Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote:According to the article referenced (see link), Meleager's opening argument was refuted 2 billion years ago by plants. Does it not sting when a plant bests you at a debate?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131356.htm

Perhaps you could explain why you think the article refutes anything in my opening post? As far as I can tell, it supports my position.

Meleagar wrote:

Felix wrote:According to the article referenced (see link), Meleager's opening argument was refuted 2 billion years ago by plants. Does it not sting when a plant bests you at a debate?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131356.htm

Perhaps you could explain why you think the article refutes anything in my opening post? As far as I can tell, it supports my position.

I agree with Meleagar, the article supports the general "mind influencing matter" argument, as has been now well verified experimentally by (Princeton University's Engineering Anomalous Rsearch - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/press_re ... osing.html), to wit:

"The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model."

... read more article "Psychic abilities and skeptics" (Belief Institute) http://www.is.gd/bP1ai

Meleager contended that quantum experiments (such as the one described in the link I posted) disprove materialism. They do not. They merely demonstrate that energy/matter functions or behaves differently at the micro/macro world levels. Both processes (mechanical and quantum mechanical) are necessary and co-exist, one does not displace or disprove the existence of the other.

Felix wrote:Meleager contended that quantum experiments (such as the one described in the link I posted) disprove materialism. They do not. They merely demonstrate that energy/matter functions or behaves differently at the micro/macro world levels. Both processes (mechanical and quantum mechanical) are necessary and co-exist, one does not displace or disprove the existence of the other.

I shan't speak for Meleagar (even if I could), but quantum theory is based on the 'and' conjunctive: wave AND particle, possible AND actual.

Thus, the deeper reality involves spiritual (mind) AND matter.

However, the 'and' conjunctive requires that one side is 'embedded' in the other, in that neither side has any meaning whatsoever independent of the other.

In other words, 'physical reality' is a meaningless concept when taken independently of its spiritual/mental cause, and ground.

Similarly, 'spiritual' is meaningless when considered independent of the resulting reality that is experienced (irrespective of dimension, physical or not) - e.g. ideas of some state of 'oneness' devoid of individuality is a nonsense idea, requiring weird, nonsense disconnects between present reality and experience and some other 'perfect' non-state.

That simple metaphor (of wave and particle, spiritual and physical) cuts through new-age, religious and scientific dogmas like a hot knife through butter ... easy as.

Quantum physics, as a metaphor lets the cat out of bag (box). Quantum physics thoroughly puts the cat amongst the pigeons. It's where the real action is at. That's why I don't bother with philosophers (unless they're physicists).

E.g. regarding the late physicist John Wheeler :

"we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself— and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe." [ http://www.discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse ]

Wonderful, profound concepts.

ps.I've written on this subject in greater detail at the Belief institute http://www.beliefinstitute.com/key-principles

Maybe I misunderstand the light experiment, but is it comparing something that is being observed to something that isn't? How is this possible?

Quantum mechanics is a form of science relies on principles of the limits of our own knowledge, why are people classifying it as proof of an undetermined past?


"I've seen far more eloquent, powerful, spiritual insights coming from physicists than philosophers. In my opinion, first are writers & poets, then physicists, spiritual teachers, and the occasional theologian (Bishop Spong comes to mind) ... then probably the wisdom of crowds, then maybe philosophers, theologians, scientists and last, and least wise, atheists."


I sense a similar trend, but surely it depends on the person, what do atheists generally do wrong?

Jester Gren wrote: Quantum mechanics is a form of science relies on principles of the limits of our own knowledge, why are people classifying it as proof of an undetermined past?

Delayed choice experiments, whether in the laboratory, or using galactic lenses all infer the same ... the past is chosen by the observer, now.

As to what atheists do wrong. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but of focus, inquiry, feeling and expression of deeper, subtle intuitions. Atheists in general do not seek to feel deeply (e.g. by empathising with that animal they're experimenting on), or the subtle precognitive (nonlocal) signals ... because they don't believe in such abilities, hence don't notice or capitalise on them. That's generally speaking. There are and will be exceptions, but as a general rule...

How does a delayed choice experiment work though? How does it observe and compare to what is not observed?

Im an atheist, and I believe in intuition, it isn't infallible, but most skills aren't. I will admit that I'm not as emotional as I would like to be, but I don't think that necessarily classifies me as wrong, only less observant in a certain sense.

Jester Gren wrote:How does a delayed choice experiment work though? How does it observe and compare to what is not observed?

Im an atheist, and I believe in intuition, it isn't infallible, but most skills aren't. I will admit that I'm not as emotional as I would like to be, but I don't think that necessarily classifies me as wrong, only less observant in a certain sense.

Jester, there's stacks of info on tne net regarding delayed choice experiments. Did you read the article on Wheeler? That explains a great deal.

Again, it is not that atheists are "wrong". And while you may believe in intuition, it (I assume) will be of the logical kind, that which is a subconscious rearrangement of memories etc.

I use 'intuition' in teh context of it being "nonlocal awareness" that connects you immediately, irrespective of distance, or substance (or time, hence precognitive awareness).

Most atheists that I've met (and when I was one myself) resolutely deny such abilities (for to do otherwise would be open a can of worms, spiritually speaking).

Felix wrote:Meleager contended that quantum experiments (such as the one described in the link I posted) disprove materialism. They do not. They merely demonstrate that energy/matter functions or behaves differently at the micro/macro world levels. Both processes (mechanical and quantum mechanical) are necessary and co-exist, one does not displace or disprove the existence of the other.

I never said your article did anything other than support my contention. Other quantum experiments have disproved materialism; what is the material of materialism? Quantum experiments have shown that quanta such as electrons and photons do not have a determined state until they are observed and measured; quantum fields of probability only appear as "material" when observed, and vary in characteristics depending on how they are observed.

One of the defining aspects of materialism is the view that the universe is comprised of discrete objects that have discrete characteristics and are located in a specific place at a specific time; without such objects, or particles, or even physical waves that objectively exist in specified locations and as specified things, materialism breaks down into disjoint rationalizations and apologetics.

If a photon is a material "thing", then how is it that, according to your linked article, this physical object can traverse many different paths at the same time? Are you going to tell me that under materialism it is acceptable that a discrete entity can be in many different places at the same time?

Quantum experiments have shown that quanta such as electrons and photons do not have a determined state until they are observed and measured; quantum fields of probability only appear as "material" when observed, and vary in characteristics depending on how they are observed.

Mel, just a clarifiation: nothing is "observed" in Quantum mechanics. There is no such alive observer which can see the electrons or any other particles. What is commonly called "observation" there would be only the interpreting of the records, made by some registering devices - and this is done only AFTER the experiment itself, so the major flaw of all these metaphysical fantasies is that their authors think the experiments are being directly "observed". These guys are just neanderthals from a scientific point of view, do not become like them!

Marabod wrote:

Quantum experiments have shown that quanta such as electrons and photons do not have a determined state until they are observed and measured; quantum fields of probability only appear as "material" when observed, and vary in characteristics depending on how they are observed.

Mel, just a clarifiation: nothing is "observed" in Quantum mechanics. There is no such alive observer which can see the electrons or any other particles. What is commonly called "observation" there would be only the interpreting of the records, made by some registering devices - and this is done only AFTER the experiment itself, so the major flaw of all these metaphysical fantasies is that their authors think the experiments are being directly "observed". These guys are just neanderthals from a scientific point of view, do not become like them!

Upon what basis do you assert that the observer is not nonlocally (precognitively) making the choice that later becomes 'observed' via the eyes, or registering device?

In other words, what evidence do you have that supports your theory that 'observers' are not nonlocally influencing the outcomes (as is indicated to be the case by PEAR laboratory research)?

Marabod wrote: These guys are just neanderthals from a scientific point of view, do not become like them!

I think that dismissing Nobel Prize winning quantum physicists as "neanderthals" might be something of a mistake when one is discussing quantum physics.

I have read it and it seems to follow the same rules as circuits, the reason why parallel work better than sequential.

There are parts of atoms that are also most easily defined as travelling backwards through time and I assume the point of this experiment was to prove this?

It is possible that the photon is travelling through both, only we are not able to explain it except through this.

The one thing that confuses me is that this apparently chooses the photon's path. You are not saying that simply because we only looked at one event the other didn't happen? I think I misunderstand the data, but
they just choose one telescope to observe with and assume the other doesn't exist.

The light energy has to go somewhere, and I think, like a circuit, it branches according to disturbances in the light's path.


As far as intuition, yes, but I fail to distinguish it in practical function from others and they do the same. The only thing is that they make an emotional attachment to it while I sit idly by.

Jester Gren wrote:I have read it and it seems to follow the same rules as circuits, the reason why parallel work better than sequential.

There are parts of atoms that are also most easily defined as travelling backwards through time and I assume the point of this experiment was to prove this?

It is possible that the photon is travelling through both, only we are not able to explain it except through this.

The one thing that confuses me is that this apparently chooses the photon's path. You are not saying that simply because we only looked at one event the other didn't happen? I think I misunderstand the data, but
they just choose one telescope to observe with and assume the other doesn't exist.

The light energy has to go somewhere, and I think, like a circuit, it branches according to disturbances in the light's path.


As far as intuition, yes, but I fail to distinguish it in practical function from others and they do the same. The only thing is that they make an emotional attachment to it while I sit idly by.

I think the physicists are quite sufficiently clear that a different past is 'chosen' not simply that one didn't get noticed.

The sum-over-histories approach by Feynman is that all paths are required to be simultaneously 'real' or travelled, to make one actual observation possible. Without those other histories, we wouldn't or couldn't be here.

As for the practical application of nonlocal awareness -- ah, you've not run your own business, I take it. Good entrepreneurs know, value and rely on 'gut-feelings' that defy logic, or present circumstances to make decisions that only waaaay later turn out to be fortuitous. You can't second guess that stuff, just ask Richard Branson (who values gut-feelings ahead of an army of analysts, spreadsheets, and all the logic in the world).

Other practical examples are avoiding problems, or accidents that would otherwise occur (e.g. intuitively choosing a different route to some destination that you would normally take, to find out later that there were long delays on that route, or serious accident etc.).

The list goes on ... and on (e.g. intuitively regaining health, contrary to medical belief regarding the possibility of doing so).

But even what happens can be evaluated by logic. I think intuition is one of the most useful skills, I have not had much experience though. I think they are trying to make a real fourth dimension out of these observations, the field physics is obviously searching for some definition of it.

If particles do travel backward in time it might help explain how people make inductive as well as deductive decisions, deja vu, and other mental phenomena.