Session 4 April 2015

[Christian]

Hi all,
Thank you, I'm glad that people like the drawing, but I'm worried to share bad information, we will have just forget it, if it is wrong
about concept. Every movement of the dance represents a quantum state, maybe there is an infinity state of the same particles,
It depends "observers" (C's transcript).The regularity in chaos, it's the work of mathematicians.
In private notes, it seems like Niels Bohr had resorted to pedagogy "Whirling Dervish" to convince his friends
about atom 's model. I suspect "connect the dot" between science and the Work here.
"h" is the constant's Planck, which becomes the natural unit of momentum for all the materiality.
Best regards,

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

Well, to be honest, I wasn't referring to you, 13 T T, but some of the really wild / disconnected / meaningless speculations and wiseacre exercises we've seen recently on the forum, where not only does the poster obviously not know what s/he's talking about, no matter what angle you try to look at what they're getting at, but they state things in ways where it's as if all their musings are incontravertible facts. Also when pointed out that their posts are totally missing the mark of what the general interpretations of forum members are on things discussed, while keeping our minds open to new data, they keep going on and on in the same vein. It's like being told by the conductor, as you said, to play what's on the sheet music, and they say "OK, I will" and keep playing a completely different score (that's also full of cacophony).

As far as quantum theory, I'm not sure anybody really understands it, in the sense that there are different interpretations of what it all really means. Lots of math is also used to describe things, like all physics, where only those fluent in it can follow the formulas. I've learned a little bit of advanced maths decades ago, and can't remember most of it. The only thing I remember well is just basic algebra, because I've used it to figure things out in a few different fields, so didn't forget it like the rest.

In layman's terms, I think putting quantum theory in a nutshell is that the "solid" physical world we perceive with our senses is not how things work in reality. My best guest is that what is observed on the subatomic, quantum level is the interaction or interface, if you will, of the information fields and the physical world. Like your actually seeing the way information MAKES the physical world manifest. All sorts of possibilities coexist until observation / measurement of the system is made. So, like a prudent person, Nature seems to like to keep all her options open as long as possible. :)

Hi SeekinTruth -- thanks for the clarification about the wild speculations, etc. I think I now understand better and I have to agree. Distracting at the least.

Re your last paragraph -- thank you so much for explaining this in a simple enough way that I can more easily grasp this QT concept.

Black Bold: Got it. QT is the interface/interaction of the information fields with the physical world. Right?
Red Text: The physical world is manifesting what's contained in the information field?
Blue Text: It's not over until the Fat Lady Sings? All possibilities coexist until observation/measurement is made?

This is the second time you have helped explain a confusing concept to me in such a way that I feel able to grasp it better. Thanks for having the skill and ability to do that. Makes my day! :)

Cheers!

Edited for grammar.

 

[Miss.K]

As far as quantum theory, I'm not sure anybody really understands it, in the sense that there are different interpretations of what it all really means.

Thank you, makes me feel a little less ignorant :)

In layman's terms, I think putting quantum theory in a nutshell is that the "solid" physical world we perceive with our senses is not how things work in reality.

OK this Ive understood a long time ago, so if it is so, I understand some quantum theory...

 

[SeekinTruth]

@13TT,

Yup, that's about as simply as you can stated (it's quite oversimplified, I'm sure). One other thing to keep in mind is the while QT turns a lot of "classical physics" on its head, being very non-linear and bringing into question cause and effect, etc., it still make very good predictions, so it's not totally out there. It's just that everything is just a statistical probability and nothing is written in stone, so to speak. So I tend to interpret that to mean that as long as consciousness and information can find mechanisms to come into contact with the physical world, all sorts of surprising and "miraculous" things will be observed....

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

Wait a minute. According to these 2 paragraphs from the website I cited above in answer to Christian's post and drawing -- and with respect to Quantum Theory --

_http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory

The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Theory

The two major interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds theory. Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that objective reality does not exist. This translates to a principle called superposition that claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous and somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if the cyanide capsule has broken and the cat has died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

The second interpretation of quantum theory is the many-worlds (or multiverse theory. It holds that as soon as a potential exists for any object to be in any state, the universe of that object transmutes into a series of parallel universes equal to the number of possible states in which that the object can exist, with each universe containing a unique single possible state of that object. Furthermore, there is a mechanism for interaction between these universes that somehow permits all states to be accessible in some way and for all possible states to be affected in some manner. Stephen Hawking and the late Richard Feynman are among the scientists who have expressed a preference for the many-worlds theory.

* * * * *

OK -- Both interpretations seem possible to me. Does one have to cancel out the other? Cannot they both be true simultaneously?

I just have one tiny question though. What happened to the idea of us seeing reality as the Universe sees itself? Does the Universe (or Divine Cosmic Mind) have to observe or measure itself before it can objectively exist? Or does all this hinge on human being's perspective -- of human measurement & observation?

In the case of the Cat, while it's true that we wouldn't KNOW what the objective reality is until we can actually observe the Cat's state, wouldn't the Universe know the objective reality about the Cat before we humans got around to observing it?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this entirely. It's probable.

Thanks everyone for opening this door for me to explore. I assure you I would not have done so if left to my own devices. My devices would have advised me to leave this entire subject alone since it involves math and science -- two subjects I have no business thinking about -- let alone discussing. :(

But I actually am having fun learning about it. No one who knows me would ever believe that statement. (Shrugs)

 

[Miss.K]

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous and somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if the cyanide capsule has broken and the cat has died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

I never understood this. To me it has nothing to do with what I (or anybody) think, if the cat is dead or alive.
No matter if I think it is dead, if it is alive it will be in a panic wanting to get out of the box, and no matter of how much I believe it is dead will change that...

It has always seemed like nonsense to me to claim that the cat is both dead and alive, just because we don't know what it is before opening the box...I'm pretty sure the cat knows if it is alive,
....but since a lot of intelligent people go "wow" about the theory, I suspect that I'm wrong to think that it is nonsense

-edit- clarity

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

I never understood this. To me it has nothing to do with what I (or anybody) think, if the cat is dead or alive.
No matter if I think it is dead, if it is alive it will be in a panic wanting to get out of the box, and no matter of how much I believe it is dead will change that...

It has always seemed like nonsense to me to claim that the cat is both dead and alive, just because we don't know what it is before opening the box...I'm pretty sure the cat knows if it is alive,
....but since a lot of intelligent people go "wow" about the theory, I suspect that I'm wrong to think that it is nonsense

Miss K. --- LOLOL :) I know. I was thinking exactly that myself. I think what Bohr is saying is that UNTIL we actually check the cat's condition, then we cannot state truthfully whether the cat is dead or alive. The cat's condition remains a mystery to US -- not a mystery to the cat -- or to the Universe? Both the cat and the Universe know the truth -- because they are both observing the cat's condition. We, on the other hand, cannot observe the cat, and therefore do not know for certain its condition, UNTIL we open the box and observe the cat ourselves. In the meantime, until we open that box and observe the cat, the cat is actually in all possible states simultaneously (from our human perspective?) and will remain so as long as we don't look to check. Which actually does make sense when I think about it.

Leave the cyanide capsule out of the equation. Pretend someone handed us a box. We're told there's a cat inside the box. We're told the cat might be dead or alive. That person doesn't know the Cat's condition either. It could be sleeping. It could be anesthetized. It could be injured and unable to move about. So there's no clue for us to draw any truthful conclusion. We would be guessing. Until we opened the box and observed the cat ourselves and could determine whether the cat is dead, alive, drugged, anesthetized, injured, frozen in fear, or perfectly content to be boxed up and moved about.

And during all the time that passes until we open that box and observe the cat, Bohr is saying that the Cat is actually in all possible states simultaneously -- as long as we don't look to check. Not because the Cat is indeed objectively and truthfully in all possible states simultaneously -- but only from our perspective -- until we have verified the Cat's condition via observation which satisfies our own assessment.

I need to ask SeekinTruth and others if what I've stated is indeed the correct understanding. I could be off base here so I don't want to be promoting lies, please.

If my understanding is correct, I'm left with the distinct impression that this Theory is dependent on human perception, human measurement, human observation. Without the human factor, the entire Theory falls to pieces, yes? If we delete the human factor, there's no question that both the Cat and the Universe know the truth of the Cat's condition. Neither the Cat nor the Universe needs a Human Being to observe the Cat's condition in order for the Cat to be either dead or alive. Neither are dependent upon Humans in order for objective truth to exist because objective truth, as I understand it, and as I think Miss K. is also stating, is totally independent of human observation, verification, confirmation, belief, opinion, testing, studying, or measurements.

If that weren't true, then the Universe would cease to exist if human beings ceased to exist. And we know that's poppycock.

It's difficult to read this stuff and understand it. I had to write it out myself to see where the logic falls into a ditch. Which is probably why mathematicians put this stuff into equations -- because it gets too confusing when written in words and it's difficult to explain it in words -- which is why I was having such a difficult time understanding this stuff when I was reading it on that website. When I wrote it out, however, I began to make sense of it. That is I think I did. I'll need others to verify that. I may very well be wrong and if so, I need some clarification and correction.

And all this only pertains to The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory and leaves out any consideration of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Q-Theory.

Whew! I need a brain fix -- a cigarette. :) C ya later.

 

[Divide by Zero]

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous and somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if the cyanide capsule has broken and the cat has died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

I never understood this. To me it has nothing to do with what I (or anybody) think, if the cat is dead or alive.
No matter if I think it is dead, if it is alive it will be in a panic wanting to get out of the box, and no matter of how much I believe it is dead will change that...

It has always seemed like nonsense to me to claim that the cat is both dead and alive, just because we don't know what it is before opening the box...I'm pretty sure the cat knows if it is alive,
....but since a lot of intelligent people go "wow" about the theory, I suspect that I'm wrong to think that it is nonsense

-edit- clarity

This example was confusing to me too. I feel that he complicated the issue by ascribing a living being to the role of the particle (or wave). The issue that you pointed out about the cat's own consciousness takes away from explaining the importance of the observer (the experimenter).

A better way to see how observation changes the possibilities is to see the original double slit experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 

[goyacobol]

I never understood this. To me it has nothing to do with what I (or anybody) think, if the cat is dead or alive.
No matter if I think it is dead, if it is alive it will be in a panic wanting to get out of the box, and no matter of how much I believe it is dead will change that...

It has always seemed like nonsense to me to claim that the cat is both dead and alive, just because we don't know what it is before opening the box...I'm pretty sure the cat knows if it is alive,
....but since a lot of intelligent people go "wow" about the theory, I suspect that I'm wrong to think that it is nonsense

-edit- clarity

Miss K,

The previous explanations help to expand on this concept even more than I was previously thinking. I did get a new and more complicated view from Divide by Zero's YouTube video even though at first glance it seems to try and explain quantum physics in a simple way.

I know that the illustration of the dead cat/live cat is kind of a simplistic example but I think we are limited in visualizing or understanding/believing there may be a possibility for more than one reality to exist at the same "time". What if for one person viewing the opened box the cat is dead and for another the cat is alive?

This reminds me of a story that the Cs related here:

Session 18 March 1995

A: Now, some more information about Flight 19. Do you remember a few years ago that a team of
researchers claimed to have found the planes, then retracted?
Q: (L) Yes, I remember. {All agree.}
A: Did you find this to be curious?
Q: (S) Yes, because the planes that they found were never reported missing. (T) Yes. (L) Is that why it
was so curious? (J) Why did they retract? (S) Where did the planes come from that they found?
A: Yes, if only you knew the details, and how three of the team have required massive psychiatric aid.
Q: (L) Well, tell us the details!
A: Patience, we are, but must do so slowly so you have some hope of grasping it.
Q: (T) Three of the recovery team needed psychiatric treatment?
A: What they found were five planes matching the description, and "arranged" in a perfect geometric
pattern on the bottom of the ocean, but the serial numbers did not match.
Q: (L) Is the geometric pattern itself significant?
A: Now, first mystery: There were no other instances of five Avengers disappearing at once. Second:
Two of the planes had strange glowing panels with unknown "hieroglyphics" where there should have
been numbers. Third: When they tried to raise one of the planes, it vanished, then reappeared, then
vanished again then reappeared while attached to the guide-wire, then finally slipped off and fell to the
bottom. Fourth: In one of the planes, on the bottom, live human apparitions in WWII uniforms were
temporarily seen by three exploratory divers and videotaped by a guide camera. Lastly: Three of the
planes have since disappeared. All of this is, naturally, being kept secret!
Q: (S) I wonder where the planes came from. (L) That is the obvious question!
A: Parallel reality, you see, when something crosses into another reality, it accesses something called,
for lack of a better term, the "thought plane", and as long as that reality is misunderstood, the window
remains open, thus all perceptions of possibility may manifest concretely, though only temporarily, as
thought plane material is constantly fluid.
Q: (L) Does this mean that this was a "Flight 19" of a parallel reality that went through a window into
our reality?
A: Close.

The above example approaches the subject from more of a conceptual point of view to probably stir our "imagination".

Divide by Zero's video makes me think that the plates that the electrons/marbles are shot through could be used to represent us the viewers. The camera might represent a less conscious or more impartial viewer. Two slots could compare to two points of view. It's who you are and what you see?

Then you have the unexpected patterns of electrons which gets me thinking that even at the electron level there may be consciousness. That really complicates things I think.

With the "realm boarder crossing" approaching we may better understand what "Parallel reality" means eventually. :)

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

This example was confusing to me too. I feel that he complicated the issue by ascribing a living being to the role of the particle (or wave). The issue that you pointed out about the cat's own consciousness takes away from explaining the importance of the observer (the experimenter).

A better way to see how observation changes the possibilities is to see the original double slit experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Hi Divide By Zero --

Thank you for the You Tube link. I watched the first 2 videos back-to-back and I'm now 52:46 into the 1:38:43 World Science Festival video with Brian Greene who is moderating a discussion with David Albert, Sean Carroll, Sheldon Goldstein, and Ruediger Schack about the two interpretations of Quantum Theory -- The Copenhagen and The Many-Worlds interpretations. Interesting and fascinating discussion. Did you happen to read through the Comments below the video? Why would so many commenters say that electrons have no consciousness? I just can't grasp this concept of "dead" matter. Is it because they're unable to measure that level of consciousness? They used to think infants weren't able to sense pain either. What kind of minds would think that?

I see now why these guyz need equations and must use the language of mathematics to explain this stuff. :)

Because I'm still having difficulty grasping this Theory, my next questions would be -- Would understanding this Theory increase my Beingness? Would it be useful in life in any practical way? Would knowing and understanding it help me to align more closely with STO FRV?

Thanks in advance for any input. I do plan to finish watching that hour-long video to see if more data will contribute towards a better understanding on my part.

Cheers!

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

I don't know why I seem to have less difficulty grasping the concepts of parallel realities/universes, many worlds/multiverses, simultaneous time, non-linear time, and different dimensions and densities, and the paranormal than I have grasping the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. The more it's explained, the less I think I understand it. :(

It's beginning to feel as if I'm beating-a-dead-horse. Or maybe I should say Schrodinger's Dead Cat instead.
(Beating-a-dead-horse is an American slang term for the non-native English speakers on the Forum -- like banging one's head on a brick wall -- there's no point in doing it)

Thanks to everyone who has contributed towards assisting us all to understand this Theory. I think I have to toss in the towel for a while. :)

Cheers!

 

[Divide by Zero]

Divide by Zero's video makes me think that the plates that the electrons/marbles are shot through could be used to represent us the viewers. The camera might represent a less conscious or more impartial viewer. Two slots could compare to two points of view. It's who you are and what you see?

Then you have the unexpected patterns of electrons which gets me thinking that even at the electron level there may be consciousness. That really complicates things I think.

With the "realm boarder crossing" approaching we may better understand what "Parallel reality" means eventually. :)

I don't know about electrons having consciousness like you mention.

What I think is that the movements of the electron are not just happening in 3d + time, so perhaps the observer's consciousness is creating this "result". In a way the electron is like a portal to 4d, or obeying 4d physics laws instead of ours. We just see shadows of this in how odd it works here.

I wonder if by our own limited awareness/free will on this level, it focuses on one possibility to happen.

Maybe this is a small slice of what 4d is like, where the C's have said we change reality by thought.

Edit: There were also experiments that showed that particles were reacting to observations outside of time. Forgive me for the link being at a joke image site, but it's where I found it years ago and I have not been able to find anything better. It also explains the original experiment in the first few parts.

http://quantumiscool1.ytmnd.com/
http://quantamiscool2.ytmnd.com/
http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com/
http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com/ <---the one that shows the particle result happening outside of time, where observation after the fact changes the path it originally went through- freaky
(the "5 light years" is an exaggerated example... in the experiments it was nowhere as that long, but enough to show this effect)

 

[Voyageur]

Because I'm still having difficulty grasping this Theory, my next questions would be -- Would understanding this Theory increase my Beingness? Would it be useful in life in any practical way? Would knowing and understanding it help me to align more closely with STO FRV?

Thanks in advance for any input. I do plan to finish watching that hour-long video to see if more data will contribute towards a better understanding on my part.

Cheers!

Fwiw, for a laypersons such as myself, trying to understand many of these theories may not have a practical outcome, yet maybe it will, I just don't know. In saying that, trying to understand things of this nature, along with so many other things, is kind of like an unknown alchemical information process for the mind, as it seems to help grow ones understanding in incremental ways - making new connections; maybe not the whole banana. Have you noticed many people growing where it would not seem possible? Sometimes I'm astounded by elderly people (and young people) who where once back there and now they are completely somewhere else in understanding, challenging themselves like never before - it's very cool.

 

[Miss.K]

Thanks all for inputs and Divide by Zero for videos, have to dig a bit more into it and see if I get closer to understanding

Because I'm still having difficulty grasping this Theory, my next questions would be -- Would understanding this Theory increase my Beingness? Would it be useful in life in any practical way? Would knowing and understanding it help me to align more closely with STO FRV?

Thanks in advance for any input. I do plan to finish watching that hour-long video to see if more data will contribute towards a better understanding on my part.

Cheers!

;) thinking like that, I'd think, is probably aligning more closely to STS forces

 

[Alvalsen]

/ do not know where to put it, let it be here /
I do not know, it really is an Egyptian fresco?
but her real state of affairs in society
reptile run by priests, the priests ruled by kings, kings lead people to war
reptiles hold hands, they are whole, priests hold hands, they are also a whole

it is interesting that in the text of the reptiles and the priests

as this fresco survived? why it is not destroyed?