The Time Has Arrived to Practice Quantum Physics, My Friends...

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
follow on from above post not enough room lol




The Skeptical Inquirer recently published an article by Robert Park (“Voodoo Science and the Belief Gene” (Park 2000a) which he excerpted from his book, “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” (Park 2000b). In his book and his article, Park lampooned the scientific research of Dr. John Hagelin and collaborators (Hagelin 1994, 1999), myself included. Based on 41 previous studies, we predicted publicly that a large group practicing the Transcendental Meditation program would lower violent crime levels in Washington, DC, by reducing stress and tension in society. During the 8-week experiment in the summer of 1993, violent crimes against the person (homicides, rapes, and assaults) decreased by 23% and closely tracked the rise in the number of participating meditators. The results were published in Social Indicators Research, a respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journal (Hagelin 1999).

Institute of Science, technology and Public Policy

So having PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY that positive thought can affect the actions and behaviours of others at a distance lets look how this exciting ability is able to help us individually, namely something overlooked in this thread and maybe where the true breakthroughs can be made in this area, making people happier, healthier and saving billions upon untold billions of $ a year namely the Placebo effect. All as the EXPECTATION, FAITH and BELIEF in an outcome happening in our thoughts, again affecting the reality away from the thoughts or consciousness, must accept this. The best example in my mind (now there’s a paradox eh?) is the following:


[rx]
A total of 180 patients were enrolled, i.e. 59-61 in each group; 165 patients completed the trial, i.e. were present at all follow-up evaluations. The groups had similar characteristics at baseline. The mean age was 52, and 92% were male. About 29% had mild, 46% moderate, and 25% severe osteoarthritis, with 20% of them on prescription analgesics.


A Healthcare Professionals Journal (silly new age types you know PhD doctors with funding)

So therefore it has been again SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED that the thoughts and beliefs of people i.e. POSITIVE THOUGHTS, EXPECTED OUTCOMES, SUGGESTED REALITIES do the same as actually mechanically interacting with a physical object. Proof again of consciousness affecting reality or the material world.

Lets then look at some more examples of this and actually support the Thread Authors assertion that this type of interaction of Positive Consciousness or thoughts on external reality may even affect events like stopping Wars, or even the AUG 22 nd Meme propagated by those who have equally negative thinking patterns, again by a PhD holder.



Today I will review the methodology and results of a few key studies from a body of 50 studies demonstrating field effects of consciousness through the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM). These studies have found reduced crime rate and decreased crime rate trend in cities after 1% of their population learned the TM technique, controlling for demographic correlates of crime. Causal analyses of random samples of 160 US cities and 40 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas over a seven-year period found stable causal structures in which the percent of the population practicing the TM technique predicted reduced crime in subsequent years. The greater the number of meditators in a city, the greater the reduction of crime in the cities in subsequent years, controlling for 13 crime-correlated demographics.

Source

Oh another New Age Loony all these mad hippy PhD types eh? How strong are your beliefs on reality now?

OF COURSE AS MENTIONED HERE MANY TIMES BY SO CALLED “SCIENTISTS” REAL SCIENTISTS WOULD NEVER POSTULATE A LINK BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND THOUGHT AND EFFECTS AT A DISTANCE… THEY ALL BOUGHT THEIR PhD’s !! Must have done as my textbook and lecturer said different.
I really can’t be bothered to source and present this as a dissertation, which as some of the soo called “scientists” defending their Paradigms and therefore ultimately Ego’s here and society at large would. However I doubt upon reflection that many of the people upholding such views have actually got to ever submitting their final one, or are still a couple of years off doing so. So to save on the Harvard reference style I will let you do some research yourselves, if you are interested in the subject rather than just ego games and Paradigm defence. When I was doing many years ago my Degree I found researching and sourcing one the hardest skills to learn so I will allow you all space in this to personally develop yourself in these areas.
Please read understand source and LEARN and GROW about the truth of current research into Direct Influence of Individual Intention on the Statistical Distribution of Physical Random Events by the following submitted by REAL scientists in peer reviewed papers. (I wonder how many who are soo sure of their paradigms here have actually had a paper go to peer review?) This so called new age stuff has been researched by scientists for some time, probably before many posters were still getting to grips with quadratic equations and Quantum meant a cartoon character not the building blocks of nature, reality and consciousness. The following researchers found evidence of such Direct Influence on external to consciousness events, material objective reality and the like.
Radin and Nelson, 1989
Jahn et al., 1997
Dobbins and Nelson, 1997
Jahn, Dunne, and Nelson, 1987
Nelson et al., 1991

A whole interpretation and analysis of these papers and experiments and results was then done by Jahn and Dunne, 1997. Very interesting read that I would advise anyone who is interested in this area to dig around and look for themselves.
Of course lets not forget the billions spent by both the USA and Soviet military into remote influencing etc, please source and read the following book and I am sure your paradigms will be broken many times over, the best read Book of the year for me see where many tax dollars go namely How does your perception of (contd
www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Mod Note: Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags: [ex] --> Begin external source content
[/ex] --> End external source content



[edit on 26-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
of Conscious affecting external events tie in with the fact that it is documented that the US military had a Team of NAVY SEALS training for many years to be able to kill their enemy at a distance by thought alone. They practised on goats, and yes again statistical proof of heart attacks way above the norm for the sample group was shown. The Us Military had the idea of “Psychic Warriors” with and I quote again a Joint Chief (though name is gone into quantum memory and fuzzy for moment lol) who wanted these warriors to be dropped into war zones and with “sparkling eyes” dissipate the enemy with no weaponry. MILLIONS of US tax dollars was (and therefore probably still is) being spent on this and years of training undergone.
“The men Who Stare at Goats” a Must Read for Everyone at ATS by Ron Johnson a very highly respected investigative Journalist



“In 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the US Army. Defying all known accepted military practice - and indeed, the laws of physics - they believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them. Entrusted with defending America from all known adversaries, they were the First Earth Battalion. And they really weren't joking. What's more, they're back and fighting the War on Terror. 'The men who stare at goats' reveals extraordinary - and very nutty - national secrets at the core of George W Bush's War on Terror.”

Source

Wow hippy new age Special Forces isn’t that interesting?

Lets also forget the BMA (British Medical Association) acceptance and backing up in the Journal “the Lancet” (the most respected medical journal in the world! (You know new age non scientists) that at least 60% of all pathologies and disease in Human beings is Pyschomatic, you know caused by thoughts… but if consciousness does not affect external things you must therefore think that your Thoughts and consciousness rests in your body, or is actually your physical body?

But hey what are thoughts made of anyway? Where is your consciousness? Surely to not affect external events or things away from itself at a distance you must be postulating a location for your consciousness, could you point it out for me? I am intrigued….even if you try pointing somewhere close to your head or brain if I hit your toe with a hammer you will find it very quickly somewhere else? Or do you not agree? Think on that!

The point I am trying to make being that if you slander others for there point of view, and are soo sure of reality based on facts and figures, please only do so when you truly have a grasp for the subject you comment on, and bringing in my speciality of the “Big Picture” or macroscopic point of view on a subject I feel that the case is closed in defence of the Thread Authors Premise that positive thinking indeed does work, or more correctly infact that all thinking works and affects things outside of the thinking apparatus and consciousness, for both Bad and Good.
Maybe AUG 22nd was averted by positive thinking… who knows that is truly too unscientific for this post as it is immeasurable with current technology and understanding. However as anyone with knowledge of science will know that if an event (thought) affects another thing the more events there are the bigger the effect, (and interestingly sometimes this is inversely proportional!) so a certain value of these events or a better term force will eventually create a change in the recipient thing.
Therefore logically a value must exist for the amount of force to effect change in state of another thing/object. Therefore What is the value of positive thoughts to create world peace? To avert a war? Maybe just maybe the thoughts created on this thread were the tipping point to stop Aug 22nd, though this truly is speculation but an interesting idea. Maybe just maybe ATS and this thread were the tipping point to avert Aug 22nd? History and further Knowledge will judge and maybe in hindsight this will be the most important thread ever written on ATS!

ATS DGTEMPE AND OUR POSITIVE THOUGHTS SAVED THE WORLD!!! YIPPEE LOL
After exploring this further I would also advise anyone interested in this to look closely at the hundredth monkey effect too which further supports this idea and opens up a whole new can of worms considering that over 60% of Americans believe a nuclear war will take place in their lifetime.

As stated please do not anyone take this as anything other than just sharing my point of view with you, and hopefully bringing some more to this thread, and ATS and ultimately you and I. Flaming in return is expected on a historical basis of previous experiences, however I hope not and I do truly respect everyone on ATS (except those on my Ignore lol (2 at mo!)

Love Light and many many many positive thoughts from this mad old hippy type shamanistic new age Environmental Engineer type.

Regards

MischeviousElf

MischeviouslyBuildingbridgesOfUnderstandingAndDispellingIgnoranceWhilstThinkingPositively!

WATS X3 DGTEMPE


mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link


[edit on 26-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
follow on from above post not enough room lol




The Skeptical Inquirer recently published an article by Robert Park (“Voodoo Science and the Belief Gene” (Park 2000a) which he excerpted from his book, “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” (Park 2000b). In his book and his article, Park lampooned the scientific research of Dr. John Hagelin and collaborators (Hagelin 1994, 1999), myself included. Based on 41 previous studies, we predicted publicly that a large group practicing the Transcendental Meditation program would lower violent crime levels in Washington, DC, by reducing stress and tension in society. During the 8-week experiment in the summer of 1993, violent crimes against the person (homicides, rapes, and assaults) decreased by 23% and closely tracked the rise in the number of participating meditators. The results were published in Social Indicators Research, a respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journal (Hagelin 1999).

Institute of Science, technology and Public Policy

So having PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY that positive thought can affect the actions and behaviours of others at a distance lets look how this exciting ability is able to help us individually, namely something overlooked in this thread and maybe where the true breakthroughs can be made in this area, making people happier, healthier and saving billions upon untold billions of $ a year namely the Placebo effect. All as the EXPECTATION, FAITH and BELIEF in an outcome happening in our thoughts, again affecting the reality away from the thoughts or consciousness, must accept this. The best example in my mind (now there’s a paradox eh?) is the following:


That's your "proof"? Are you kidding me? You, as a scientist, are actually taking this experiment seriously? I guess having a PHD and being a professor is completely meaningless, since you're espousing an experiment of zero scientific merit as proof of your theory.

First of all, this experiment is incredibly, incredibly flawed in it's procedure. There is no controlled subject here. There is no way you can say that during the 8 weeks the experiment took place the only differing factor was the group of people meditating. There are an infinite number of variable that are impossible to account for. Just a few examples, seasonal factors (crimes tend to be comitted more frequently during certain times of the year) economic factors (was the economy doing better or worse during these 8 weeks than average), Did the police force have more or less officers than normal patrolling, etc. They address a fraction of these many, many variables in the link you provided (temperature), but in no way can this be taken as serious scientific proof. It is sincerely laughable.

It's the equivalent of me stating that "I worked at the same job for the two years, 1997-1998 and the stock market average went up during those two years. This proves that my holding the same job for two years will directly effect the stock market".

And I'm sorry to say it, but you put waaaaay too much faith in the PHD title. PHD simply means you went to school for 8 years, and completed a thesis on a particular subject. In no way does it mean you are a definitive master of all subjects, including the one subject you studied, or that your personal beliefs and philosophies are correct. Ted Kezynski aka the unibomber was a PHD student, does that mean he was smarter than everyone else who didn't, and wasn't completely insane? So let's cut the smug "I have a pHD, so how dare you question me" attitude, because clearly your scientific process and theory work is worse than that of a high school physics student who understands the basic premise of a controlled environment.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Wow hippy new age Special Forces isn’t that interesting?


So if it's in a book, it must be true? I does that mean that the book "The Keys of Enoch" is true? I mean, it was written by a PHD, right?

And even if the book were true, the government has spent massive amounts of money on other such things, like Remote Viewing, phsycics, UFO research, all of which has come up with basically nothing. But I guess since the government spent money on it, it must be true?



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Lets also forget the BMA (British Medical Association) acceptance and backing up in the Journal “the Lancet” (the most respected medical journal in the world! (You know new age non scientists) that at least 60% of all pathologies and disease in Human beings is Pyschomatic, you know caused by thoughts…


As I said in my previous posts, and will reiterate here for you, I understand that the human mind has control over your own body. I do not believe this is a Quantum phenomina as you seem to, but more a result of your brain being the central nervous system which controls your entire body. But I guess that's just me, once again, using logic.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
The point I am trying to make being that if you slander others for there point of view, and are soo sure of reality based on facts and figures, please only do so when you truly have a grasp for the subject you comment on, and bringing in my speciality of the “Big Picture” or macroscopic point of view on a subject I feel that the case is closed in defence of the Thread Authors Premise that positive thinking indeed does work, or more correctly infact that all thinking works and affects things outside of the thinking apparatus and consciousness, for both Bad and Good.


Your condescention aside, this was not the premise of the initial post. If you want to have a topic discussing the merits of positive thinking, that's fine, I have no problem with that, but I resent it when people shroud their personal philosophies and religious beliefs in scientific language, such as labeling it as Quantum Physics, when it clearly is not.

It's also interesting and unfortunate that you label anyone who has the gumption to disagree with you as a slanderer. Its quite an uninformed and childish response.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Science Is The Least Tolerant Of Religions

I love saying that, because it works on so many levels.


What do I mean by that?

Science is applied philosophy. So is religion.

As the oft-quoted and oft-maligned Wikipedia puts it:


Science

Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means. The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

As it happens, opinions on just what science is vary widely, even among scientists.

In this thread I see a clash of ideologies which in many ways supports my contentions regarding the "religion of science".

All science is based on assumptions which have never been proven.

Thus anything stated as a "scientific fact" requires, at its foundation, a leap of faith.

The Religion Of Science

I often see "Science" held out as superior to "Religion", even while seeing it practiced as a religion, whose creed in its most extreme form is: "If Science can't explain it, it doesn't exist."

"Science says this" and "Science says that" is suspiciously akin to saying "God says this" and "God says that". In both cases, what is actually being said is "I believe this" and "I believe that".

Truth by assertion is hardly novel, nor it is truth.

That doesn't mean arguing for internal consistency in Science is wrong, nor that Science doesn't offer an excellent means for investigating and modeling physical phenomena, because it most certainly does.

But it does mean that when one argues that Science is Truth, it is a declaration of faith, not a declaration of fact.

I just thought I'd throw my opinion into the mix about this intriguing and ironic tendency on the part of some who may tend to present their scientific beliefs as "gospel truths".

Hopefully I won't be burned at the stake for doing so.




[edit on 8/25/2006 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Okay, I'm sticking my nose in here again. There's another site I haunt at
www.physorg.com and troll for tidbits and frankly much of it is way over my head. Recently though, I ran across this article-
www.physorg.com...
discussing a new book called Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness written by a couple of PhDs from UCal Santa Cruz, which I believe is where Richard Feynman made his mark.

Here's an exerpt from the link-


In a new book, Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (Oxford University Press, July 2006), physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner of the University of California, Santa Cruz, present a clear exposition and entertaining discussion of the baffling mysteries of quantum physics. Their motivation, in part, was to counteract the irresponsible distortions of quantum physics that are often used to support pseudoscientific claims, as in the recent movie "What the [Bleep] Do We Know!?" "Things like that movie upset me, but this is not a debunking book," said Rosenblum, a professor emeritus of physics at UCSC. "A mystery in quantum physics indeed hints at some really wild stuff. The problem is that a layperson can't tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." >SNIP<

"Physicists can use quantum mechanics and calculate with it beautifully, but nobody understands it," said Kuttner, now a lecturer in physics at UCSC. >SNIP>

"As far as what's really going on in the world, I don't have a clue, except that it's much stranger than we once thought, and somehow consciousness seems to be involved," Kuttner said.


Many years ago, when Rosenblum was a graduate student, he and a fellow student got to spend an evening with Albert Einstein, who tried to discuss the enigma of quantum mechanics with them. But they were ill-prepared.

"Our advanced courses in quantum mechanics taught us how to calculate, but avoided the mystery. Our ignorance of it disappointed Einstein," Rosenblum said. "The missed opportunity of that evening is one of the motivations behind this book. Physics courses still avoid presenting the quantum enigma. We would like to see our book used as collateral reading in such courses."


Here's a LINK to the book on Amazon. It's a little pricey, but I'm adding it to my list.

Here's an excerpt from the Amazon review from the link-


Trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. >SNIP<

Physics' encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. Because the authors open the closet and examine the skeleton, theirs is a controversial book. Quantum Enigma's description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what
it all means, however, is controversial.

Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself--and encounter quantum physics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing.


I can't wait to get into this one.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Science Is The Least Tolerant Of Religions

I love saying that, because it works on so many levels.


What do I mean by that?

Science is applied philosophy. So is religion.

I often see "Science" held out as superior to "Religion", even while seeing it practiced as a religion, whose creed in its most extreme form is: "If Science can't explain it, it doesn't exist."

"Science says this" and "Science says that" is suspiciously akin to saying "God says this" and "God says that". In both cases, what is actually being said is "I believe this" and "I believe that".

Truth by assertion is hardly novel, nor it is truth.

Hopefully I won't be burned at the stake for doing so.


It's funny, but going back and reading my post, I could see how some might think I'm an atheist prick who thinks science holds all the answers, which couldn't be further from the truth. In actuallity I am a practicing and faithful Mormon who attends church every single sunday.

I agree with much of what you've said. By no means do I think science is flawless, or holds all the answers. But what has bothered me thus far about the conversation is #1 - The extreme level of condescention by those who espouse the idea that QUantum Physics means positive thoughts will change our world, and #2 - The mixing of pseudoscience and religious belief.

I'm not saying that the ideas that DGTempe, MischevousElf and others espouse are wrong or untrue. They very well could be, just as any other religion could be true, including my own. I am not so arrogant to think I have all the answers. But it bothers me when people say their religious belief is a scientific fact, and then use shoddy scientific method to "prove" their point. Quantum Physics is so remotely related to what they are claiming as their beliefs that it really is astounding to see them vehemently claim it as proven scientific law.

It is similar to me saying "Look, we all know that the physical motion of the earth through space can be translated into mathematics. Therefore, Joseph Smith really did trankslate the Book of Mormon, so it must be true. There, I used physics to prove it". It just doesn't hold water.

But I also agree that science is a tool to help us understand our reality and the nature of the human mind. If DGTempe wants to take the fundamental idea of Quantum Physics, that there are hints of concious infuence on subatomic particles, and extend that from the micro to the macro and say conciousness can also have an effect on Macro systems such as our world and changing the negative vibrations to positive vibrations, for which there is no scientific evidence, then she can do that. Just like I can take the cause and effect theory, and it's lack of answer for what the first cause was as evidence that God exists.

But is it proof that God exists? No. It is simply proof that science and logic doesn't have the answer to what the first cause was right now. Our understanding in the terms of a scientific tool is lacking. It is not proof. My belief is an extrapolation from the scientific model of our universe as I understand it, just as DGTempe's is. To label it as scientific evidence is both intentionally misleading and ignorant.

And it's this ignorance and condescencion that spurned the lengthy diatribe I posted earlier.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I would ask you where in this entire thread a "QP consciouser" aka bleephead has come across as condecending...

I can however point out MANY posts by the "QP is only math" group that have come across as arrogant, rude, condecending, and even violating the T&C

all any of us have asked is for those that dont like this idea to at least accept its hypothetical value if further tests prove out... (in other words, lets all wait and see, instead of pretending we know more than stephen Hawking...)

because no one here yet, (with the possible exception of Byrd) has shown that they can even understand the concept we are trying to get across, much less know enough to explain what they know about QP in context...

You pointed out that you are a mormon...
you accept that your faith is true... without evidence
but you have trouble allowing a beleif that has some evidence to be pursued further...
what gives? would you want someone coming into your religious thread, and bashing your belief system? would you want someone showing how it was impossible for Mr Smith to have met an angel in the utah outback?

respect others ideas and beliefs just a little OK...

this is a theory, or perhaps only a Hypothesis, but it has evidence that is being studied by minds better than yours or I...



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Street Corner Philosopher:

To sum things up, would you say that the initial tittle of this thread was way incorrect and i should change it? You agree with me in my beleifs, but i dont think the tittle correctly reflects what i was trying to accomplish.
What would you name this thread?

You do agree that raising ones vibrations by thinking positive thoughts aligns us with the universe, therefore the universe in turn provides us with what we want and expect?? This is a very confusing subject and i need clarity. As i said, i've been reading all about it...from the very scientific to the application of it in every day life. My intention here was to apply it to daily life but i should have known that this is so in depth that merely calling for people to do quantum physics is irrational, because one must know the full workings.

Lazarusthelong, i'd also like to hear you sum it up, just so i can be straight on my facts.

thanks


No do not change the title at all. I want you to understand that just because our minds have not evolved to their full potentials yet, does not mean you have to change it. If we don't start to practice QP, then how will we begin to show and prove ?

The fact is that we could only observe and register quanta and wait for our brain to interpret that quantum information into the reality we are all familiar with. We need to realize that the world we know and see is entirly "internal". That is the main focus of QP. We observe, and we register. But like Ive said a million times on threads all over ats and bts, we determine our realities based on our Internal World or our depiction of the subatomic world.

Now Dtempe , something such as lighting bolts im sure was and is a natural occurance ever since the Earth was a fully grown planet. But there was probably a time when earlier hominids could not see such a phenomena. It probably took thousands of years for the brain to realize that lightning bolts exist.

Scientists say the human race has stopped evolving biologically. In fact, the human brain, in size and structure has finished evolving 100, 000 years ago. We are just as smart now, as we were then. Potentially.

Dtempe, your thread here made me cringe when I first saw it, it's grown to over 10 pages now. I get bashed repeatedly on the BTS faith threads when I speak of QP , the new physics, and Im glad not all are ignorant to the only method of seeking truth and proving of a higher power. A blend of the biological and mechanical can boost evolution of mind to where it's never been before. We already create realities with simple thought. Video game programmers allow machines to create entire worlds based on thought alone.


Bottom line. The only way to evolve is to ask questions. If we stop asking questions then we will not progress. Science Fiction questions will eventually turn into science fact.




[edit on 8/26/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Lazarus the long.

I think some people are misinterpreting this thread topic. People take things way too seriously because they confuse labels with reality.

For example, We label things. We labeled Pluto a planet. Now...with better technology, we realized Pluto is nothing but an Iceball. The fact that Pluto was a planet is now not a fact at all. But it's just the label. Pluto always existed, but it's only the label that changed. Facts do not change. Labels and categorizations change only.

Now when we talk about creating our own reality, we do not mean we think of a hot Filet Mignon dinner and it BOOM ! pops up on our kitchen table. ! What we mean is this. ....

If we can close our eyes and manifest that dinner and even smell it, then how can it be hard to understand that thoughts create reality? That imagined meal is just as real as the physical version. I prefer the physical version of course, but this is just an example. We need fresh demands. We have no reason to see light beyond Visible light. There are 7 layers of radiation in our physical world. Our internal world only sees one !!! Just ONE !. Now how would the world look if we can see in thermal? or in Xray ? a whole lot different. But we have no reason to see such radiation. We tap into radiowaves when using cell phones, but we cannot see the waves. Only visible light. 3D world. take the 3 dimensional pyramid , and shine a light through, and we get a rainbow.

If humans ever survive nuclear holocaust and nuclear winter. Then we probably would adapt to high levels of radiation by detecting the radiation only. Just like now. Radiation gives us cancer in space faster than on the ground. But the UV rays from sun gave us life...because the radiation is engineered and formulated perfectly to co exist with life.

WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS, AND THE DREAMERS OF DREAMS

- WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I am not a scientist, i do not write well as the rest of you do, i cannot express myself in English as the rest of you do, but since i've been into this, that is, planning my day, being grateful, visualizing what i want, etc, my life has drastically changed in a positive way.
Simply put yet powerful. I dont know why it works, although, of course, we all know that positive thinking works,...but this is more than just positive thinking, imo
whatever the reason, everything i have decided to have, everything i have conjured up by visualizing, has come true.

Please dont interpret my "simple" way of writing with the fact that i must be doing something else, mystical, or voodoo
- Its not. I go down my list daily of what i should be doing, how i should visualize, and i synchronize - If it can work for me, it can work for anyone.

I'm just interested in the very basics, although you all have provided a wealth of information for which i am grateful and i have learned a lot from you all.

Maybe, in my own simple way, without delving into this too deeply, i can gain a lot more out of these things than people who tend to overanalyze and doubt.
I may have one up over the rest of you.


I just wanted to thank everyone for your contributions to this thread. It has evolved into a wealth of knowledge. Thank you



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I would ask you where in this entire thread a "QP consciouser" aka bleephead has come across as condecending...


Well for starters we have your statement in the same post:


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
because no one here yet, (with the possible exception of Byrd) has shown that they can even understand the concept we are trying to get across, much less know enough to explain what they know about QP in context...


Not to mention the lengthy posts explaining that those who don't have a PHD cannot have a valid perspective on Quantum Physics. I could list quite a few others, but I won't for brevity's sake.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
all any of us have asked is for those that dont like this idea to at least accept its hypothetical value if further tests prove out... (in other words, lets all wait and see, instead of pretending we know more than stephen Hawking...)


I don't think any of us, and least of all me, is pretending to know more than Steven Hawking. The problem I'm having is instead of presenting these religious ideas, these ideas that your yoursef have labeled hypothetical, for what they are, people are instead presenting them as scientific fact, and when any of us question that, we get attacked as "ignorant", or "not understanding" what you're trying to say.

So I don't understand Quantum Physics? Why is it then that I've read the papers by Bohm? Have you read Einstein's paper on quantum nonlocality? I understand what you are asserting. You are a supporter of David Bohm's theories, which rejects absolute indeterminism. I would even venture to guess you are a student of neuroscientist John Eccles, who theorized that the human mind exists seperate from the physical and physiological brain and body, that the mind or intelligence interacts with the physiological portion of the brain on a quantum level.

You reject the idea of Wave Functionality, and believe that all matter is made of two things; sub atomic particles, the tiny building blocks of physical reality, and quantum fields, and that these two things combined create reality. These particles with their fields are not only acted upon by the physical forces (gravity, weak force, strong force, magnetism), but also by what has been termed the quantum force, which as near as they can tell, obeys Erwin Shroedinger's famous equation, which gives us the probablity of the location of these subatomic particles.

Bohm has theorized that these Quantum Fields can communicate and interract one with another. It is through this quantum communication or "superquantum potential" as he termed it, that we come to observe the waves interraction, which creates a sort of average behavioral pattern for these particles (i.e. classical physics and chemistry), but that they are not beholden to these behaviors. So theoretically, if these quantum fields making up my computer "decided" to change their quantum fields and behavior, they could rearrange the particles to create a banana; since they theorize that the fundamental building blocks are the same, it is just these underlying superquantum potential that is determining the shape an behavior of my computer.

And in fact you probably go one step further than John Eccles' and his theory on the non physical mind's interaction with the quantum fields making up our phisiological brain, and would state that our non physical mind can interact with any quantum field in existence. It is just a matter of learning how to harness this potential interaction.

There are also many who in turn take this as evidence of the inner spiritual control that can be exerted over other particles which make up objects. I think this is what DGTempe was suggesting from the get go, that through positive visualization, we can influence these quantum fields via our subconcious mind, and create the physical changes in reality via superquantum potential.

I have no problem with these theories, and I feel I have a pretty decent understanding of them. I do not agree with them, as there are many paradox's presented in the ideas which is why they are still not accepted by most mainstream scientists (such as how can a non-physical entity, such as our mind, interact with a quantum field in the realm of physical matter) but there are many who do not agree with my interpretation of reality either.

But, that being said, neither you nor anyone else on these boards has a right to claim their religious or philisophical belief is scientific fact. That is where my whole problem with this thread is. If we want to discuss or debate these theories, fine, I'm all for it, but let's cut out the "these aren't theories they're facts proven by people who are smarter than you" smugness. It is both asanine and a hinderance to the conversation. What you are claiming is not a belief in Quantum Physics. It is a belief in your interpretation of how Bohm's theories apply to real life. There is no emperical data or mathematics backing up your claims, it is simply your conjecture, and I resent it being presented as anything else.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
would you want someone showing how it was impossible for Mr Smith to have met an angel in the utah outback?

respect others ideas and beliefs just a little OK...


I could easily do that, since Joseph Smith never lived in Utah. It's interesting to me that you speak of respect and knowledge. I display at the very least a working knowledge of the topic you are discussing, which is why I'm chiming in on it. You obviously know nothing about Mormonism. But to answer your question, no it does not bother me, nor will it ever bother me to have people question my religious beliefs. This is probably partially due to the fact that I'm a member of a very small religion that is very frequently attacked, and also has to do with my level of confidence in my beliefs. I'm sorry if you have felt that I am attacking your beliefs. I am not. I am simply pointing out it is erronious to claim they are scientific fact.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
this is a theory, or perhaps only a Hypothesis, but it has evidence that is being studied by minds better than yours or I...


Yea, that's not a condescending remark at all.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
Not to mention the lengthy posts explaining that those who don't have a PHD cannot have a valid perspective on Quantum Physics. I could list quite a few others, but I won't for brevity's sake...



This was what I am trying to get across to some. Please read my entire posts on this thread before taking your idea about what you think I am saying. Page 10 of this thread might help though I posted before that.

Athenion I used in my long post the Phd thing for the very reason that you seem to be saying but in reverse lol please look below.:



So lets analyse this further and look at some real Science on this subject, lets keep this to PhD holders as they generally are able by this qualification to be able to lecture and pass on there understanding to others, and indeed as some here seem to be so linked to what the very famous and groundbreaking Nildram (PhD psychology) showed in some experiments, the white coat syndrome, this is a well known topic in Psychology. That people will transfer greater levels of acceptance and trust and believe, and incorporate another persons ideas and beliefs into there own structure of understanding the world around them, into their own “global view”. This has been shown in experimentation to enable someone of that status to make someone else accept unreasonable orders on their behaviour, and on how to behave and think due to deference to their status and the perceived “they must be right” “they know what they are doing” “they understand it more than me” blah blah well to be true in lots of cases this can be poppycock…lets look at the man in a white coat who said of Einstein that “he will never amount to anything” lol…. Well this man was an expert in Mathematics… and paradoxically lets look at Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, a paradigm he couldn’t let go of himself and spent most of his later life searching for.


Page 10 of this thread by me!

Regards elf



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

SOURCE
The Mental Universe

Richard Conn Henry

Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.

--

Abstract

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.

Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of our world. With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the same. This was a stunning accomplishment in 'physics outreach' and, with the subsequent work of Isaac Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.

The more recent physics revolution of the past 80 years has yet to transform general public understanding in a similar way. And yet a correct understanding of physics was accessible even to Pythagoras. According to Pythagoras, "number is all things", and numbers are mental, not mechanical. Likewise, Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' — useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall: "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.


[Mod Edit: Added source URL, ex tags, shortened quoted content]
Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 9/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

SOURCE
Embracing the Immaterial Universe (Bruce Lipton, Ph.D)

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the “observer creates the reality. "As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality! Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading toward a nonmechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter . . . we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter” (R. C. Henry, "The Mental Universe"; Nature 436:29, 2005).

Although quantum mechanics was acknowledged eighty years ago as the best scientific description of the mechanisms creating our universe, most scientists rigidly cling to the prevailing matter-oriented worldview simply because it "seems" to make better sense out of our existence. To grapple with the contradictions, the majority of physicists have chosen an easy way out: They restrict quantum theory’s validity to the subatomic world. Renowned theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: “Despite the unrivalled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37–43, 2001).

However, quantum laws must hold at every level of reality. We can no longer afford to ignore that fact. We must learn that our beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes about the world create the world. Recently, Johns Hopkins physicist professor R. C. Henry suggested that we “get over it” and accept the inarguable conclusion: "The universe is immaterial—mental and spiritual" (R. C. Henry, "The Mental Universe").


www.brucelipton.com...


[Mod Edit: Added ex tags]
Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 9/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by X Minded

Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of our world. With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the same. This was a stunning accomplishment in 'physics outreach' and, with the subsequent work of Isaac Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.

The more recent physics revolution of the past 80 years has yet to transform general public understanding in a similar way. And yet a correct understanding of physics was accessible even to Pythagoras. According to Pythagoras, "number is all things", and numbers are mental, not mechanical. Likewise, Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' — useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall: "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.


The difference between Galileo and what's being claimed in this thread, is Galileo spent many, many, many years doing emperical scientific experiments to find evidence for his theories, before he came out and said "the Earth revolves around the Sun". What we have here are a couple of people claiming their perspective, their opinion, their theory, their intepretation and extrapolation, is scientific fact. And then stating that anyone who disagrees with them simply does not understand, or isn't smart enough to "get it".

What I find even more amusing, is that theoretically and religiously, I agree with much of what is being said. As I've said before, I am a Mormon, and I personally believe what our prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught over a hundred years ago.

Taken from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

"You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, 'Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?' And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.


and from the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith taught that everything in the unverse is made up of two things, a portion to act (i.e. intelligence) and a portion to be acted upon (i.e. matter), so the behavior of atoms, subatomic particles, everything, is intelligence acting upon matter, obeying the will of god.

Brigham Young taught: (from the Journal of Discourses)

There is life in all matter, throughout the vast extent of all the eternities; it is in the rock, the sand, the dust, in water, air, the gases, and, in short in every description and organization of matter, whether it be solid liquid, or gaseous, particle operating with particle.


So philosophically and religiously, we agree on much. The difference is, I cannot say that what I believe is scientific fact, and I think it is dishonest and disingenuous for poeple to mislabel their own new age beliefs as hard science, just as it would be assanine of me to claim that Mormonism is a scientific fact.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 



Let's make it a date, DGTempe.

What I mean is, let's do this more often. And perhaps we could define specific goals (or not) to help quantitatively and qualitatively measure the effect, if any.

I take it you're probably acquainted by now with the "Intention Experiment"?
(If not, just google it out.)

Anyway, being the good scientist that I am, I volunteer as a target of any thoughts sending a million USD (British pounds are fine, too) in my direction... ;-)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join