reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I see what your getting at now. I appreciate you being patient with me and not taking offense, because as I said, that wasn't my intent, but it's
kind of difficult to ask "what are you talking about" without sounding rude or insulting, if you know what I mean
I am still totally open to the possibility of "super-human" abilities if you could call them that. I have seen and read too much about such things
to just dismiss the idea outright. In addition to your example of "chi" with regards to martial artists, there are also the monks that can
manipulate their own bodies, and external things, with nothing but their minds, and IIRC they also are taking advantage of the "chi" concept. I'll
have to admit my own ignorance here though, as I have looked into such things, but never delved terribly deep into that subject matter, so that's all
I can say about that.
But, I am discussing more specifically just the double slit experiment as it relates to such things. Like I just said, I don't deny or dismiss the
possibility of a whole spectrum of physics that we have not even begun to understand, I just don't think the double slit experiment is something that
would point to any of that, in the sense of the human mind altering or changing events.
The initial idea that a human can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came from the results of the double slit experiment being
different, depending on whether or not we were measuring the photons at the actual slit.
Both times the experiment is being observed. So, if observation causes it to change, why aren't the results the same both times? It's because
Observation isn't the key issue effecting the outcome. It's the manner of observation.
The photons make the mysterious pattern on the "wall" after they pass through the slits. We can observe this without interfering with the way the
photons are behaving as they pass through the slits.
But the part we want to figure out, is what exactly is going on as those photons are reaching, and passing through the slits. So we try to observe
them at the moment they are passing through the slits.
The problem is, the only ways we currently have to observe them as they pass through the slits, also interfere with their behavior at the slits, which
is the reason the outcome/results of the experiment start to change when we observe their behavior at that specific location.
What we need is a passive way to see what's going on at the slits. We have a passive way to see what pattern they make after they pass through the
So basically it boils down to, if us observing this experiment is causing the difference in results, then there shouldn't be two different results,
because BOTH times the experiment is done it is STILL being observed. It's just the fact that during observation at the slits, we can only measure it
with interfering, where as measuring the pattern made after the slits is non-interfering, this is what causes the two different results, not some sort
of mind power being projected onto the experiment.
But I still have to repeat what I said, I don't want to seem as if I am trying to rule out the mind's power. But in regards to the slit experiment,
the minds power is of no consequence to the two different results that we get.
Just wanted to thank you again for your patience, and I hope you feel I am showing you the same respect that you showed me with my posts.