

The limitations of our perception dictate that how we see the world, and how physicists tell us the world is, are not at the surface rectifiable.

Now…where was I going?

I guess it really doesn’t matter now. Others want to tell me what my intentions are, what direction I’m taking my discussion. Well paint a target on me and let me loose.

Some of these came onto this thread and started pooh-poohing the opening question for even being asked. Then, when asked questions about theories and experiments that appeared to contradict what they were saying, there was no reply, or only cursory replies. It's no point having a background in physics and mathematics if you are going to deny laypeople the right to question you, and if all you answer is - "you're wrong I'm right", and when challenged on that attitude, given references and asked what you think of those, you don't answer.

Yeah – well I’m a tad tired of it all. I doesn’t matter anymore what’s said – the reaction is the same. I’m tired of defending myself and my intentions. I’m tired of watching others metadiscuss with ostensible approval and not being able to defend against such. I’m tired of “You’re wrong” being allowed as a constructive discussion.

Have a good time.

 

[memries]

Oh come on !!! How about all of us peasants who are sitting out here with bated breath waiting to read something that we can understand and is at the forefront of new thinking. You know and I know it is real. Others do not.
Please ? Just ignore them. I am so disappointed. I cannot plow through all those big books for one thing my eyesight won't let me and secondly my education is not in that field at all.

Why oh why must people ruin the good intentions of others.

 

[Umbrae]

Do you know how it feels, to have someone who later posts they don’t understand entanglement – to argue entanglement with you? To have them post “Wrong!” And the behavior is approved? Do you know how it feels to have posts attacked repeatedly? To have new folks jump in and go for the throat just because they can? It’s allowed?

I’m really tired. I’m tired of having my intent questioned. I’m tired of having my worth questioned. I’m tired of the duplicity of those who stand by and allow it.

A question was asked. I was trying to explain what a great question it was, tried to explain the depth behind it.

 

[Briar Rose]

Check out the movies, "What The Bleep to We Know?" and "The Secret."

 

[Debra]

Umbrae has put his finger on it!
Right to the point!

It's the difference between a personal blog (a one-man show with appreciative audience) and a forum (a salon where people talk back and forth so we can really learn).

Some folks here have wonderful blogs, but I come here because I like the discussion aspects of a forum. I expect this and other threads will continue to not just allow but ENCOURAGE respectful back-and-forth!

Anyway, speaking of string theory, here's an image that was posted some time ago on one of the other threads--I don't know if the source was ever fully described, can look for it if anyone wants--but I like it because we can really see the stuff on the table, not to mention the Montebank aspects being so clear!

 

[le pendu]

Check out the movies, "What The Bleep to We Know?" and "The Secret."

I really recommend "Mindwalk".

 

[memries]

Yes, I do know what it is like. In my personal life there is no one who is interested in any new subject. I have been attacked on here as well and I figure I am pretty innocuous, always polite. If they ask for your opinion and your give it you are wrong as well ! However, there are many nice people on here too who wish to learn and know new things. I am one of them although not as nice as some on here.