reply to post by Astyanax
First I apologise for not putting citations from you into my text!
I`m brand-new in here, and throughout the last week I didn`t have the time to get into knowledge how to do that.
Impulsive as I am sometimes, I thought this night, ok, I can write that text without citations from other users - but today, intending to write an
answer to your post, I would need this knowledge, I`ll do the rest of my homework soon!
It overwelmed me, because this matter is so interesting and exciting!
I didn`t write, we could observe quantum-particles without measuring them.
I wrote we could observe their behaviour.
But that wasn`t quite correct too, because in the double-loop-experiment we can only observe a very little part of the behaviour of photons, more
correct, their behaviour`s results - that`s when they impact upon the screen and we can see the light they cause.
By my knowledge that`s the only way we can get that near observation of something quantum particles do without measuring single particles.
But even in this "near to the quantum-world situation" we can change nothing at all only by observation.
So we agree in this points.
That`s a very interesting case with the light. It shows us more of the quantum-world than every other physical occurence, we can experience without
More than any other physical action it`s a quantum-physical appearence.
Is it that, why the velocity of light doesn`t add up with our velocity, even if we move into its direction? It stays the same. Light seems to move
through space without being subordinated the physical laws of space in some points.
About time: It doesn`t exist without space. If there`s no space, there`s no time. Time is the consequence of space.
And information manifests synchroniously within quantum-actions.
It always acts without needing time, therefore we can conclude, it doesn`t move through space.
And therefore it is a dimension of its own or exists within a dimension above space and time.
And to invert the point of view: If there existed an intelligent form of live only within the two dimensions of length and width, they wouldn`t
realize any pressure being put upon them.
But they could be shaken horizontally by something, that happens within the third dimension. When they then get into knowledge of the existence of a
higher dimension, to state length and width don`t exist would be wrong.
So we can`t say space and time don`t exist although we can assume, there is something from a higher dimension acting within our boardered world.
Should we name this dimension godly?
I´m strictly against that, although I believe in god.
Science and theology or believing in god don`t have any slice plane.
We are not able to encompass or measure higher dimensions with natural-scientifical methods, and therefore we can`t proof any statements about
So natural-scientists and people who are talking about natural-science shouldn`t use that kind of science to proof the existence of god nor to proof
the opposite point of view.
And, by the way, I hope there will never be a proof of the existence of god, because one of the innermost characters of faith are the free will and