reply to post by James1982
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.
Respectfully, I would suggest that the idea that humans can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came long before the double slit
Humanity did no sail across the seven seas because ships grew on trees. Someone, somewhere, perceived a ship, and this perception turned into an
event that radically changed the outcome of humanity.
The frustration that seems to arise from the "cold, calculating, detached attitude" of the scientist or physicist, I am guessing, stems from people
wanting to find some correlation between what you have just argued and what I countered with. Deepak Chopra can be quite maddening to those who
understand the physics of this experiment, and I can totally relate to this frustration, and indeed often times I too get frustrated with Chopra's
giant leaps of correlations between the esoteric and physics.
Depak Chopra, however, is not Lao Tzu, and the Tao makes no attempt to claim scientific knowledge, and only endeavors to offer a way. A course in
which people might take to better navigate this mystery of life. In offering this way, the Tao seems to have tapped into understandings that in
themselves are more of a quantum based understanding than the linear understanding of physics.
I brought up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics earlier because it is observably so that more than just closed heat systems tend towards entropy. I am not
nearly versed enough in the language of mathematics to handle all the variables that would constitute a closed economic system, and if we were to
actually conduct an experiment to back up my hypothesis that all closed systems, not just heat systems, tend towards entropy, it would probably be a
good idea to study the variables in open systems as well, but who is doing this? How many physicists are willing to conduct experiments in this way,
as opposed to sticking with the more comfortable field of chemical reactions?
This is my concern, that we have come to a point where science has gone back to being arbitrary when it suits its purposes, and only falling back on
the scientific method when castigation of the non scientific seems to them to be warranted. That "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" are treated
with the same respect, in spite of the dogmas that exist within some of these fields, while the metaphysical is dismissed as a tool for the ignorant.
All in all, though, both yours and CLPrime's contributions in this thread have been invaluable and necessary. These discussions are, in my not so
humble opinion, very important for those who are attempting to find a greater understanding of the universe of which we reside.