Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: TzarChasm

who said anything about jedi mind tricks and sorcery ?

It's a common misconception I keep seeing on this part of the forums. Measuring subatomic particles is the same as psychic manipulation of reality apparently.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: TzarChasm

who said anything about jedi mind tricks and sorcery ?

It's a common misconception I keep seeing on this part of the forums. Measuring subatomic particles is the same as psychic manipulation of reality apparently.

I think link below explains this:-
www.sciencedaily.com...

a reply to: Astronomer62

From reading the link it would appear that the act of 'observation' affects the outcome. However 'observation' in this instance is really the action of a device detecting passing electrons.
They say that the quantum electron detector does not interfere with the electron. They also say that if they increase it's capacity this action too has an effect.
In my opinion the change in the detectors capacity and the subsequent affect shows that the detector is affecting the electron in some way.

I think the choice of terms in those experiments is unfortunate as the woo brigade immediately latch on to words like 'observer' and 'watching' and put their own spin on it.

I'm no expert on anything but it must be that the electron (whatever that really is) is being affected by the measuring device in some way not yet understood.

a reply to: midicon

Precisely the point I was trying to communicate. There is no psychic or psionic activity taking place. The article goes on to explain that this is a telecommunications exercise that affects the transfer of electronic information between machines.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: midicon

Precisely the point I was trying to communicate. There is no psychic or psionic activity taking place. The article goes on to explain that this is a telecommunications exercise that affects the transfer of electronic information between machines.

You want to reduce the core experiment of quantum physics to a simple telecommunications exercise? You really hate any science that defies your belief system... ironic eh?

"Apart from "observing" the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier."

This notion is further reinforced with Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment, where measurement actually causes a retrograde change in the "decision" of the photon to behave like a particle or a wave. Measurement is the variable that determines the wave-function collapse.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm not reducing anything, I read the article. You are the one inserting extraneous information in a manner the article didn't actually say.

The experiment's finding that observation tends to kill interference may be used in tomorrow's technology to ensure the secrecy of information transfer. This can be accomplished if information is encoded in such a way that the interference of multiple electron paths is needed to decipher it. "The presence of an eavesdropper, who is an observer, although an unwanted one, would kill the interference," says Prof. Heiblum. "This would let the recipient know that the message has been intercepted."

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm not reducing anything, I read the article. You are the one inserting extraneous information in a manner the article didn't actually say.

"The experiment's finding that observation tends to kill interference may be used in tomorrow's technology to ensure the secrecy of information transfer. This can be accomplished if information is encoded in such a way that the interference of multiple electron paths is needed to decipher it. "The presence of an eavesdropper, who is an observer, although an unwanted one, would kill the interference," says Prof. Heiblum. "This would let the recipient know that the message has been intercepted."

The bolded part is actually saying the opposite of what you want. They are saying the observer is the variable that effects the wave-function collapse (reduced interference pattern). They are saying you would essentially be able to know if someone were intercepting the message, which would be determinable due to the observer effect.

It's an empirical fact, repeated countless times throughout history.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm not reducing anything, I read the article. You are the one inserting extraneous information in a manner the article didn't actually say.

"The experiment's finding that observation tends to kill interference may be used in tomorrow's technology to ensure the secrecy of information transfer. This can be accomplished if information is encoded in such a way that the interference of multiple electron paths is needed to decipher it. "The presence of an eavesdropper, who is an observer, although an unwanted one, would kill the interference," says Prof. Heiblum. "This would let the recipient know that the message has been intercepted."

The bolded part is actually saying the opposite of what you want. They are saying the observer is the variable that effects the wave-function collapse (reduced interference pattern). They are saying you would essentially be able to know if someone were intercepting the message, which would be determinable due to the observer effect.

It's an empirical fact, repeated countless times throughout history.

In communications technology which is developed to exploit this particular effect. Not in the sense that the moon blinks out of existence if everyone stops looking at it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

In communications technology which is developed to exploit this particular effect. Not in the sense that the moon blinks out of existence if everyone stops looking at it.

Although it is speculation, I share similar views to what sapien said on the last page regarding the definition of "observer"

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

I remember reading about the observer "state" and that even measuring something is in effect an observer any attempt of measurement is considered observation , it doesnt require a living conscious being in order to "observe"

I also read that the universe acts as though it is an observer simply by the fact that all particles are constantly and continually interacting / reacting to one another and so this also serves as observation or measurement in a sense

so the universe is effectively constantly observing itself and collaspsing the wave function in order to produce reality in dimensional space

After all , if we are all a part of the same system (david bohm , wholeness and the implicate order) , then there is no escaping the "observation"
as we are one giant sea of particles constantly interacting in one system known as the universe.

In my opinion, the observer effect demonstrates the integral part of consciousness in regards to reality. The observer effect in the double slit experiment is essentially hacking into this fact, showing that physical laws are "aware" of the conscious observer

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: cooperton
...The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

Hey Coope.
Am glad that you have introduced 'interpretation', as 'empirical evidence' , and it has gone unchallenged, so far.
...

Still unchallenged eh ?

Well: here is some more of that newfangled 'interpretation', hereby submitted as newfangled 'empirical evidence' :
Around 10:25 -Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds - Part 1 - Akasha




But who really know anything ? Not me. Am just a damn old fool !
Well, if anyone still gives a damn, am not the only 'idiot', nor 'moron', to question consensual-reality:

From the realm of science: we have PHD Theoretical Physicists, and Nobel laureates: Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, whom heartily questioned consensual-reality;

Now listen to Niels Bohr, the pioneer of 20th century physics:
An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation. [3]
Consider the words of Shankara, the famous Hindu philosopher: All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real. [4]
Compare with Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics: If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described

Source: Quantum Mechanics, and reality


From the realm of Metaphysics: We have the ideas of Pardeep, (Thanks to JimNasium for the link)

RELATIVE TRUTH
Spiritual paradigm Being becoming Ocean (of energy) becoming waves Perspective as ego mind False

ABSOLUTE TRUTH Metaphysical paradigm Being dreaming becoming Movie 'appearing' on a screen Perspective as the Self
true Creation

Creation of a world within spirit or energy.
No creation The world of forms is imagined in indivisible consciousness. No world is ever created. No world truly exists as an objective reality independent of consciousness.

Transformation Modification of spirit or energy (one substance modifying and transforming into another) resulting in a world of constant change.

No transformation Any perceived transformations are only imagined as there is no material in indivisible consciousness for any substance to modify or transform into another. i.e. Steam to water to ice.

Space Physical space within which a world can exist

No space Since consciousness is a non-spatial spiritual reality, as in your dreams during sleep, space is imagined within your consciousness to perceive an objective world (life story).

(Sorry but that didn't transcribe well. Please view the table from the link provided, if so inclined.)
Link: Absolute vs. Relative Truth

From the realm of Philosophy, we have Descartes' 'Cogito Ergo Sum', ('Il Cogito', destroyer of Maya, or better known as the: "I think, therefore I am"), as described here by Jed McKenna:
Jed Mckenna - Plato's cinema analogy
(Sorry, but ain't nobody can get me to believe in nothin after that! LoL)

Und from the realm of pop-culture and other stuffs:

Albert Einstein Quotes. Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Everything you can imagine is real. – Pablo Picasso

“I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?” ? John Lennon

“Reality is frequently inaccurate.” ? Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.” ? Frank Herbert, Dune

originally posted by: cooperton
...The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

In communications technology which is developed to exploit this particular effect. Not in the sense that the moon blinks out of existence if everyone stops looking at it.

Although it is speculation, I share similar views to what sapien said on the last page regarding the definition of "observer"

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

I remember reading about the observer "state" and that even measuring something is in effect an observer any attempt of measurement is considered observation , it doesnt require a living conscious being in order to "observe"

I also read that the universe acts as though it is an observer simply by the fact that all particles are constantly and continually interacting / reacting to one another and so this also serves as observation or measurement in a sense

so the universe is effectively constantly observing itself and collaspsing the wave function in order to produce reality in dimensional space

After all , if we are all a part of the same system (david bohm , wholeness and the implicate order) , then there is no escaping the "observation"
as we are one giant sea of particles constantly interacting in one system known as the universe.

In my opinion, the observer effect demonstrates the integral part of consciousness in regards to reality. The observer effect in the double slit experiment is essentially hacking into this fact, showing that physical laws are "aware" of the conscious observer

Laws aren't aware. They are symptoms of a natural force or a collection of forces operating without any form of data interaction, conscious or otherwise. It is purely fundamental reflex at the most innate level of existence.

a reply to: Nothin

Yeah a lot of times the search for the truth can feel like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more you try to make it a tangible exactitude, the less you know about it. Which is a great lesson: Let go of trying to control things.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Laws aren't aware.

Tell that to the wave-function collapse - it "knows" when it's being watched.

They are symptoms of a natural force or a collection of forces operating without any form of data interaction, conscious or otherwise. It is purely fundamental reflex at the most innate level of existence.

Stop belittling the forces that keep your body intact and the cosmos in order.

a reply to: cooperton

Hi Coope.
Thanks for your reply.
Sometimes wonder why 'Truth-seekers': rarely ponder the possibility of 'no Truth' ?
Seems like many see it like amassing building blocks of knowledge, and building them up into a pyramid of knowledge, and think that they will find 'Truth' somewhere near the top, of their pyramid of a lifetime of accumulated knowledge.

But what if all we can ever 'know': is our perceptions ? Our interpretations ?
Perhaps all we can ever sense are small subjective 'truths', and any supposed 'objective Truth', may be beyond our capabilities to grasp ?

Jed Mckenna - The veil of perception.


My opinion ?
Me ? Don't know nothin.

a reply to: gosseyn

Continuing with your response to your favorite straw man I see. And continuing trying to fit things people say into that straw man, reading that straw man into what someone is talking about, even if their response is actually about your proposed explanation for the origin of the machinery and technology that makes up life and not even referring to the argument of induction regarding a Creator. All you seem to need to hear is "we don't know" and then you have your excuse to bring up your straw man again, doesn't even matter what the phrase was applied to even if it actually reflected your proposed explanation: 'we don't know, but nature did it anyway*, in some way we haven't discovered yet, but might discover in the future'. The real argument from ignorance unlike attributing the emergence of machinery and technology to at least 1 creator or engineer. Haven't you done that straw man to death yet together with the media?

*: your original claim used the expression "what nature has accomplished" regarding the emergence of various systems of machinery such as lungs, hearts, etc., as if it was a fact that nature has accomplished that, that 'nature did it', unlike your later modification, backtracking on that definitive claim (as if it's an established fact, that's what I mean with "definitive" there, not that what's in the claim is actually factual). In case you were planning on pointing out you never definitevely said that 'nature did it' in your later commentary (or that that was not part of your claim, proposed explanation, argument, assertion, assumption or belief/opinion; it was originally though, when I started my set of responses on page 19).

The straw man you're using is almost the exact same phrase as the guy mentions shortly after 30 seconds below ("over and over again" he says, indeed, "over and over", just like you're doing, hammer it home, conditioning 101: rinse and repeat):

Ever considered letting go of that straw man phrase mentioned at 0:41 above (if not just for a moment at least, no more grasping at straws or straw men for that matter)?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Science tends to have their gods and goddesses as well:-
hssonline.org...

One more post to do with modern day "atomic particle research", please scroll down down to "History and background of ISIS neutron and muon source" on link below:-
en.wikipedia.org...

Please note Didcot used as a fix.
So by looking at link below you will note that ISIS was opened by Margaret Thatcher P.M. on 1st October1984:-
www.isis.stfc.ac.uk...
At that location on date, Egyptian sunrise day marker was chosen, the ISIS star, Sirius was Culminating:-

Just trying to tidy up, Isis was marked twice, firstly by opening date already mentioned, and by when first neutron was produced, it was probably staged to happen on date, midnight day marker was used when Alnilam the Osiris star was culminating, link below:-
www.isis.stfc.ac.uk...

Perhaps we need to know what gods and goddesses science believes in, and why they use hermetic philosophy?

The Large Hadron Collider was opened on 10th September 2008, link below:-
en.wikipedia.org...
The astronomy graph is below, the collider is near Geneva, which i used as an astronomy fix for location, please scroll down link to "Timeline of operations" to find info.
Ancient Greek day marker was used, being sunset previous to 10th September, as Alnilam clicked into place on the Nadir, which is the opposite to Culminating in the Northern Hemisphere.
Perhaps scientists have mental illness following Hermetic Philosophy?

a reply to: Astronomer62

Perhaps humans just like using auspicious dates and names (particularly those that seem relevant or appropriate). I doubt that any scientists follow 'Hermetic Philosophy'.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Astronomer62

Perhaps humans just like using auspicious dates and names (particularly those that seem relevant or appropriate). I doubt that any scientists follow 'Hermetic Philosophy'.

Perhaps it is politician's that choose the dates and Philosophy, which would effect democracy, with voting for Hermetic beliefs, that most people have never heard of....very naughty!

a reply to: Astronomer62

I'm sure politicians have their say depending on the occasion. It is perhaps easier to identify this behaviour in the field of architecture regards building and city planning etc. Auspicious dates and alignments are everywhere.

None of that suggests that scientists or politicians are following Hermetic Philosophy...or doing anything 'naughty'.