A dangerous idea

a reply to: InTheLight

I,ve been wondering why I didn't get what you were meaning with transformation and why I felt we had our wires crossed.

It's been bothering me. This morning a few representatives of the mystical view explained "unlike you, we cannot go outside and have to obey the rules".

So my fault for not understanding.

afterthought

There is a terrible sadness with the mystics, I think they might be trapped in the egregore and can't get out.

a reply to: DpatC

The flaw may be relying on or using only classical mechanics/mathematics (algebra).

Quantum descriptions must be quite different because quantum mechanics asserts that a particle does not have a position and a velocity. Instead the particle has, in some sense, simultaneously a range of possible positions and velocities. The particle has some chance of being found here, another chance of being found there, etc.

www.physics.csbsju.edu...

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: DpatC

The flaw may be relying on or using only classical mechanics/mathematics (algebra).

Quantum descriptions must be quite different because quantum mechanics asserts that a particle does not have a position and a velocity. Instead the particle has, in some sense, simultaneously a range of possible positions and velocities. The particle has some chance of being found here, another chance of being found there, etc.

www.physics.csbsju.edu...

Using quantum mathematics and Quantum computation could you please explain the flaw.
I have provided a link to IBM's quantum computer that may be of assistance!

quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net...

I look forward in your reply

a reply to: DpatC

The flaw as I pointed out was your math related to the Pope which did not allow for time travel and being in multiple locations at the same time or bilocation.

It is understood that the mystical gift is not given for the convenience of the recipient, but to aid him in helping his fellow man or in performing a function some distance away that had been forgotten. Often the recipient of this gift employs it to attend the dying, to comfort, to instruct and for many other reasons which we will now explore

catholicmystics.blogspot.ca...

So, I would say it is not a dangerous idea just an idea without any way to find the answer to existence. Except that perhaps there is no paradox within Yin Yang because it is entangled and balanced, seemingly.

www.quantamagazine.org...

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: DpatC

The flaw as I pointed out was your math related to the Pope which did not allow for time travel and being in multiple locations at the same time or bilocation.

It is understood that the mystical gift is not given for the convenience of the recipient, but to aid him in helping his fellow man or in performing a function some distance away that had been forgotten. Often the recipient of this gift employs it to attend the dying, to comfort, to instruct and for many other reasons which we will now explore

catholicmystics.blogspot.ca...

So, I would say it is not a dangerous idea just an idea without any way to find the answer to existence. Except that perhaps there is no paradox within Yin Yang because it is entangled and balanced, seemingly.

www.quantamagazine.org...

OMG and here was I expecting a potential discussion about the "quantum zero" and the "relativistic zero". Before Continuing this conversation may I suggest that you read up on basic linear algebra.
quantum-algorithms-linear-algebra by Richard L Lipton and kenneth regan wouldn't be a bad place to start
I have proved that 1=0. From there I can easily allow for the incorporation of time travel bilocation or any other variable you throw at me and still prove that the Pope is Vegtable mineral or something else - A carrot

a reply to: DpatC

OMG you still need to prove to me that the Pope is Vegetable mineral or something else, not using algebra - a red herring? that is dragged across a trail, the hounds will be thrown off the scent? Everything is theory.

originally posted by: Groot
a reply to: ClovenSky

You missed my point.

Live in the now.

No one can live in the now.
Now is like a screen on which existence appears and disappears.
Now is the void out of which everything arises and subsides.
Does now ever go anywhere?

originally posted by: InTheLight

But everything ('all') has to be in motion and there may no such thing as nothingness.

Now appears to be moving but it never moves - it is always right here.

Of course there is no 'thing' as nothingness - but if words did not arise to divide the all into bits then the all wouldn't be along side any other 'thing' - so it would not be a 'thing'.
This that IS is not a thing - no thingness.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

But everything ('all') has to be in motion and there may no such thing as nothingness.

Now appears to be moving but it never moves - it is always right here.

Of course there is no 'thing' as nothingness - but if words did not arise to divide the all into bits then the all wouldn't be along side any other 'thing' - so it would not be a 'thing'.
This that IS is not a thing - no thingness.

Thanks INA, but I think we stumbled onto a algebraic/quantum mechanics thread where the IS is a thing and must be computed to be understood. Perhaps if the Yin Yang could be measured, wait that would result in Pi, so we are at square 1 again, not really 1=0 from my viewpoint, but maybe from yours INA; all=0.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

But everything ('all') has to be in motion and there may no such thing as nothingness.

Now appears to be moving but it never moves - it is always right here.

Of course there is no 'thing' as nothingness - but if words did not arise to divide the all into bits then the all wouldn't be along side any other 'thing' - so it would not be a 'thing'.
This that IS is not a thing - no thingness.

Thanks INA, but I think we stumbled onto a algebraic/quantum mechanics thread where the IS is a thing and must be computed to be understood.

How can 'what is' be understood? Is there actually any thing separate to 'what is' that can stand apart from it?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

But everything ('all') has to be in motion and there may no such thing as nothingness.

Now appears to be moving but it never moves - it is always right here.

Of course there is no 'thing' as nothingness - but if words did not arise to divide the all into bits then the all wouldn't be along side any other 'thing' - so it would not be a 'thing'.
This that IS is not a thing - no thingness.

Obviously quirks and quarks of perceived reality.

Thanks INA, but I think we stumbled onto a algebraic/quantum mechanics thread where the IS is a thing and must be computed to be understood.

How can 'what is' be understood? Is there actually any thing separate to 'what is' that can stand apart from it?

Obviously quirks and quarks of theorized reality.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

But everything ('all') has to be in motion and there may no such thing as nothingness.

Now appears to be moving but it never moves - it is always right here.

Of course there is no 'thing' as nothingness - but if words did not arise to divide the all into bits then the all wouldn't be along side any other 'thing' - so it would not be a 'thing'.
This that IS is not a thing - no thingness.

Obviously quirks and quarks of perceived reality.

Thanks INA, but I think we stumbled onto a algebraic/quantum mechanics thread where the IS is a thing and must be computed to be understood.

How can 'what is' be understood? Is there actually any thing separate to 'what is' that can stand apart from it?

Obviously quirks and quarks of theorized reality.

Just because there are words does not mean anything is understood.