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: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.
Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.
originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
ns in QM.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
ns in QM.
I do not take instructions from you.
I also have a qualification in a profession which is regarded as highly as that of your law profession. I also have a music qualification and I am soon to be a qualified pilot.
Even if I had no qualification, I would not take instructions from you.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
[
He/she wasn't instructing you to do anything. They were just advising you and asking if you could not refer to QM the way you are.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
originally posted by: TerryDon79
[
He/she wasn't instructing you to do anything. They were just advising you and asking if you could not refer to QM the way you are.
Thank you for intervening.
However, it is clear that the approach of the poster was wrong. To lay down their qualifications like that and talk down to me is wrong.
Besides QM is new and most scientist appear to hate it and those who don't say that it is difficult to understand. One scientist even commented : To say you understand QM is saying that you do not understand QM.
As no scientist understands QM, my understanding is just as valid. I will continue to talk about QM if I wish even though I serves me little purpose as QM is like a child's understanding of esoteric concepts.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.
Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.
I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
Sorry for being off topic, but I don't understand your logic. Why refer to QM at all if it serves little to no purpose?
originally posted by: UKTruth
I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.
originally posted by: bastion
My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.
As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
ns in QM.
I do not take instructions from you.
I also have a qualification in a profession which is regarded as highly as that of your law profession. I also have a music qualification and I am soon to be a qualified pilot.
Even if I had no qualification, I would not take instructions from you.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
originally posted by: bastion
My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.
As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.
Not the human mind - the Will. We will things to happen. Some are better at it than others. It is very potent whether you believe it or not.
You should not put me in the category of those who hijacked QM. QM happens to echo some esoteric principles that I grasped decades before the word QM ever appeared on the internet.
I do not understand your use of the word Heliocentric. I know what Heliocentric means as opposed to Geocentric. IN my case it's neither.
originally posted by: bastion
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: bastion
As a scientific type (degrees in applied maths, law and journalism) can you please not do?
It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subjects you haven't applied any critical thinking or scientific approach, which is ok for you, but to the general populace all you're doing is further entrenching common, long debunked misconceptions about QM and consciousness and making it sound as if there's evidence to support things - it's at best misleading and at worst actively deceitful and may put off brilliant minds from helping humanity discover more about mother nature.
Of course I'm denying your interpretation of QM as it's completely wrong, but a common mistake the public make. It stems from the ambiguous language used in Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis - the mind has nothing to do with the state, you have just what the term observer actually means in QM.
I don't think this thread is about evidence. Not everything in life has to be about the scientific method, much as I love it. I don't know how advanced you are in science, but if you are the very best in the world, you are still but a baby in terms of understanding how things work in our universe.
Completely agree with all that, a few years ago I was at Interational Physics Symposium level and people 100000x smarter than I ever will be had no shame in admitting we know less tham 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of what we are even aware is out there.
My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.
As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
originally posted by: bastion
My main issue with the post, and it's not a go at the OP, is the strange assumption the human mind could possibly
be capable of fully understanding or utilising the universe or Earth- I personally find it a very arrogant/heliocentric view of the word (which the OP is clearly not purposefully doing, I just have a chip on my shoulder ov
er the whole idea humans will ever understand nature let alone control it if turns out to be possbile.
As someone who has had time slow down a lot of times playing intense sport and being in big car crashes where 1 second lasted like a minute and find it an incredibly thought provoking sensation/question - I'm just being a typical scientist moaning about QM being hijacked decades ago.
Not the human mind - the Will. We will things to happen. Some are better at it than others. It is very potent whether you believe it or not.
You should not put me in the category of those who hijacked QM. QM happens to echo some esoteric principles that I grasped decades before the word QM ever appeared.
I do not understand your use of the word Heliocentric. I know what Heliocentric means as opposed to Geocentric. IN my case it's neither.
originally posted by: bastion
I'm not trying to give instructions, just asking for basic manners and respect for the subject which is far greater than any of us. All I'm trying to state is you may be unwillingly misleading yourself and others as no one understands this - you're inciting a 100 year old though experiment QM has progressed a lot since then - but as you say there's a common joke in science 'only two people understand QM and both are wrong/dead).
originally posted by: bastion
100% agree with our top line - have a look at this video of a guy climbing everest in shorts/running desert marathon with no water just because he breathes/meditates and has cliniacally proven anyone else can do it - one of the most awe inspiring and mindblowing documentaries I've ever seen.
Now in QM matter can be a wave (undefined ; unshaped) or a particle (shapes, defined and occupying a position). It is the observer that will determine if it stays in its unformed "wave" state or it becomes solid.
originally posted by: crowdedskies
My life has drastically changed for the better by simply using my will to shape my destiny.