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.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
"If the effect was real, it would work every time", is an incorrect statement when regarding real world experiments. This, of course, is because there is many uncontrollable factors. There are MANY effects that are real, but they don't work every time.
"Real things that are actually true are consistently true", is also an incorrect statement. Although it is true that the Earth is spinning towards the East, it will probably not be consistently true in the future.
Originally posted by tgidkp
some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.
if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality
Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by constantwonder
Perhaps there WAS an observer of the universe, at the beginning. Also, what's funny is that you had to wait for me to point out this "hole."
Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
It proved that when you look at the data(not necessarily just the slits), it acts as a particle. Otherwise, it acts as a wave.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
hey man. i have enjoyed your contributions to the thread thus far, but dont get in too much of a hurry with tossing aside concepts.
reality, insofar as we are able to describe it (being contained within it, ourselves), is comprised of
nomenon phenomenon
some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.
if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality, then i would very much like to know how you would go about defining reality otherwise.
i wrote a paper on consciousness and creation a few months ago, which is on ATS *here*.
[edit on 21-2-2010 by tgidkp]
Originally posted by constantwonder
For a scientist you sure don't know much about experimentation. The whole idea of experiments is to show the same result consistantly. Outside factors are removed from experiments.
Originally posted by constantwonder
Experiments are done in ideal conditions. And if done over will show the same results. This is what is known as duplicating your results. If you cannot then you cannot say your experiment worked. It is that simple.
Originally posted by constantwonder
This is what real scientists do for a living. They hypothesize then experiment then experiment again. Then they share their results and others try to duplicate it. If all goes well it will be proven. . . if they can't be duplicated then it's back to the drawing board
however, intelligence, itself, is an intersecting dimension of our 3D reality, and it expresses itself at every level of the micromacro-cosm.
Originally posted by constantwonder
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
hey man. i have enjoyed your contributions to the thread thus far, but dont get in too much of a hurry with tossing aside concepts.
reality, insofar as we are able to describe it (being contained within it, ourselves), is comprised of
nomenon phenomenon
some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.
if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality, then i would very much like to know how you would go about defining reality otherwise.
i wrote a paper on consciousness and creation a few months ago, which is on ATS *here*.
[edit on 21-2-2010 by tgidkp]
So what your saying is that the universe exsists because of concsiousness? Not to offend your sensibility but i find that hard to swallow. Is it not the structure and evolution of the universe that allows consciousness to arise?
I don't see how being so anthropic is adding to your argument. If consciousness is required then you must evoke a god or some other higher power to collapse the superposition and cause the original phase change. . . .
I may not be interprating what your saying correctly, and if that is the case please indulge me and expand upon your thoughts
Originally posted by squiz
The feeling of being stared at....
Originally posted by squiz
The palcebo effect is another documented case of the power of the mind or power of belief.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
However, I don't find it particularly convincing.
Originally posted by np6888
My point is that if things were "normal," then they shouldn't change