Session 4 April 2015

[Michal]

Hi Alvalsen,
Do You have link to bigger picture of this fresco?
It looks interesting but it is very small and hard to see details.

 

[Alvalsen]

Hi Alvalsen,
Do You have link to bigger picture of this fresco?
It looks interesting but it is very small and hard to see details.

only such

 

[Kika]

I think I came to understand the principle. Step by step. No concept. Small steps.
Let me try again.
For starters, look at Christians drawing Sufi rotation. On the right side of purple streaks consider that the 3D and 4D on the left. In 3D we have someone / something that has some kind of goal (4D). This has: the vision, intention, will, and desire, to achieve this. It uses its knowledge and ability to realize (learn how). When realized his intention then was in 4D. Very easy. Here begins a new cycle, and I'll stop there.

Now look Palinurus video. There is a lot more complicated. We have the orchestra, with a lot of different instruments, which produce different sounds, and because they play different music. There are also sets of identical instruments, but each plays a little different (variation on a theme). So, not everyone can be the first violin, someone has to be the drummer. The drummer does not have to become a player on the violin and vice versa, but some of the basics of playing both need to know in order to play together. Then there: choir, various soloists, viewers / listeners and at the end, conductor, encompassing all this. Every man for himself developed some talent (in this case music), are gathered together in the hall (3D) for a common goal (4D), a concert. At the very beginning of the concert it was a great murmur or chaos, and then the sign of the conductor, starts making.

Now look at us, human beings on planet earth, or as exemplary, us in this forum. We have: the will, intention, ability and knowledge (each of us, as musicians) to go to 4D. To achieve this we need a common repertoire, the vision of the final goal, according to which we will together develop our capabilities, to the maximum, each in its environment.
We need to define the target.

For me, the goal would be the answer to the questions:
What is the next stop on the evolutionary tape?
Towards what to strive for or what are we trying to accomplish?

Yours sincerely

 

[goyacobol]

Hi Alvalsen,
Do You have link to bigger picture of this fresco?
It looks interesting but it is very small and hard to see details.

Alvalsen,

I agree with Mikel. This is a very interesting picture. It really looks like 4D reptilian gods ruling over 3D mortals supported by a priesthood. The headdresses look like some sort of technology too. I just wonder if this a real fresco or an artist using his imagination. It would be nice to know someone who could read the hieroglyphics. It has a big visual impact I think.

Thanks :)

 

[goyacobol]

I think I came to understand the principle. Step by step. No concept. Small steps.
Let me try again.
For starters, look at Christians drawing Sufi rotation. On the right side of purple streaks consider that the 3D and 4D on the left. In 3D we have someone / something that has some kind of goal (4D). This has: the vision, intention, will, and desire, to achieve this. It uses its knowledge and ability to realize (learn how). When realized his intention then was in 4D. Very easy. Here begins a new cycle, and I'll stop there.

Now look Palinurus video. There is a lot more complicated. We have the orchestra, with a lot of different instruments, which produce different sounds, and because they play different music. There are also sets of identical instruments, but each plays a little different (variation on a theme). So, not everyone can be the first violin, someone has to be the drummer. The drummer does not have to become a player on the violin and vice versa, but some of the basics of playing both need to know in order to play together. Then there: choir, various soloists, viewers / listeners and at the end, conductor, encompassing all this. Every man for himself developed some talent (in this case music), are gathered together in the hall (3D) for a common goal (4D), a concert. At the very beginning of the concert it was a great murmur or chaos, and then the sign of the conductor, starts making.

Now look at us, human beings on planet earth, or as exemplary, us in this forum. We have: the will, intention, ability and knowledge (each of us, as musicians) to go to 4D. To achieve this we need a common repertoire, the vision of the final goal, according to which we will together develop our capabilities, to the maximum, each in its environment.
We need to define the target.

For me, the goal would be the answer to the questions:
What is the next stop on the evolutionary tape?
Towards what to strive for or what are we trying to accomplish?

Yours sincerely

Kika,

I think your observations are good ones. They describe some of the things we should be doing to come closer together on the forum. To see more details of the goal/goals I always go to the previous sessions for review and research.

Here is one session that hints at the goal and direction we could be working towards:

Session 14 January 1995

Q: (L) You have said that when the wave arrives that you will merge with us. Is this the same thing
that you are talking about when you say that you are us in the future?
A: No.
Q: (L) So, we are talking about two separate events or subjects, or two separate points in space/time,
is that correct?
A: No. You are again slipping into trying to apply 3rd density logic to higher levels of density reality.
Q: (L) So, this is pick on Laura night!
A: No. We are trying to help everyone to advance.
Q: (L) So, we are not talking about the same event...
A: What is "future," anyway?
Q: (L) The future is simultaneous events, just different locales in space/time, just a different focus of
consciousness, is that correct?
A: Yea, so if that is true, why try to apply linear thinking here, you see, we are merging with you right
now!
Q: (L) I see. (T) So, what you are trying to say is that when the wave comes it is going to take us to
4th density, if we are ready, but we are not actually going to merge with you in 6th density at that
point, but we may experience a "merge" at that point because all points of focus merge during
transition from one density to another?
A: Partly correct, partly way off.
Q: (J) What part is right and what part is wrong? (T) The wave is going to take those of us who are, at
that point ready, to move us into 4th density, is this part correct?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Which part of it is open?
A: You are a 4th density candidate.

I guess a question we all may have when discovering the Cs and the sessions is whether we are 4th density candidates?
And we wonder what we would do if we didn't have Laura, Ark and the session members there to be a "conduit" for the clues to give us hope and direction?

Q: (L) Are we anchoring frequency to create a split?
A: One developing conduit.
Q: (L) We are developing a conduit?
A: Yes. One.
Q: (J) How many conduits do we need?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Is this conduit going to allow those who remain behind to be able to move to 4th density easier
when they are ready?
A: No.
Q: (T) What is the conduit for?
A: You and those who will follow you.
Q: (T) Oh, this is for those of us who will move to 4th density. We will move through and they will
follow us through the conduit. (J) Oh, others who are ready?
A: Your group here tonight.
Q: (L) Does this mean we will have followers or just us here now?
A: Open. Up to you.
Q: (L) This conduit. Is this a conduit through which an entire planet will transition?
A: You are one. There are others.
Q: (L) There are other planets...
A: No. Conduit.
Q: We are one conduit and there are conduits...
A: No. Developing at this point.
Q: (J) So, at this point we are developing a conduit?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) There are other groups on this planet developing their own conduits?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) These are conduits for us to move to 4th density in?
A: Knowledge is the key to developing a conduit.
Q: (T) I am working on the assumption that all of us here are part of the family of light, is this true?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And we have been drawn together in order to develop this conduit from where we are?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are there others in this area?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are they supposed to join with us or are they working on their own?
Q: (T) Okay, so it is up in the air as to whether we join with them, they join with us, or we all work
independently.
A: It is up to how much publicity you manage to get.
Q: (T) Do we want publicity on this?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Would it help us?
A: Open.
Q: (T) We're developing a conduit to move us from 3rd density to 4th density. Once we have moved
through the conduit does that mean we have completed what we came here to do, and that is anchor
the frequency?
A: Partly.
Q: (T) Is the conduit kind of like an escape hatch for us?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Let me get this straight. When we move through this conduit, are the other...
A: You will be on the 4th level earth as opposed to 3rd level earth.
Q: (L) What I am trying to get here, once again, old practical Laura, is trying to get a handle on
practical terms here. Does this mean that a 4th density earth and a 3rd density earth will coexist side
by side...
A: Not side by side, totally different realms.
Q: (L) Do these realms interpenetrate one another but in different dimensions...
A: Close.
Q: (L) So, in other words, a being from say, 6th density, could look at this planet we call the earth and
see it spinning through space and see several dimensions of earth, and yet the point of space/time
occupation is the same, in other words, simultaneous. (J) They can look down but we can't look up.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, in other words, while all of this cataclysmic activity is happening on the 3rd dimensional
earth, we will be just on our 4th dimensional earth and this sort of thing won't be there, and we won't
see the 3rd dimensional people and they won't see us because we will be in different densities which
are not "en rapport", so to speak?
A: You understand concept, now you must decide if it is factual.

Hopefully, the description of the "conduit" is helpful in determining at least one of the main goals of the forum. Of course we must first Work on ourselves to clean our machines and tune up.

If you want more detail there were other sessions before this section that could can check our here: Re: Session 14 March 2015

 

[SeekinTruth]

About quantum theory, first a clarification. Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment. It's only to illustrate that on a fundamental level, i.e. subatomic, fundamental particles, reality doesn't work the way we perceive on bigger scales, e.g. our own scale.

I'm not sure, as 13TT said, that the two main interpretations have to be mutually exclusive. They may, in fact, be saying the same thing in different ways. The Many Worlds interpretation is as weird as the Copenhagen one, from a mainstream way of looking at things, isn't it? The way mainstream, materialistic "science" presents things, it's as if everything is known, settled, and solid / stable. Not to mention some of the really absurd "theories" that are dogmatic gospel for the mainstream scientific community, such as Big Bang (really just another creation by fiat type of creation myth with a "definite beginning" and completely unknown / unspoken what came before this linear narrative), or even worse, the Darwinian / neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution and the surrounding claims that it all (life) began accidentally by things colliding in a primordial chemical soup. I mean, the probability of having the complex lifeforms coming about that way is so remote (and even for the simplest lifeforms known) that there has to be innumerable more likely ways to explain life. It's almost more unlikely and absurd than any religious myth.

Now, the implication of quantum theory seems to be that the physical reality we perceive, and even that part which we can't directly perceive but can still measure indirectly by the effects on what we CAN perceive with out senses, etc., is not at all what is seems to be. There are so many speculations that could be made, such as both the superposition / all states existing until observation / measurement of the state of a system is made, AND the Many Worlds / multiverse interpretations are both true. For example, we can speculate that the superposition expands into the Many Worlds WHEN observed / measured, and doesn't need to UNTIL measured / observed. In other words, the mind of the observer collapses the probability wave in ITS universe and only ONE state exists there, but at the same time all other possibilities and universes now exist in parallel - "expanded" into a space-time continuum for each one? It's as if space and time are also intimately connected to mind in this speculation. The superposition is all potential / possible states abstractly existing WITHOUT any kind of observer. When any kind of observation / measurement / verification is made is when all other possible states also come into a parallel existence of their own?

But what is the point of these speculations? It's kind of silly to me, because we can't come to a definite conclusion one way or another. It seems to me that it all just ends up as though experiments. It's kind of fun for a while, if we don't go overboard speculating without being able to come to any firm conclusions. If I were to speculate more, I wonder in the context of things the C's have said, that chaos is a prerequisite to creation. Like on the subatomic level, this chaotic state of affairs where nothing is fixed is necessary to how information from higher levels comes into our reality (interacting with our consciousness / awareness / perceptions, etc.). As if that is a requirement for our 3D physical world to manifest.

Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?

Also things might work in a similar way on the macro scale as they do on the micro scale, it just takes MUCH more "time" for the probability / wave function collapse to become actualized in any given universe....

 

[davey72]

Goyacobal, i have come to understand tbis conduit as having to do with information theory and how Laura describes moving into another reality. Maybe i am way off though.

 

[Laura]

Ark wrote a bit on the topic that is non-technical:

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/pm1.htm

 

[loreta]

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.

Thank you very much 13 Twirling Triskeles for your explanation, if the Quantum theory is just this thing about the cat or not the cat it is perfect, i can understand a little more... ;) I can understand these two or maybe 3 options or realities. I can understand that till I don't open the box I don't know the reality of the cat in front of me. He can be dead elsewhere, in another dimension, but in my dimension he can be or dead or alive. So objectivity is important. Ok. I am right? So is the theory of Quantum a theory of objectivity?

Just to laugh a little: cats are very intelligent, they will never, ever eat cyanide. or anything like that. :)

 

[goyacobol]

Goyacobal, i have come to understand tbis conduit as having to do with information theory and how Laura describes moving into another reality. Maybe i am way off though.

davey72,

I think Laura's link to Ark's material covers the role of the "information" part of information theory very well here: Session 4 April 2015

And "Information Theory" is covered in CHAPTER 38: INFORMATION THEORY & CONSCIOUSNESS in Pierre and Laura's book:

Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection: The Secret History of the World - Book 3 by Pierre Lescaudron; Laura Knight-Jadczyk

It can be purchased on Amazon: _http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Changes-Human-Cosmic-Connection/dp/1897244975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429663790&sr=1-1&keywords=Earth+Changes+and+the+Human+Cosmic+Connection

Maybe you can fill us in on the "conduit" connection.

 

[Sol Logos]

/ 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?

It's a good artwork, probably done on Photoshop. Not sure who the artist is but here are a couple of others in the series.

 

[combsbt]

It's a good artwork, probably done on Photoshop. Not sure who the artist is but here are a couple of others in the series.

Those two pretty much show beyond doubt that they are not authentic.

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

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.

Divide By Zero -- Thank you for the You Tube link.

<snip>

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 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.

Divide By Zero -- Well, I’m wondering why science declares/presumes/assumes that “matter” of any kind does NOT have consciousness. Because they believe that “matter” came into being all by itself? Materialist oriented scientists reject the possibility that matter arises from anything “conscious”? Therefore, anything conscious or having consciousness could/would not be objective? Which results in this? — That because Human Beings have consciousness, their observations cannot be objective? But an electron, having no consciousness, CAN be objective? My mind reels!!

Your statements bringing in the 4D aspects are a huge relief. That makes this Quantum Theory concept make much more sense to me. I hadn’t even considered the 4D connection. More helpful to expand the possibilities to include 4D than to contract and constrict to 3D only. So thanks a bunch for that, Divide By Zero. Whew! Sigh of relief. :)

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?

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.

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

Miss.K — Too true. Boo on me. :( I was being inexcusably rude. I apologize. This doesn’t get me off the hook by any means, but the truth is that I was becoming so depressed over my inabiity to grasp this Quantum Theory — especially after watching those videos — that I felt like throwing in the towel and giving up even attempting to understand it.

But I thought, well, maybe I shouldn’t just give up because what if there’s a good reason to learn and understand Quantum Theory besides satisfying my own selfish curiosity and interest in learning it? So, basically, it’s been an exercise in STS on my part from the beginning. The questions I asked that you replied to were said in a fit of pique (an irritation with my own failure to get it).

Sorry for being such a brat. And thank you for pointing it out. I will make an effort to put the brakes on and restrain myself in future. :)

voyageur — Very true. Even as I was typing out those stupid questions, I was already realizing everything you said in your post.

And you’re absolutely correct when you say this, to wit:

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.

I’m one of those elderly people who are gaining understanding and challenging myself like never before. Just attempting to understand Quantum Theory alone is verification of that.

As I said to Miss K., I was just feeling frustrated at being unable to understand it. My frustration is directed at myself — not at anybody here on the Forum. Well, I am also irritated at the positions of Materialist Scientists. Their dead-matter universe feels like a dead-end to me.

Sorry for the distraction. I’m feeling much better now after reading through Ark’s material which Laura linked to. I guess I should know myself better by this time. Even if I think I’m giving up, I really never actually do. I’ve always persisted past my own self-made obstacles. Oftentimes being angry, irritated, or annoyed makes me even more determined to persist. I just suffered a temporary set-back when confronted by a brick wall.

Thanks to all the members of this Forum who have clues and info that help me/us find a way around those Brick Walls.

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

Ark wrote a bit on the topic that is non-technical:

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/pm1.htm

OMG -- Thank you for that link, Laura. And thank you Ark for writing so lucidly -- so that even I can better grasp this subject of Quantum Theory -- especially as you've written a larger context within which to place this Theory. I particularly liked this part -- to wit:

Physics of the Mysterious

So, what is my point of view?

First of all it seems to me, and in fact I am even pretty sure, that what we know, our present "science," is not even the tip of the iceberg of what might be known or maybe even what IS known in certain circles. We know very little and we understand even less. We are so much constrained in our perception, our thinking abilities, that we can see and process only one side of a multi-faceted reality; and even so, with a lot of distortion. Some of our concepts are pretty good and objective, some others are of poor quality and subjective. But even those that are sound and objective (like atoms, light, energy), even these are grasped by us only partially, with much more veiled from us due, it seems, to our own genetic restriction.

So, I think that Reality is multi-faceted and multi-leveled and we are consciously experiencing only one (or a few) of the existing levels and/or facets. The multi-leveled and multi-faceted Realit includes: many worlds, many realms, parallel and perpendicular universes, higher dimensions, higher levels of intelligence and of perception, and very likely a consciousness of which we cannot even conceive.

Some of these concepts have already been integrated into theoretical physics (many worlds, parallel universes, higher dimensions), and can be studied - at least theoretically - with mathematical rigor; while those dealing with mind, consciousness, intelligence, are yet to be integrated. Once that is done, once we admit and realize that that material existence is not all that can be thought of and dealt with using mathematical rigor - new vistas, new hopes and new goals will appear on the horizon. And by doing this, WE will take charge of the evolutionary development of life. BY doing this we will choose to obey our own call from the future. By doing this we will make real what is now only virtual.

I believe that the Universe has Purpose, that it is much like a computer program of great complexity, and that "we" - the IGUS-es - have a role in its evolution. For a while our role can be described simply as "debugging units." In short, my present answer to the question "why are we here?" reads: DEBUGGING THE UNIVERSE.

Universes without life, without feedback from the "observers" have only virtual existence, their future is closed; while "our" future, as well as the future of "our universe," is in my opinion, to large extent, OPEN.

The question of existence of other forms of life is, in particular, one of these tricky questions whose answers are "open". YOU, the Reader, can choose to live in a universe with a "no" answer, but you can also choose to live in a "yes" universe.

I am not saying the choice is going to be easy, or possible at all. Every choice needs an effort. The more important the choice, the more effort it needs. Without making this effort we are simply machines, and then the choices are being made for us - either by pure chance or by others.

* * * * *

BRAVO!! and

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

SeekinTruth — I hope you won’t mind if I copy only the portions of your reply that I’d like to address?

About quantum theory, first a clarification. Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment. It's only to illustrate that on a fundamental level, i.e. subatomic, fundamental particles, reality doesn't work the way we perceive on bigger scales, e.g. our own scale.

<snipped the remaining 5 paragraphs>

Thank you - thank you - thank you. Got it. (Including all the snipped portions of your reply)

I’d like to respond to the penultimate (next-to-last) paragraph of your Reply #350 — which states:

Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?

reasonably you say? Yes, I agree. And I agree with the remainder of that paragraph as well. Which is why the red portion of the quote below which I copied from the whatis.techtarget website seems a bit weird, yes? Because it seems as if the author or this piece IS claiming that Bohr is declaring that objective reality does NOT exist. Unless the author is mis-interpreting Bohr — or I am mis-understanding the author? I feel a bit confused.

Sorry to be picking so many nits? Should I just let it rest? Does it matter to anyone other than myself to get this detail cleared-up? Or is it an exercise in futility and waste of time and energy?

The Copenhagen Interpretation

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.

Using the definitions I copied from the Free Dictionary for reference to my next questions: to Wit:

Is the author of this article using the 2nd definition of Objective rather than the first when s/he claims that Bohr is saying that objective reality does not exist? That objectivity is non-existent when we do not know the state of any object because it is in all possible states simultaneously?

Because if the author was using the 1st definition of Objective, then neither s/he nor Bohr would be dismissing objective reality quite so cavalierly I would think, no?

* * * * *

Definitions for Objective from the Free Dictionary:
(the free dictionary . com/objective)

1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.

2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.

3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

4. Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?

5. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

6. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

* * * * *

If I can’t feel some sort of resolution over this discrepancy about objective reality vis-a-vis the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, I’ll have to lean towards the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I would prefer to include both as possible interpretations. It seems as if the Copenhagen Interpretation has bowed itself off the stage — not that I’ve kicked it off for insubordinate behavior. Phooey.

Thanks for everyone’s patience.