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 filledcup
well thats understandably the perspective u would like to hold. but it is still baseless. they dont know enough to know that God doesnt exist FOR SURE!.. thus its a philosophy. a theory.. whether or not aligned politically or however else it is classed. a rose by any other name.
Originally posted by filledcup
we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.
is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't know how you get all that gibberish out of that video.
Originally posted by filledcup
Perfect: everywhere. as u go deeper.. infinity, divide by zero, spirit, inter-dimensional bridge, rules of time and space distorted, intelligent design. it cannot be escaped.
Michio just refuses to accept.
George Box explained that video well when he stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. That sums up the video in a nutshell. No model is a perfect representation of reality, and when you reach the limits of the model the model no longer works. But the model was just a model, not reality.
It wasn't long ago that our primate ancestors were swinging from the trees, so while our brains have advanced somewhat they might need to advance some more.
Not only that, but it's religious people that tried to stop science from advancing, like when Galileo was not allowed to say the Earth orbited the Sun. If science had been allowed to proceed without religious interference, we might be further ahead by now and have some of this stuff figured out.
However the Catholic church finally did apologize to Galileo, about 300 years after he died. Look at how much we've accomplished in the last 100 years, and imagine if we didn't lose those hundreds of years, how much further ahead we would be in our understanding.
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Originally posted by filledcup
we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.
is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)
The results of the double slit experiment do not depend on a conscious observer but depend on information transfer.
Originally posted by filledcup
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Originally posted by filledcup
we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.
is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)
The results of the double slit experiment do not depend on a conscious observer but depend on information transfer.
im not sure where ur coming from. do u have a source to quote? my source, which comes from leading quantum scientists, states that the introduction of an observer changes the result from a wave pattern to that of particles. and this is why Einstein hypothesized, that thought was affecting the experiment. and i agree with him!
Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
ok i understand the perspective now. my perspective is deeply mystical. and to me was only reinforced by this documentary:
Originally posted by filledcup
but there is somewhere else, where we see particles transforming into waves and back into particles based on the focus. random particles which move with a sort of 'brownian motion' and as they move out of focus they are visibly witnessed to display wave properties. and as focus is increased, we see waves converting into individual particles.
the dots are fully transparent, and if one looks closely, they refract and emit light in the colours of the rainbow. they appear to be spinning at a great speed. ive always believed them to be atoms of some sort. they are always in the air, and seems to make up the fabric of reality.
..SNIP..
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
This is quite a common phenomenon and I personally believe it is due to overactive neurons in the visual cortex. In many the effect is stronger in total darkness and during bad weather. In total darkness their is less signal to mask the noise and in bad weather there is an increased electrostatic gradient which would also increase the noise.
There is a condition called Pyroluria and people that suffer from this often describe what you describe. This effect can also be drug induced or induced by other external stimuli such as electric or magnetic fields.
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by filledcup
If you can turn it on and off then it may be something different.
With the cameras they all pickup noise, especially in low light conditions. Older smaller resolution cameras are generally more susceptible to noise and would look noisier when scaled up on screen.
Images Noise