Why must you insist reality is illusion?

reply to post by sirnex


The clip doesn't come from the movie "What the bleep do we know".

The Double Slit Experiment is almost hundred years old and has been done various times in new ways, with new technology and has ultimately come to this conclusion.

Maybe you need to do some research first.

The implications of this experiment are inescapable.

Why must you insist upon snaring me into a pigeon hole? I insist upon nothing. These kind of worded threads aggravate me.

reply to post by vasaga


As I said, do some basic rudimentary research on these things. Here you are showing me a video of a physicist giving a BASIC explanation on De Broglie waves as it is seen in this experiment. Yet, your forgetting one important part, De Broglie's model proposes that there is no 'duality' involved. Neat huh? I can sound like a know it all smart ass by doing something called READING. You learn something new everyday.

And no, it's not BS. Look it up.

The last part of your post is again another misinterpretation of the mechanics behind the universe. Science doesn't really portray the universe like that at all, even if the BASIC explanations behind the mechanics might make it APPEAR to do so.

reply to post by sirnex

Actually it's a gross misinterpretation of the experiments and what they mean and what goes on fundamentally behind them.

So, can you explain to me how that experiment should be interpreted? Please, explain the true meaning and what goes on fundamentally behind them.

reply to post by enigmania


I could if I felt like it and had the time to waste in explaining some of it. I would have to do a 'refresher' first to jog my memory on certain aspects of things, which would take some time.

Then again, you could take the role of self-education yourself as well and learn more about these things also.

reply to post by sirnex


How surprising.

So you have the ability and knowledge to say, within a few minutes of my post, that my interpretation is completely of, yet you cannot explain what is wrong with my interpretation.

That is telling.

[edit on 14/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by enigmania


Incorrect, I said I COULD explain why it was wrong, but that it would take some time to formulate a decent explanation. Something I just don't have right this minute to refresh my knowledge and pound about on the keyboard to explain to you.

What I do have time for right this minute is to tell you that your wrong, that you should look into it a bit more, if your willing to wait for a proper response then by all means wait, and if your not willing to wait then do yourself a favor and take an active role in teaching yourself.

ATS has the greatest moto ever, Deny Ignorance. Yet, you can't deny ignorance by remaining ignorant or waiting around for people to hand feed you. It's time to be a big boy now and do some things on your own. Like I said however, if you don't want to do it yourself, then wait till I have the time to hand feed you.

reply to post by sirnex

I could if I felt like it and had the time to waste in explaining some of it. .

So you only feel like telling people they are wrong, but not why.

So telling people they are wrong, is not a waste of time, but explaining it to them is.

I would have to do a 'refresher' first to jog my memory on certain aspects of things, which would take some time

So you admit you aren't "qualified" right now to explain it to me, then how "qualified" are you to judge my interpretation in the first place?

Earlier in this thread you were acting all proud because you sniffed out someone that had watched "What the bleep do we know?".

Let me snif you out. You are one of those people that saw the movie to, but you're just too closeminded to get it, too afraid of the implications and just not ready for it.

Now you feel the need to attack every theory that supports it, but you can't even explain why.




[edit on 14/9/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 14/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by sirnex

Yet, you can't deny ignorance by remaining ignorant or waiting around for people to hand feed you. It's time to be a big boy now and do some things on your own.

I've come to my conclusions and interpretations on my own, and I will continue to do so.

I desire nothing from you but an explanation as to why my interpretations are wrong.

That is all.

reply to post by enigmania


Ok, so you've taken the lazy approach, that is perfectly fine. So long as you fully understand what your basically saying to your fellow ATSers.

Give me a couple days and I'll send you a U2U. But I do beg you to not use "I came up with my own conclusions". You did not and you know it, we all know it. I didn't even come up with the conclusion of why your wrong, the people who did the research and wrote about the studies came up with the conclusion themselves, I'm just letting you know that the thing's you've been reading and watching are gross misinterpretations of those studies.

reply to post by sirnex

Ok, so you've taken the lazy approach, that is perfectly fine. So long as you fully understand what your basically saying to your fellow ATSers.

Wow, you are so arrogant. You are the lazy one. You are the one that says I'm wrong, but doesn't want to elaborate.

If you can see that something is wrong in a few minutes, you should be able to explain why, in a few minutes.

Why send me a u2u?

Why not explain it in this thread, maybe others would like to know.

But I do beg you to not use "I came up with my own conclusions".

The conclusions I made are my own, after researching experiments, theories and just my thoughts. No one led me there.

I'm just letting you know that the thing's you've been reading and watching are gross misinterpretations of those studies.

Yes, you keep saying that, but the Double Slit experiment is well known and well documented and there is no other way to interprete that.

Please tell me now, what is your interpretation of the Double Slit experiment?

You know what, never mind this. I'm outta here.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by vasaga]

Reality is an interaction of (possibly) identifiable systems with (possibly) identifiable subsystems,
that create subsystems (recursive),
that can not be observed WITHOUT participation in the system,
by the observer (willing or unwitting).

What is reality? It depends what you are observing it with.
If you observe it then you change it.
You become part of the process.
Therefore you are observing part of yourself.

There is no 'YOU' and 'THE OUTSIDE WORLD'. There is no 'independent'.
Everything is not 'unified' either or 'together' (that implies that they were once separate).

There is one. Oneness. It.

Our concepts have nothing to do with reality, only with information gathered called personal experience.

This itself is tainted by our very first experience, and our second... and the successive experiences and memories. How you perceive 'reality' is up to you. And only you.

Say you had a computer that could record every aspect of a basic experience, say looking at a coloured card. The computer records the position, change, growth and connection, in fact every single aspect of the brains cell structure and neuro chemistry, and the whole of the body, and how it experiences this color.

The computer has a record of everything that every cell in your body did, and at what time and order, when you experienced this color.

We can say that we understand every aspect of how you experienced this color. Except the actual experience itself that you had at the time.

We understand and have access to ALL the information about organism during the experience. We can never know the experience. YOU DID.

You are...now, knowledge is limited, conciousness is unlimited.

reply to post by enigmania

Wow, you are so arrogant. You are the lazy one. You are the one that says I'm wrong, but doesn't want to elaborate.

Explain how I am being the lazy one? I've done the homework already. I did say I was willing to elaborate, but it'll take a couple days to write a proper response as I have to refresh my knowledge a bit on the subject.

If you can see that something is wrong in a few minutes, you should be able to explain why, in a few minutes.

Because it will take me more than a few minutes to explain why. As I have previously said, I need to refresh my knowledge on the subject. I refuse to give an inadequate response, sorry if I prefer quality over argument.

Why send me a u2u?

I could post it in the thread instead if you prefer, I just figured a U2U would be better due to how buried this aspect of this discussion could get within a two day period.

The conclusions I made are my own, after researching experiments, theories and just my thoughts. No one led me there.

And you call me arrogant? You know damn well that unless you specifically yourself conducted the experiments then you specifically yourself did not arrive to the conclusions yourself. You found something that sounded cool and decided to look up information that seemingly confirmed that really cool sounding idea.

Yes, you keep saying that, but the Double Slit experiment is well known and well documented and there is no other way to interprete that.

Your right, there is no other way to interpret it, unless that interpretation is a gross misunderstanding of what is going on. While I wish I had full memory and infinite amount of time at my disposal to tell you why you are wrong right this minute, I just don't. I have explained adequatly enough and many times now why it will take a couple of days.

As I said, if your going to be lazy, your going to damn well wait and love it. Beggars can't be choosers. Don't like it, then stop begging and go out there in the big bad world of education and learn something that just might break the foundations of the garbage you believe in.

Believe--Perceive--Experience.

Originally posted by vasaga
You know what, never mind this. I'm outta here.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by vasaga]

Annoying huh, these evasive manouvres of the paradigm brigade.

read:
a course in miracles or the disappearance of the universe by gary renard
it explains the ego made all this and god has nothing to do with duality

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The illusion is actually a reflection, but without one of the two showing proof.

Depends how piercing his perspective. Will he develop the roots of perception in his mind or in his spirit. Then, will he set out to verify.

All these factors and more will push his accuracy to reality.

reply to post by enigmania


More like the hypocrite brigade.

Calls me lazy after I already told him many times now to give me a couple days to formulate a decent response. He has already admitted to his own laziness in refusing to look this up himself. The whole De Broglie wave issue earlier was from one of his own links. I didn't previously know that De Broglie's model rejects the whole particle/wave duality. Yet, clicking a couple links from that original link he sent me led me to this tidbit of info.

Yes, I can come off as an arrogant know it all, but that is because I actually try to learn and know it all. Even if I don't know enough about a subject I'm debating about, just a few searches on the internet and you can learn a lot. This particular subject I just happened to already have looked into after watching the movie, I actually watched video's of the scientist's themselves not to happy about having certain thing's edited out of the interviews to make them appear to be agreeing with the concepts the movie was putting forth.

He wants to be hypocritical and call me lazy, that's his choice. The sad part is, he showed his character to us all, and I feel sorry for him for doing so.

reply to post by sirnex


So I'm lazy because I came to another conclusion? Because I disagree with you, I have to do more research?

I told my views, based upon a real experiment. You say I'm wrong. I ask you why I'm wrong, you won't tell me. Does that make me lazy?

As I have previously said, I need to refresh my knowledge on the subject.

Yes having said that, why judge my interpretation in the first place.?

You know damn well that unless you specifically yourself conducted the experiments then you specifically yourself did not arrive to the conclusions yourself.

Not to a direct conclusion of an experiment, I'm talking about the conclusions I made about the whole of info, theories and science I ever soaked up.

Noone hand feeded me the info of wich I say it is true.

Apparently we are talking about the same experiment, yet we have different conclusions.

That alone proves that we can get to our own conclusions, otherwise we would be in agreement.

I just think that the knowledge you claim to have that enables you to judge my interpretation as false, would be same knowledge that would enable you to explain why it is wrong.