It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to save the World, and influence things.

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I wish to ride horses

I am, sadly, without the will to change my desires

I will always wish to ride the pretty horses



To wish implies that one accepts that the request is unreasonable.

Your belief that this is too much to ask is a barrier to your goal.

If you can't believe that you will ride pretty horses, perhaps enough others off us in this thread might do it for you.

I ask you, every morning when you first wake, daydream that you are riding.
See the horse, imagine stroking it.
Feel its muscular back between your legs as its walk becomes a canter. Feel your feet pressing into the stirrups as
you move in harmony with your galloping friend.

At night, before you sleep, do this again.
Don't try to make it happen, just feel the daydream becoming more real each time.

As an experiment, I ask others to also daydream this for Astyanax.
Some things are not as impossible as they seem.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ok someone else wrote a book about this, i believe it is called the isaiah effect, went to the bookshelf , found it, by greg braden, so basically we can co-create our own reality through prayer, quantum physics, yes! apparently, i believe the instructions were included in the dead sea scrolls found at Quam Rum which if remember correctly were written by the brothers of light, which supposedly the jesus studied with, so basically all is possible, we have a choice of many futures, unfortunately through the media addiction of the many to many the PTB are intentionally brainwashing us all, yes i listen to the bbc news on the way to work and hear it, the fear fear fear, the media works for the terrorists which do exist as in the PTB are the terrorists, Al Qaeida is a fiction thought up in fairfax virginia it does not exist but by believing the PTB and buying into it we make it exist, yes there are people blowing themselves and things up, but you know where there funding comes from..you guessed it, the black ops budjet which has no oversight, done through double blinds like the toronto thing, a means to an end. CONTROL. Thing is by co-creating WE can control the outcome, not them, yes it takes some trust, but all is possible my friends, perhaps if we all visualise a wonderful bright future free of money, death, war, racism, greed and a healthy planet, we could and will all be free from the madness that exists right now...in the light as alway, dream well and prosper.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
I would also like to add that in more advanced double slit experiments, it was found that:

-if you don't measure through wich of both slits the single particle goes, it wil behave as a wave after the slits.

-if you measure wich of both slits the single particle goes through, it will behave as a particle.

-if you measure wich of both slits the single particle goes through, but immediately erase the info of the detection, it will still behave as a wave.

This proves that the physical act of measuring, is not what causes the destruction of the wave.

It's the act of the info reaching the experimenters consciousness, what causes the wave of potential to collapse.

The experiment can be done with photons and electrons and even some more particles, with the same result.


Great post star for you.

i was avoiding talking about further devolpments in these experiments for fear of information overload.

I believe the scariest thing about the advanced experiments is the particle knows before hand when the observation is going to take place ,

Not only were but when , now if this wave function started 9 billion light years away and travelled to your current position, and it knew to behave like a particle just before it got to you ... this implys to arrive then and thier it must have known 9 billion light years ago what path it was gonna take because it knew you would be their to observe it .



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
-if you measure wich of both slits the single particle goes through, but immediately erase the info of the detection, it will still behave as a wave.

This proves that the physical act of measuring, is not what causes the destruction of the wave.

It's the act of the info reaching the experimenters consciousness, what causes the wave of potential to collapse.


Can you please cite your source for this? This seems impossible to me. What difference does it make if the information about the particle / wave is terminated within the circuits of the observation device or within the neurons of a brain? That's like saying if you had an automated pencil write down the info, then afterward you erased it by hand without looking at it, your eraser would be triggering the transformation. The eraser. What if you only erased half of it? Would it become half of a wave? What if you memorized the info, then forgot it two years later?

The way I see it, a mind is just a complex biological machine. I can't see any reason why the universe would play favorites with the chemical reactions involved in the mind's perception over the chemical reactions in whatever device is being used to observe the electron.

I apologize if I seem doubtful... with quantum physics, just about anything is possible. But I'd really be curious to see your source on this.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Clarke's Third Law: Astyanax's Corollary

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

So wrote the distinguished writer and inventor of the communications satellite, Sir Arthur C. Clarke. For reasons we needn't go into here, it is known as Clarke's Third Law.

Now I, Astyanax, inspired by this thread and so many like it, propose a Corollary to this widely-acknowledged law:

Most people can't tell science and magic apart, either


Look:

The observer effect in quantum mechanics does not in any way suggest that human beings can perform miracles and make wishes come true. It's not in the science and it's not in the mathematics. It's just magical thinking - a cargo cultist's understanding of science. The kind of thinking that makes primitive New Guinean tribesmen build 'radar scanners' and 'airstrips' to encourage the Aeroplane Gods to land and distribute Hershey Bars.

If consciousness creates the universe, science knows nothing about it.

* * *



Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel


Originally posted by Mozzy
does consciousness determine what is and what isn't an observer?

Yes it does in a massive massive way.

No, it does not. Consciousness determines absolutely nothing. An 'observer' is unnecessary to collapse the wave function. An unobserved 'measuring device' will do as well. What is a 'measuring device'? It's not a screen or a finely calibrated detector. It is simply anything that provokes a quantum event. It doesn't have to be put in place by a conscious entity, or ever have (except, perhaps, in Berkeleian Rationalist terms) to be noticed by one.

In fact, the 'measuring device' can be just about any aspect of 'classical' reality. Anything that causes the wave function to collapse. An atom - heck, even a subatomic particle - is a measuring device. So is the entire universe. So is everything in between. Alexander1111 is right to ask


I mean isn't the electron "perceptible" even if we don't observe it (in other words, aren't photons bouncing off the electron even when we do not observe it)? Why doesn't it change its behaviour then?

The correct answer is the commonsense one: every time a photon hits and deflects an electron, that's an 'observation' - whether or not anybody's watching. And yes, it does change the behaviour of the electron, which is diverted along a different spacetime vector - knocked sideways, in plain speech.

If consciousness creates reality, how did the Universe contrive to exist between the Big Bang and the initial evolution of consciousness? No-one was observing it then. Quantum_Squirrel thinks it all hung about in a big fuzz of probabilities until someone popped up and yelled 'I spy!' But that is plainly nonsense; if it were true, how could consciousness evolve in the first place?


Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
Wrong way around, everything is a wave of possability's and the observation from the concious form makes it act like a particle.

You really need to brush up your physics if you're going to talk about things like waves and particles...


The 'Theory of relativity' is just that a .. theory

...not to mention relativity. Which one are you talking about? Special or General? Which one does the varying speed of light in different media contradict? What is the contradiction? Is there a contradiction?

* * *


Mozzy, your questions are both penetrating (like frozen chickens through a slit) and well-informed. Were the clown mask to slip, would we glimpse a mortarboard?


if consciousness dictates who the observer is, and an object can be set in motion by an observer then how is there anything left that hasn't been converted to an observer? even the electrons should be observing themselves

Precisely. Brilliant.

* * *


reply to post by EternitysDream
 


On an entirely different tangent, don't humans fundamentally act in a manner very similar to particles? For example the act of perception collapsing subatomic superposition into determinate states could similarly apply to people; as the act of perception (to varying degrees depending on personality) collapses an individual human capable of doing whatever they want into a more determinate state. We call it, "Peer Pressure" but regardless of the differences in the entity which is affected perception proves itself to have an undeniable power over reality itself.

A star for this brilliant idea. It is clearly the premise of a yet-unwritten (as far as I know) science-fiction story. Hurry up and write the story, before I do so myself.

Gosh, a genuinely original idea on Above Top Secret. The sky must be about to fall.

By the way,


I would argue that the universe doesn't care what you wish for, but it is naturally receptive to those who actively strive to apply their will to it.

That's what I said, except that I don't believe in free will, so in my terms the universe just cares about - responds to - what we do.

* * *

reply to post by Jezus
 


The Universe doesn't care about what you do either.

Oh yes it does - in the sense that it is affected by what you do, and responds to it. Causality in action, you see.


We ALWAYS DO whatever we want.

No, we do what we must.


The separation of intention and action is an illusion.

I hold that intention itself is the illusion.

I am not a fatalist.


Fatalism... is a supernatural belief system which holds humans outside the natural matrix. In direct contrast to the most common form of supernaturalism (belief in free will), fatalism holds that the natural world causes events in human life but is not itself influenced by human will or behavior. No matter what you do, the same things will happen to you.


* * *


And Spiramirabilis,


I wish to ride horses

I am, sadly, without the will to change my desires

I will always wish to ride the pretty horses

Riding lessons, my dear. Take riding lessons.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ty for your contribution to this thread,

i would like to point out at no point do i say i am a physics major or quantum specialist , in fact in many posts i say i will use my meager knowledge to attempt to address questions.

The premise of this thread was not to discuss quantum theory or its workings it was a concept about living in Love not Fear.

it sorta spiraled into quantum explanation because of the myriad of people unable to grasp even the simplest quantum revalation.

the point about the measuring device ... although i agree partly with what you say until a sentient observer looks at the device how will we ever kn ow? until then it is still a wave of posability's until we open the box |(schroedingers cat)

Now you are breaking the theory down into its constituent parts, yes we know the cat in the box is dead or alive, but untill will look we will NEVER know how the wave function collapsed and until we do it is both dead AND alive. so i believe the observer is an intrisic part of the theory.

Now if everything is connected at that level, then yes your are right a particle could collapse the wave function, but isnt that particle affected by the overall conciousness of reality?

Again ty for your input , but rememebr this thread is not physics 101 it is an idea to send love via the resonance field.

regards

QS


[edit on 31/10/08 by Quantum_Squirrel]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Kailassa - this is really a very kind and generous thing you've done here -



To wish implies that one accepts that the request is unreasonable. Your belief that this is too much to ask is a barrier to your goal.

If you can't believe that you will ride pretty horses, perhaps enough others off us in this thread might do it for you.


but never fear - I do not suffer from a lack of imaginary horses

nor do I believe it's unreasonable for me to want a real one - although - I hear from friends that have them that they can actually be quite expensive to keep :-)

I'm afraid your sincerity and compassion were wasted on someone who was, essentially, just being a smarty pants



I ask you, every morning when you first wake, daydream that you are riding. See the horse, imagine stroking it. Feel its muscular back between your legs as its walk becomes a canter. Feel your feet pressing into the stirrups as you move in harmony with your galloping friend. At night, before you sleep, do this again. Don't try to make it happen, just feel the daydream becoming more real each time.


I wanted to repeat this part - because - it's just so nice to read

I understand what you're saying - and - others could benefit from reading it again



As an experiment, I ask others to also daydream this for Astyanax. Some things are not as impossible as they seem.


this is a very nice idea - some of us already do this very thing.

but, for crying out loud - don't tell Astyanax

besides - he's probably doing OK just the way he is - however it may look to the rest of us



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



...An 'observer' is unnecessary to collapse the wave function. An unobserved 'measuring device' will do as well. What is a 'measuring device'? It's not a screen or a finely calibrated detector. It is simply anything that provokes a quantum event...

In fact, the 'measuring device' can be just about any aspect of 'classical' reality. ...Anything that causes the wave function to collapse. An atom - heck, even a subatomic particle - is a measuring device. So is the entire universe. So is everything in between...

The correct answer is the commonsense one: every time a photon hits and deflects an electron, that's an 'observation' - whether or not anybody's watching. And yes, it does change the behaviour of the electron, which is diverted along a different spacetime vector - knocked sideways, in plain speech...


that's it - all that - right there is the explanation I've been looking for - thank you - from the sidelines

I think maybe they - whoever they is - should spend some time coming up with a better word than "observer" - it's misleading



The observer effect in quantum mechanics does not in any way suggest that human beings can perform miracles and make wishes come true. It's not in the science and it's not in the mathematics. It's just magical thinking - a cargo cultist's understanding of science. The kind of thinking that makes primitive New Guinean tribesmen build 'radar scanners' and 'airstrips' to encourage the Aeroplane Gods to land and distribute Hershey Bars.


yeah, but - if that works, then...

I'm guessing sometimes the Aeroplane Gods do land with their Hershey bars - if only because they're amused

perhaps amusing the gods is key



If consciousness creates the universe, science knows nothing about it.


:-)

I can live with that



And Spiramirabilis,



I wish to ride horses

I am, sadly, without the will to change my desires

I will always wish to ride the pretty horses


Riding lessons, my dear.

Take riding lessons.


well, okay - but I'm going to have to wish for them first

actually - I've taken the lessons - what I've learned is - anyone can ride a horse - if they want to

not everyone is good at it


[edit on 10/31/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I am not a fatalist.


Fatalism... is a supernatural belief system which holds humans outside the natural matrix. In direct contrast to the most common form of supernaturalism (belief in free will), fatalism holds that the natural world causes events in human life but is not itself influenced by human will or behavior. No matter what you do, the same things will happen to you.


good to know

I was starting to think causality might be something the eggheads cooked up so they could empirically resign themselves to their fate

:-)

so, back to how to save the world, and influence things

free will, causality - influence - all very confusing to me

without free will - we can still influence things

it's just pure folly to believe that we can decide what we can or cannot influence

and yet - we must live as if we can

it makes me tired

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I stick to my original position. They were observing the experiment all along. The only thing they changed was the perspective of the observation. By changing their perspective, they changed what they observed, and maybe even influenced the outcome, by a poor choice of instrumentation techniques. It is not the mere act of observing, but how the event is observed that makes the difference.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Sorry about getting your name mixed up.
I hope Astyanax enjoys his horse-ride.



I'm afraid your sincerity and compassion were wasted on someone who was, essentially, just being a smarty pants

It's all good.



perhaps amusing the gods is key

The god I believe in never stops chuckling at our endeavours.


It's just pure folly to believe that we can decide what we can or cannot influence.

A friend once tried to convince me I could get anything I wanted if I kept visualising it. I agreed to visualise for a month me owning a house, knowing that such a thing was impossible.

Six months later I was in my own house; now it's paid for.
However I was not only lucky, but I had to fight like mad and go through hell to get it.
And I still can't believe it was more than co-incidence.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
. . .
I believe the scariest thing about the advanced experiments is the particle knows before hand when the observation is going to take place ,

Not only were but when , now if this wave function started 9 billion light years away and travelled to your current position, and it knew to behave like a particle just before it got to you ... this implys to arrive then and thier it must have known 9 billion light years ago what path it was gonna take because it knew you would be their to observe it.


Couldn't it just mean that time, the path and the particle do not exist except within our perceptions?

Our perceptions would not be in conflict if we are all one, and individuality is an illusion.

God got bored and lonely and decided to create the illusions of many and space and time because, if you're a bored and lonely god, why not? Forgetfulness was necessary in order to make the game interesting.

And Buddhism strives to overcome this forgetfulness, never realising they are looking for the one cheat code that thoroughly spoils the game.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I didn't notice the name mix up at all

so there you go - it is all good :-)

also:



And Buddhism strives to overcome this forgetfulness, never realising they are looking for the one cheat code that thoroughly spoils the game.


I like that - never thought about it that way before

I am also going to start visualizing me a house of my own :-)

these people here just made me take down my bird feeder - time to go maybe

but, on a less self-involved note - I'm going to visualize saving the world first - I can't claim to know anything - but, I'm pretty sure it couldn't hurt



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Great concept. I state it as, the purpose of life is to entertain God. I always thought of our imperfections as what allow us to evolve, and through us God can evolve. Perfect beings never change.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The most interesting part of the experiment is not the fact that an observer causes are change in reality.

The most interesting part is that even after the experiment takes place an observer can change the results.

Deciding AFTER the experiment to look at the observed results CHANGED the results.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
[edit on 3-11-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AstyanaxNo, we do what we must.


We ALWAYS do what we want because we can't do anything else.

However, the idea of MUST, the idea of necessity is nothing but an illusion. There is nothing we MUST do without adding a conclusion.

We MUST eat to live. (Assumed fact)
We MUST eat. No, we could not eat and we would die.


Originally posted by AstyanaxI hold that intention itself is the illusion.


Well as the separation of action and intention is an illusion (intention IS an action) and you believe intention is an illusion, is action an illusion?

I don't know...possibly. I am not a fatalist.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

I would also like to add that in more advanced double slit experiments, it was found that:

-if you don't measure through wich of both slits the single particle goes, it wil behave as a wave after the slits.

-if you measure wich of both slits the single particle goes through, it will behave as a particle.

-if you measure wich of both slits the single particle goes through, but immediately erase the info of the detection, it will still behave as a wave.

This proves that the physical act of measuring, is not what causes the destruction of the wave.

It's the act of the info reaching the experimenters consciousness, what causes the wave of potential to collapse.

The experiment can be done with photons and electrons and even some more particles, with the same result.


now you're adding time to the equation. i think we're getting closer to the truth. but this is still wrong. if the "information" reaching the observer is what is required for the electron to collapse into wave function then you must test other options to not cherry pick the experiment.

first you have to decide what would happen if the "information" was sent to two different people. one was alive and well and one was a total retard. if the retard was incapable of receiving the information then would the experiment change?

secondly, if the time it takes to delete the information dictates the results then you must also consider the time it would take conceive and excecute the experiment. you can see how complicated this will become. this is why i believe this experiment isn't being explored properly. (which is of course means this is a killer experiment)

lastly, the slits are irrelevant unless they're capable of keeping the electrons from going anywhere other than through the slits. what's to say that firing electrons through gas or a vacuum would be any different than having two possible positions humans recognize as valid?



[edit on 3-11-2008 by Mozzy]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Mozzy]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 





now you're adding time to the equation. i think we're getting closer to the truth. but this is still wrong.


Wrong? I just described the conclusions and the implications of real double slit experiments. This is what happens everytime, so you can say it's wrong, but I think you need to do some research.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
no thanks @ research.

i'm not saying your exp didn't happen. to me it's easy to see ways to expand this theory. your opposing force is part of that. but the exp is wrong, you can be sure about that.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join