New Age Religion is wrong...

New Age Religion is wrong...

by John SkieSwanne

~

New Age Religion is wrong... on a small but important detail. No, this is not an opposition to New Age Religion. In fact I approve of this religion, as it's one of the few remaining religions which actually seems to be open-minded about both science and spirituality, and I applaud its efforts to promote morality, science, but also love and peace.

But, I would like to point out a major fault in this religion. Remember that New Age heavily relies on science to make accurate metaphysical hypothesis. So, if New Agers are reading this, please understand that I am not pointing out this to attack you, but in fact so you can improve your religion even further by correcting the faulty parts. Perfection may never be achieved in reality, but it must never be given up as (at least) a distant goal.

Now let's examine which detail of the Religion is faulty: The New Age's interpretation of an important aspect of modern physics.

~

Most New Agers are familiar with the aspect of physics we call, The Observation-Triggered Wavefunction Collapse. I saw some New Agers simply call it, the Observation Principle. In plain english: the observation of a subatomic particle will alter its momentum or its position.

In essence, this is absolutely correct. Where New Agers got it wrong is not the definition of the phenomena, but the definition of an "observation".

In physics, an "observation" is not exactly the action of just looking at something with our physical eyes. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg discovered the Uncertainty Principle. He showed that to try and measure a particle, let's say an electron, you must be able to get an image of it.
(For you great physicists out there: please note that I am here overlooking the Copenhagen interpretation - for the sake of simplicity, I will just go with a classical approach here. I hope I won't be considered too heretic...)

Werner showed that to measure a particle's position for instance, you have to send a beam to it (since electrons are way too small to be visible to naked eyes). The beam will hit the electron, and you'll be able to guess where it is. This action of measuring the position with a beam was called an "observation". Since emitting a beam right at an electron will "knock" this electron out of its original trajectory, you can't really measure its real-time position. And it means the knock lets you know only where it was... Never where it is now.

Imagine you're in a road, during the night, with a GPS. For some reason, your headlights are down, so you drive at 30 mph, blind in the dark. Your car represents the measuring beam. Suddenly, a bird hits your windshield. The bird represents the target particle your car will "observe" by hitting with it. On your GPS, your position during the hit was at 10000 feet south from home, and 10000 feet east. Does that mean the bird is at these coordinates? Nope. Since your car carried momentum, and so did the bird, and since you can't know what incident direction the bird was coming from, it means the bird was indeed observed at these coordinate, but now it bounced some other way, and its current position is still unknown.

In physics, "observation" is not just staring at something. You can't collapse an electron's wave function in your pencil simply by staring at it. You actually have to measure the target with some kind of beam or something, be able to compress the wide possibilities of position of the electron, and THAT will be called an "observation".

~

Unfortunately, some people like Michio Kaku and many others started stating (incorrectly) that just turning your eyeball at an object will change its very subatomic properties. This is a major misunderstanding of the phenomena, and most physicists I meet are perplexed by this grossly misleading statement. This pseudoscience was fed to the people by sensationalist media, and now we have worldwide communities who subscribe to, basically, mumble jumble and bullshlarah.

~

Before I close this thread, I would like to remind you what the Many-Worlds interpretation is: Multiple possibilities but which are all real (as opposed to only one is real after measurement). One of its implications is that observation has no particular effect on matter, since all possibilities are real and history is simply a change of world each time two systems interact with one another (are "observed"). Many-worlds proposes answers to many "anomalies", such as the double-slit experiment (which is again not caused by people staring at the slits but by direct measurement of the photon position with instruments that actually detect passage).

~

In conclusion: I hope many New Agers will have find the material I posted beneficial. You may wish to check Wikipedia for further information - if so, then you can bypass searching, sit back, and simply check out this post's references:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...ödinger's_cat
en.wikipedia.org...

~

At Time's End,

Swan

I almost forgot to add this next very important point. Another reason why quantum "observation" wave function collapse don't apply for large bodies: When you look at a large body, may it be a planet, a cell, anything, you can send a beam (light) to it - and when this light is reflected by the body, you get an image of the body, without disturbing the body too much (what effect does a couple of photons have on the orbit of a moon?). Remember that to see a body, you have to light it up in the first place. That works even at the microscopic level. You can even send an electron beam, just like electron microscopes do, to watch molecules. BUT, as Werner Heisenberg showed, that doesn't work anymore when you try to observe small particles, as I said, because the beam carries energy. If the particle is too small, and you shine a beam on it, this light will collide with the particle and knock it in some unpredictable direction. That's why quantum theory was introduced: to predict where this particle COULD be. To do that they use an equation which is called a probability wave function. This equation basically guesses where the particle is more likely to be.

Thus most concepts of quantum, which were designed to predict nothing larger than an atom, stops working once you talk about bigger objects, all the way from molecules to galaxy clusters.

But of course I met New Agers who believed that you can make large-scale bodies appear and disappear simply by looking at them - not even shine a light on them, just looking! Obviously they don't seem to understand that to be influenced, the particle needs to RECEIVE something from the observer, like light. Some New Agers merged that with meditation techniques, and gave rise to the Quantum Buddhism movement, in which if you just meditate enough you'll gain quantum superpowers like dimensional teleportation and other things like that. This I oppose because it's basically mixing pseudoscience mumble jumble with Siddartha Gautama's teachings.

Anyway, just make everything clear as crystal.

Swan

reply to post by swanne


I liked your thread. The point you bring out is much simpler than this. What you are stating is correct. The observer collapses what is indeterminate to a state of determined. The collapse of wave function is how we make a choice. This requires faith. Faith implies that we have the ability to see the outcome for ourselves. Faith implies that we are placing the choice in the hands of another observer. This is the hard part for most.

Why is this the reason for New Age religion as a false claim of faith?

God's will is clear from physics. If we examine the Strong Force in physics, we find the nature of God revealed. The reason we have a large universe that is seemingly infinite is because of overunity. Two things possessing a Chiral nature coalesce into one new thing. The other two are not used up in the process. Compare this to the strong nuclear force. The Proton and Neutron are in a state of balance. Protons have one down quark and two up. Neutrons have two down and one up. This state of two over one is in balance and shows up as the golden ratio in all things. Compare this to the law they follow.

The ONE law that is followed by the Strong Nuclear Force is invariant symmetry. This invariable symmetry shows up in the geometry of all platonic solids. Rotate a PS in any direction and it is the same (invariant). The Strong Nuclear Force follows this invariant law of symmetry and God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. We know this part. What we fail to realize is that the Electron does not follow this symmetry. It is bound to the law, but does not follow the law. It breaks symmetry (away from God) with the express purpose of becoming entangled with others. Comparatively, each of us is an individuation from the upper, expressed as the lower. We do not follow law. We are conformed to the law by the strong force. This is baptism in scripture. Involution has the purpose of evolution (rising to new life).

In physics, this is known as quantum tunneling. The electron borrows from the future to pay back in the past. Like the electron, we are borrowing from our future to learn from our past. Time is the key in this arrangement of eternity so that a temporal state of flux can allow refinement of individuation. Apart from this arrangement, infinity (never changing) cannot image itself as something new. We collapse the wave function of a future state that is already in existence. In short, we are educated by creating a past that did not exist before our eternal state was engaged. We were created in perfection before being reverse engineered as a past existence working its way back. Why? God is telling a story he engaged before we existed. In the mind of God, we were complete before we were engaged.

We are simply collapsing this wave function in time. The present is all that exists.

I still have not stated why this matters. It's simple. God's will is the thing to be learned. Giving is God's will. Taking makes us a robber of what is given. What is the point? Don't take for self. Give and more is given. Overunity is the point. Division comes when we take. Surplus comes when we give. New Age Religion seeks to give to self. Instead, practice true religion. Find someone in need and heal their life. Once you do this, you have healed your own. Two become entangled and one new thing is created.

The primary pattern for this is the Father (Strong House) and the Mother (Strong Waters). The Son (House of Seed) is what we created as two become one.

Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet (Letters).

Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). She is the catalyst for the letters to make words from DNA.

Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). The Son is what is created from the other two (yin/yang).

We are created to be involved. Our involution has a point. Repent of future sins. How? Rise to new life (Evolve). This is best accomplished by helping others do the same. We are all in this water as fish swimming together. Taking makes us a thief. Giving makes us like God by taking the name. The name is the character. Taking the name in vain is taking it as a thief.

reply to post by swanne


Good explanation.

Another point is that "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of the observer effect by New Age mystics is unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven right nor wrong, and therefore exists outside the realm of science. So it becomes apparent that science is cherry-picked where it supports mystical claims, and decried when it does the opposite.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by swanne

 

The primary pattern for this is the Father (Strong House) and the Mother (Strong Waters). The Son (House of Seed) is what we created as two become one.

Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet (Letters).

Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). She is the catalyst for the letters to make words from DNA.

Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). The Son is what is created from the other two (yin/yang).

edit on 5-9-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Is there a Daughter, or are the Jews and Xtians kind of like the Chinese when it comes to girl children?


Nice thread, OP.

reply to post by swanne


The seer and seen are one.
Without there being something that is conscious nothing can appear.

It cannot be proved that until you walk into a room that the room does not exist.
Right now all there is, is what you can see and hear and touch but the mind pretends that there is so much more.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Right now all there is, is what you can see and hear and touch but the mind pretends that there is so much more.

That is falsified by the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Instead of pretending things one cannot see doesn't exists, Many-World actually accepts the existence of things (histories) one cannot see... which act almost as an unification between Einstein's deterministic interpretation and Bohr's probabilistic interpretation.

Originally posted by Aphorism
Another point is that "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of the observer effect by New Age mystics is unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven right nor wrong, and therefore exists outside the realm of science. So it becomes apparent that science is cherry-picked where it supports mystical claims, and decried when it does the opposite.

Indeed... the unfortunate aspect of the scientific method is that even wild claims can sometimes hardly be falsified. Like the one which goes, "I have a tail, but only when nobody looks". It is improbable, but scientifically unfalsifiable.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Right now all there is, is what you can see and hear and touch but the mind pretends that there is so much more.

That is falsified by the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Instead of pretending things one cannot see doesn't exists, Many-World actually accepts the existence of things (histories) one cannot see... which act almost as an unification between Einstein's deterministic interpretation and Bohr's probabilistic interpretation.

If a tree falls in a wood and there is nothing there to hear it can it make a sound?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
If a tree falls in a wood and there is nothing there to hear it can it make a sound?

Science answers that as long as there is air displacement (aka, not in total vacuum), and the displacement has enough velocity, it'll make a sound because it follows physical laws, not human hearing.

There are such things as absolutes... otherwise one could not exist unless one had sensory inputs. Rocks can't see nor hear one another.. yet they exist.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
If a tree falls in a wood and there is nothing there to hear it can it make a sound?

Science answers that as long as there is air displacement (aka, not in total vacuum), and the displacement has enough velocity, it'll make a sound because it follows physical laws, not human hearing.

It cannot be proved that you are not dreaming everything and that all appears just where you are.
Nothing can appear without you being there and you cannot prove otherwise.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Nothing can appear without you being there and you cannot prove otherwise.

I am not on the Moon, yet the Moon still rotates the Earth. During the Night I can't see the sun, yet the Earth still orbits the Sun. What you suggest also implies most modern physics is wrong, Einstein is wrong, Newton is wrong, etc.

As I can't emphasize enough, quantum theories (and its effects) DO NOT apply to object larger than a subatomic particle. The only reason why Quantum exist at all is because bodies smaller than an atom didn't exactly fit Newtonian mechanics. That means, anything bigger than a subatomic particle follows well-know physical laws and deterministic mechanism.

Originally posted by swanne
There are such things as absolutes... otherwise one could not exist unless one had sensory inputs. Rocks can't see nor hear one another.. yet they exist.

Things appear to exist when you look at them - if you look at a rock you are there. You shine the light of consciousness (the beam) and you see.

Things that are seen are constantly changing but what is seeing stays the same.
All things arise and subside in you.

Rocks appear to exist but what is seeing them does not appear to exist but is primary - it gets overlooked because it is looking.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You shine the light of consciousness (the beam) and you see.

Consciousness is not a beam. It is an abstract concept.

Things appear to exist when you look at them

And they continue existing after you stop looking at them. Here, let me prove it to you:

Imagine for an instant you look at your home. Then you turn away to look somewhere else. Then you turn back to look again at your house. If what you say is true, and things really materialize out of nothingness when you stare at something, then when you see your house, its materialization should displace a large amount of air, and create a loud sonic "boom". Which obviously doesn't happen in experimentation.

As I say, the science (excluding the subatomic level) is pretty solid.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You shine the light of consciousness (the beam) and you see.

Consciousness is not a beam. It is an abstract concept.

Can you say that you are not conscious?

If I hold the rock in my closed hand is it still there?

Originally posted by swanne
Imagine for an instant you look at your home. Then you turn away to look somewhere else. Then you turn back to look again at your house. If what you say is true, and things really materialize out of nothingness when you stare at something, then when you see your house, its materialization should displace a large amount of air, and create a loud sonic "boom". Which obviously doesn't happen in experimentation.

Have you heard that atoms are made of 99.9999% empty space?
The house is made of nothing - everything is made of nothing but it looks like something or feels like something but it only appears when there is an observer.
The seer and seen are one.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Have you heard that atoms are made of 99.9999% empty space?
The house is made of nothing - everything is made of nothing but it looks like something or feels like something but it only appears when there is an observer.
The seer and seen are one.

How does 99.9999% empty space equal 100% nothing? Correct, it doesn't. An atom is not "nothing", just like a helium balloon is not simply helium.

A drop of water contains 2 sextillion (2×1021) oxygen atoms and twice the number of hydrogen atoms (Wikipedia). Put 2 sextillion oxygen atoms with 4 sextillion hydrogen atoms you get something, a drop of water, and not nothing.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The seer and seen are one.

This is for individuals who have stopped searching and started being.

Science is still searching for answers.

There is no point trying to use the concept of oneness of a grand consciousness or awareness to debate a scientific principle, because observation of a whole from our perspective as small as we are is almost unthinkable, so science of today may never reach a point where these types of debates can be had and some resolution or conclusions found. Science of tomorrow, maybe, tomorrow has yet to arrive so lets hope and see.

Originally posted by rawheroine

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by swanne

 

The primary pattern for this is the Father (Strong House) and the Mother (Strong Waters). The Son (House of Seed) is what we created as two become one.

Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet (Letters).

Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). She is the catalyst for the letters to make words from DNA.

Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). The Son is what is created from the other two (yin/yang).

edit on 5-9-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Is there a Daughter, or are the Jews and Xtians kind of like the Chinese when it comes to girl children?
Nice thread, OP.

Daughter in Hebrew is Bet Nun Tav. House, Seed and the Mark of Christ. Son is simply Bet Nun. The added Tav at the end of Bet Nun (Son) makes the favored mark of DNA. Read this thread: Adam and the Favored Side of DNA