Philosophy Discussion Forums

How does one become convinced of such a thoery?
It is one thing to stumble upon a paradox in science but another to assert your theories on such inconclusive findings.
It is as logical to say that the current framework of physics is flawed in a way yet to be discovered as it would be to postulate non-local existence.
Why choose one probability over another?

I cannot say wether you are right or wrong, and truly, neither can you. You have taken an incongruity in physics and built a business around it, you used the uncertainty of local existence to offer people an avenue for change.

I now see why you included 'entrpreneur' in the list of 'jobs' having the 'greatest spiritual insight', and why you put writers at the top.
Business and the pursuit of money has led to the degradation of the spirit, and is in no way linked to 'spiritual insight'.

That's a good enough rant for tonight.

reflected_light wrote:How does one become convinced of such a thoery?

The same way one becomes convinced of the value of any such theory: successful application. There is no reason to adopt any theory whatsoever, IMO, unless it provides or at least seems to provide a practical benefit in one's life.

hi, just passing by ...

This one probably went under the radar for most of everyone on the planet.

Experimental evidence: plants use quantum parallel-processing for beneficial growth.

"quantum mechanical probability laws can prevail over the classical laws of kinetics in this complex biological system, even at normal temperatures. The energy can thereby flow efficiently by -- counter intuitively -- traversing several alternative paths through the antenna proteins simultaneously."

(It might be best to reread the above paragraph a few times to appreciate some of the implications for understanding life and creative, intuitive processes (quantum nonlocal))

Read more at http://www.procreative.com.au/article/i ... anics.html or original article at Science Daily.

Cheers,
Steaphen

Doc, I doubt they can talk of the "energy" you are trying to see in this article! Of course the green plants must use quantum mechanisms over the normal kinetics of chemical reactions. To start with, they convert a quanta of solar radiation into chemical energy, needed to synthesise glucose from Carbon Dioxide and water - and this is not a chemical process,but a quantum physical one.

The Belief Doctor, the article in ScienceDaily comes with this reference so I suppose it must be a respectable article. I had to look it up as I am not familiar with the status of ScienceDaily as a scholarly source. I wish I could understand the implications of intuitive kinetic process and QM process in proper detail, but I have only a vague idea of what each of these terms means. Could you or Marabod possibly explain in primary school terms for me or other similar ignoramuses?

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA University of Toronto (2010, February 4). Quantum mechanics at work in photosynthesis: Algae familiar with these processes for nearly two billion years. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/02/100203131356.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead

The Belief Doctor wrote:hi, just passing by ...

This one probably went under the radar for most of everyone on the planet.

Experimental evidence: plants use quantum parallel-processing for beneficial growth.

"quantum mechanical probability laws can prevail over the classical laws of kinetics in this complex biological system, even at normal temperatures. The energy can thereby flow efficiently by -- counter intuitively -- traversing several alternative paths through the antenna proteins simultaneously."

(It might be best to reread the above paragraph a few times to appreciate some of the implications for understanding life and creative, intuitive processes (quantum nonlocal))

Read more at http://www.procreative.com.au/article/i ... anics.html or original article at Science Daily.

Cheers,
Steaphen

Besides Gödel, Turing, Heisenberg and Chaitin, we can now add Vladan Panković ( www.is.gd/c1h67 ), who demonstrated the Quantum Hamlet Effect ( www.is.gd/c1h8U -> www.arxiv.org ).

"final "no-decay" probability has not (analytical) limit, or that there is no analytical}prediction on the final "no-decay" probability. To be "decayed" or "no-decayed" that is analytically unsolvable question for given quantum system."

All of which points to deep reality being, and remaining 'immathematical' - beyond any knowable order, or analytical abilities.

More at
procreative.com.au/article/id37/seven-wonders-quantum-world-newscientist.ht ml ( www.is.gd/c1iaK )

Belinda wrote:Could you or Marabod possibly explain in primary school terms for me

As is more fully explained in my first book "Be and Become" Quantum Theory is easy to get ... think of a football stadium, with huge crowd. A Mexican Wave goes around. The wave is not "real" in any sense, it's only people raising their hands (energy). Pan in to one person only, see seemingly erratic behaviour of that individual particle/person. Pan out, observe a wave, but no identifiable particles or people.

Same for quantum behaviour. Individual (shadow photons), many together, produce waves, which aren't 'real'.

Every person (particle) 'knows' when to raise (their energy/hands), but some choose not too (hence the Uncertainty Principle). Also, all particles "see" around the stadium, at-once (nonlocally), thus enabling them to participate in a systematic fashion.

In being two-dimensional this metaphor has limitations, but it is a good start.

Caio
Steaphen

The Belief Doctor, thanks for the illustration which is so easy to picture and to apply to how the individual very small 'particle' changes in its effects when it is part of a large event. Is my description here a fair enough way to describe 'QM process'? But I still don't understand what 'intuitive kinetic process' means although I understand each separate word of the term.
(TBD you may not want to teach in which case I will not persist in asking for information).

Also, all particles "see" around the stadium, at-once (nonlocally), thus enabling them to participate in a systematic fashion.

This bit fills in a gap for me. Is the EPR theory, or some update of it,received by the physics establishment now?

Belinda, in school terms this would be "when some person has no clue what this person talks about, then the god surely exists". I do not even try to understand all this rubbish of this Quantum Metaphysics, I have more interesting things on my plate. It is way too many of Schroedinger's cats breeders now to follow all what they discover. One thing I can state with confidence - it is that in Quantum Physics there is no experiments which are observed directly by a human observer, what they call "observation" is only the post-factum analysis of the collected data. If some result falls out of the used mathematical model, then the cat lovers come and proclaim materialism destroyed.

Belinda wrote:The Belief Doctor, thanks for the illustration which is so easy to picture and to apply to how the individual very small 'particle' changes in its effects when it is part of a large event. Is my description here a fair enough way to describe 'QM process'? But I still don't understand what 'intuitive kinetic process' means although I understand each separate word of the term.
(TBD you may not want to teach in which case I will not persist in asking for information).

Also, all particles "see" around the stadium, at-once (nonlocally), thus enabling them to participate in a systematic fashion.

This bit fills in a gap for me. Is the EPR theory, or some update of it,received by the physics establishment now?

Hi Belinda
The double-slit experiment makes a good deal of sense with the Mexican Wave metaphor (to which one could quite successfully apply mathematical models, like insurance companies, and to the likelihood that the particle will 'decay' (hold up hands) and so forth).

I should also add that this page here ( www.is.gd/c2ByB )pretty much ties it all together.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the naysayers regarding this - I didn't, and don't as a general rule -> www.is.gd/c2BKQ.

Anyway, have fun with the metaphor, see where it fits, and where it doesn't (and let me know, I'd be curious where the individual particle-within-collective-wave model fails .

Steaphen

The Belief Doctor, I read our page that begins with Zeno's paradoxes.
You say that these are paradoxical because they compare our quantification systems with the actual continuum of existence---this is the standard explanation which satisfies many people, and until I read your page satisfied me.

You go on to say :but the apparent-to us continuum of existence is not actual. What is actual is discrete jumps, or flickers on and off, of the quantum stuff which is nonlocal.

I write this, TBD, to check whether or not I have read you correctly. The second stage of the reasoning is new to me.

Belinda wrote:The Belief Doctor, I read our page that begins with Zeno's paradoxes.
You say that these are paradoxical because they compare our quantification systems with the actual continuum of existence---this is the standard explanation which satisfies many people, and until I read your page satisfied me.

You go on to say :but the apparent-to us continuum of existence is not actual. What is actual is discrete jumps, or flickers on and off, of the quantum stuff which is nonlocal.

I write this, TBD, to check whether or not I have read you correctly. The second stage of the reasoning is new to me.

Well, what the article does is to take the facts, and suggest a theory to explain them.

Correct, physical space-time is discrete. It flickers on and off. I've not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise, but only a mountain of stuff supporting that it does.

Besides, there's some simple thought experiments that you can perform that pretty much kiboshes the idea of a space-time continuum that is perfectly continuous. See http://www.beliefinstitute.com/article/ ... experiment.

Double besides, you start understanding what all those leading physicists were and are banging on a bout ... (e.g. Richard Feynman: "that space is continuous is, I believe, wrong. Because we get these infinities and other difficulties ...I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry extended down into infinitely small space is wrong." more here at http://www.beliefinstitute.com/blog/bel ... rn-science )

The immense benefit of adopting such a world-view is that it fits the world we experience, including all those ornery quantum facts and observations.

And it encompasses religion, science, new-age, plus anything you can poke a stick at.

And the deeper nonlocal causes and explanation for emergent phenomena, and the differences between the sexes, and the behaviour of bosons and fermions (e.g. see http://www.beliefinstitute.com/blog/ste ... hysics-sex

and ...

and ...

have fun.

Cheers,
Steaphen

btw, the particles in the stadium are (to observers) 'shaddow particles' and aren't "real" until a giant (one of us) sticks their big fat giant hand into the crowd, disrupting all that hand waving, and (usually) catching the one with his/her pants down (hands up).

But when we take our big fat hands (eyes, measuring equipment) out of the stadium "everyone" gets back to Mexican hand waving and having s jolly good time.

Well, actually, in this metaphor, "everyone" except the giant observer carries on with the waving, it's just the giant is a bit slow to catch all that side-ways fun and games.

btw, Superpositions is just everyone in the crowd and the ground on which they sit is deep reality that is continuous, unconscious, nonphysical, nonlocal, everywhere-at-once.

Thus the basic metaphor (The Theory of One and All -> www.beliefinstitute.com/toa/be-and-become) is individual, discrete particles/people within collective-continuous-crowd, which on deeper levels is yet another discrete (gestalt) within yet a deeper "crowd".

Well, actually, in this metaphor, "everyone" except the giant observer carries on with the waving, it's just the giant is a bit slow to catch all that side-ways fun and games.

I hope you use "giant" as an allegory. But on the other hand the fact remains, that the laws of the microscopic world took really giant minds to develop them, not vice versa...

Marabod wrote:

Well, actually, in this metaphor, "everyone" except the giant observer carries on with the waving, it's just the giant is a bit slow to catch all that side-ways fun and games.

I hope you use "giant" as an allegory. But on the other hand the fact remains, that the laws of the microscopic world took really giant minds to develop them, not vice versa...

agree that it took giant minds to discover them, and minds large and small, individual and community, one and all to create them.

Do you not see the irony?

Belinda,

Obviously the above stadium example is for one electron, or similar. Plus it's helpful to remember the analogy has deficiencies in many respects (e.g. forwards, backwards and sideways movement in time is not adequately accommodated). But I've found it useful.

The Belief Doctor wrote:

Marabod wrote: I hope you use "giant" as an allegory. But on the other hand the fact remains, that the laws of the microscopic world took really giant minds to develop them, not vice versa...

agree that it took giant minds to discover them, and minds large and small, individual and community, one and all to create them.

Do you not see the irony?

Belinda,

Obviously the above stadium example is for one electron, or similar. Plus it's helpful to remember the analogy has deficiencies in many respects (e.g. forwards, backwards and sideways movement in time is not adequately accommodated). But I've found it useful.

If you are trying to assign to the "community" the credit for making the giant minds, then it would be not in excess to admit also its absolute inefficiency in this, as it appears like the main production of it would be exactly those microscopic minds, while the giant ones present rather a form of factory rejects.

Marabod wrote:
If you are trying to assign to the "community" the credit for making the giant minds, then it would be not in excess to admit also its absolute inefficiency in this, as it appears like the main production of it would be exactly those microscopic minds, while the giant ones present rather a form of factory rejects.

It takes a village (replete with idiots) to raise a child (including the greats).

Not to mention Newton's acknowledgement of having stood on shoulders of others.

We're all in this together ... and by the way, who picks up your garbage, provides you electricity, water, gas, medical services etc?

Societies work because of those 'microscopic minds', not despite them, but because of them.

This article http://www.beliefinstitute.com/blog/bel ... us-account calls "giants" and all of us to account.