Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[Acting Like Godot]

John wrote this:

(did you get that bit - no-one actually suggested that if you actually did the experiment, the cat would actually be 50% alive - it's a theory, a thought experiment),

... but unknown to John (as I mentioned earlier, John really doesn't know that much about science), scientists have indeed proposed ways to test Schrodinger's cat. In other words, it need not be a thought experiment, actually a falsifiable theory that can be subjected to experimental testing strictly in line with the scientific method.

One method of testing Schrodinger's cat is actually proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, one of the eminent physicists whom I had mentioned earlier. His proposed method involves building a very thin mirror (about the thickness of a human hair) and that will be sufficient to discover, in effect, whether Schrodomger's Cat is alive or dead or half-alive or half-dead.

Save Schrodinger's Cat

Save Schrodinger's Cat

Nobody knows how the universe jumps from quantum mystery to the world as we experience it. Here, three scientists straddle the quantum borderland with bold, new research.

by Jill Neimark


If I were to die and go to T-shirt heaven, the shirt I'd wear for the rest of eternity would be one I saw at a science conference years ago: It bore the slogan Save Schrodinger's Cat! The poor cat of Erwin Schrodinger's famous thought experiment in quantum mechanics has been in bad shape since he was first invented in 1935. He has spent his life in a box with a tube of cyanide, and we don't know if he broke it and died, or is still alive-and we won't know until we open the box and look. Until then, by the strange lights of quantum theory, he's both dead and alive, and being a quantum cat, he's both at once. This cat needs rescuing, like rainforests and Chinese alligators. But so far it's been impossible. Even Schrodinger himself often lamented ever meeting his famous feline.

Schrodinger's cat illuminates something sticky at the heart of quantum mechanics. The most successful physical theory of all time, it has been used to construct or understand everything from lasers to snowflakes. But pure contradiction lies at its heart, because in the quantum world particles can be in multiple locations simultaneously, and doing incompatible things, and in multiple states, and acting in ways that make you wish you were not a quantum theorist. This is called "superposition"-and superposition persists until somebody looks into the cat box, atwhich point the possibilities collapse into something real and classical-something we can hear, touch, feel, see, and maybe even understand.

According to quantum theory, superposition should be possible at any scale, but in the real world, things like keys, cats, and cars don't bilocate. If quantum theory holds true at the tiny scale of photons and electrons, when does it stop working and why?

We have a few answers, but no real solutions to one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics. Superposition has been discovered at surprisingly "big" scales-physicist Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna fired a buckyball-otherwise known as a fullerene, a beau-tifully shaped molecule that contains sixty carbon atoms-through two slits at once. But that's still a lot smaller than a fabulous feline. If we could define the quantum "borderland," we might be on our way to creating a new physics-one that would begin to unify relativity theory and quantum mechanics. That unification has been a holy grail of physics for some time now but most of the faithful have abandoned the search.

Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose wants to keep looking. Working with colleague Dik Bouwmeester and other researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Penrose has conceived an experiment to test the quantum/classical borderline. "I would like to see whether or not I am right about this new physics," he says.

"Our experiment is aimed at building a 'Schrodinger's cat' consisting of a tiny mirror, roughly one-tenth of the thickness of a human hair, rather than an actual cat. The mirror would be placed in a superposition of two very slightly different locations." In a nod to Schrodinger, he calls the experiment FELIX, an acronym for the ponderous sounding Free-Orbit Experiment with Laser-Interferometry X-Rays. "According to my own ideas, this superposition would spontaneously degenerate to one location or the other in seconds. My prediction is at variance with what standard quantum mechanics predicts." And, says Penrose, "It probes the very boundary of application of our present theory of quantum mechanics." The grail, or at least a well-behaved cat, just might be hiding at this boundary.

The experiment is a risky one. "I could be proved wrong by the experiment, but not proved right by it," admits Penrose. "But that is the nature of science!" In other words, if the experiment shows no effect, it may just mean they looked in the wrong place-and have to keep looking.

Bouwmeester is not the only scientist inspired by Penrose; Andreas Mershin, a physicist at Texas A&M University, wants to test an even bolder proposal of Penrose's-that quantum effects can take place in the brain and may underlie consciousness. Penrose, together with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, has proposed that microtubules in the neurons of the brain can actually operate in a quantum fashion. (See, "Playing with Penrose" in the March-April issue.) Mershin plans to test this in an experiment with tubulin and surface plasmons-collective waves of electrons displaced on the surface of a metal.

"Plasmons are likea bunch of electrons getting together and moving together in coherence, so that they seem like a particle," says Mershin. Physics has already proved that a photon can be changed to a plasmon and back to a photon-a relatively barbaric process-and stay, in the odd vocabulary of quantum theory, entangled.

"Entanglement is a purely quantum property," notes Mershin. "The trick we're proposing is to put tubulin on the surface of the metal where plasmons are being excited. And the electric field from these electrons should affect what is known as the electric constant of the tubulin. If we can show that tubulin is capable of sustaining this quantum entanglement, Penrose and Hameroff will seem a lot more credible."

Physicist Jack Tuszynski, of the University of Calgary, is exploring the quantum border as well-hunting for the grail in the brain itself. A former condensed matter physicist, he moved into biophysics and says, "I'm having the time of my life. I was always interested in biology but there was not enough hard data to sink your teeth into as a physicist. That changed about a decade ago with nanotechnology." He recalls when he first heard the Hameroff-Penrose hypothesis: "I didn't see how it could work. Now I have less and less difficulty accepting that some interactions in the microtubules are quantum. At the moment I'm looking at how different molecules bind to microtubules."

One such molecule is the famous anti-cancer drug taxol. It binds to microtubules, which are responsible for cell division, and makes them rigid, stopping the process of cell division.

"I'm trying to develop a variant that would just bind in cancer cells and not in normal cells," says Tuszynski. "You can zoom in to a tiny piece of tubulin and see how taxol gets into the site. It sits there and then an amino acid arm latches on and locks into the molecule. That in itself doesn't tell you anything about quantum effects. But we find that when biochemists play with the structure of taxol molecules, they find that two rings are necessary to bind. And when you look at these rings they're only 2.5 angstroms in diameter. Yet they're crucial in this molecular reaction. How can 2.5 angstroms be anything other than quantum? That is the dimension of individual atoms."

Tuszynski thinks these rings are actually docking devices. "At this level there is a lot of thermal noise." Thermal noise is a key issue, because most scientists believe that the warmth of a human brain destroys all quantum coherence. "Somehow, even through this noise," says Tuszynski, "a quantum interaction may be surviving and playing a major role."

Schrodinger's cat may be on the endangered species list, but he's still got a chance.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

How about attaching a pendant to something solid with the intention of further movement? Would that change anything?

Depends on how you use your mind. See any of the videos listed here:

YouTube - nina kulagina

In case you think that the above is very, very uncommon, well frankly it is not. It's fairly common in China. This is a dramatic demonstration:

YouTube - Qi,move things without touch!believe it?

Here is a less dramatic demonstration. You might be inclined to think it's some kind of fraud .... However, I went on a holiday tour to China, met one of these old men, and volunteered myself for his demonstration. Essentially he threw me around, without physically touching me. Similar to what you see here:

YouTube - Qigong master projecting his chi energy part 2

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I would like an expert of LoA to manifest a death for me tomorrow, say, at 8pm EST.

In my view, normally this doesn't work unless you too have a strong belief that the guy can kill you.

If that's the case, then the phenomenon is one known in Australia as "pointing the bone" (a death curse) and is carried out by killers known as the kurdaitcha:

"In 1953, a dying Aborigine named Kinjika was flown from Arnhem Land in Australia's Northern Territory to a hospital in Darwin. Tests revealed he had not been poisoned, injured, nor was he suffering from any sort of injury. Yet, the man was most definitely dying. After four days of agony spent in the hospital, Kinjika died on the fifth. It was said he died of bone pointing."

Kurdaitcha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another link here: bone@Everything2.com

In a usually public display of hatred, he points the bone at the victim, who almost immediately falls down and becomes sick. Within a few days, they are always dead. A first-hand account of this ritual is given by Dr. Herbert Basedow in his book The Australian Aboriginal, publishing in 1925:

"A man who discovers that he is being boned by an enemy is, indeed, a pitiable sight. He stands aghast, with his eyes staring at the treacherous pointer, and with his hands lifted as though to ward off the lethal medium, which he imagines is pouring into his body. His cheeks blanch and his eyes become glassy, and the expression on his face becomes horribly distorted...He attempts to shriek, but usually the sound chokes in his throat, and all one might see is froth at his mouth. His body begins to tremble and the muscles twist involuntarily. He sways backwards and falls to the ground, and for a short time appears to be in a swoon; but soon after he begins to writhe as if in mortal agony, and covering his face with his hands, begin (sic) to moan. After a while he becomes more composed and crawls to his wurley (hut). From this time onwards he sickens and frets, refusing to eat, and keeping aloof from the daily affairs of the tribe. Unless help is forthcoming in the shape of a counter-charm, administered by the hands of the "Nangarri," or medicine-man, his death is only a matter of a comparatively short time. If the coming of the medicine-man is opportune, he might be saved."

The bone-pointing syndrome may be viewed as an extreme example of the nocebo effect. Nocebos are the flip side of placebos.

Nocebo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

What of all of us from this side of the "stupid reading of physical principles" are trying to tell you is that this is how you see it when You turn around. And as long you expect to see it this way, and do not even doubt a tiny bit, it will always be that way for you. Period.

But it is so interesting from what high grounds you think you are coming from! Do you really think we should all join in line and think the same way you do just because you say that that is your truth and that because it is your truth so it must be THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

I am very sorry but beaming a particle from point A to point B has became reality! Two to bean um Scotti! One particle has been recorded to be at the same time in 3000 different places. None of them being the just the 1/3000 part of the particle but THE particle it self.

So my bomb is all over the place before I turn around and the cat is just scattered particles. But that is only in the world of "stupid reading of physical principles".

If the world was made out of john's we would be still in the caves. Thank Universe you gave as people like Einstein and Bohr....and the One who thought of the wheel!

You clearly think that I believe that my truth is the truth and everyone else should believe it, otherwise why would we be having an argument. I could take a similar stance from you saying that everyone of you enlightened ones who aren't stuck in caves are trying to tell me something I just don't get because I just don't allow myself to think that way. This is unfortunate, and maybe discussion between us is pointless.

It is unfortunate that you keep "turning round" and believing whatever you believe about life and how you can change it with the power of your mind just because some physicists have (or, actually, THINK they have) moved a particle through space, if indeed that claim is true at all.

If you had any continuity of thought process, you would address the actual objection, that if you - now, today, get a bomb and arm it and put it in a box and "forget about it", it will go off anyway, or it won't, and if it doesn't, you may well find the unknown fault later that caused it not to go off. You may address the facts of psychology which demonstrate over and over again how people believe that they have been the cause of something, when unbeknowns to them the experimenter fixed it that way. You would address the issue that if action in the universe followed attention, it's a little odd that the miracle motion of a pendant only happens when the nice lady intends it to move with her mind (and she "isn't moving it"), but doesn't swing or rotate if she intends it to do so when she's not holding it and isn't moving it. It seems a little odd that nobody addresses the reason why her superpowers only work when she's physically in contact with the pendulum. It's a little bit funny - actually quite hilarious - that people like you think that if we can move single subatomic particles from one place to another, probably while they're going at ridiculous speeds in massive magnetic fields or something, you get off on reciting Star Trek as if you didn't need to use cars and buses.

And then it's people like me who are in fantasy land and backward! Thank the Universe for the Enlightenment, when people realised the power of empiricism. Thank heavens a smallish minority of humanity have stopped believing in whatever makes them feel powerful and excited, and have begun to assess what is actually true. If you're going to accuse us of being stupid and backward, you have to remember that people have believed in their psychic powers and ghostly presences, in dream realms and magical spells since we came down from the trees, and then you have to consider what you're going to do about the empirical evidence that shows again and again that such things are mere delusions.

Hello again Daffy. They'll swear blind you're dead in their version of reality. There's no getting round solipsism, as I said. But nice example. Live long and prosper (sorry, have I just interfered with the double-blind test?).

[fellowtraveler]

JF is beginning to sound just a tad hysterical. Maybe he ought to take a chill pill and stop trying to save people from themselves for a while.

[Acting Like Godot]

John has activated his "Ignore" function on me, which means he can't see my posts. So please, no one should accuse me of being unkind in my remarks to John.

This is another fine example of John's illogical arguments:

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You would address the issue that if action in the universe followed attention, it's a little odd that the miracle motion of a pendant only happens when the nice lady intends it to move with her mind (and she "isn't moving it"), but doesn't swing or rotate if she intends it to do so when she's not holding it and isn't moving it. It seems a little odd that nobody addresses the reason why her superpowers only work when she's physically in contact with the pendulum.

Let me explain why his argument is illogical. Essentially, he is saying: "Look at this entire pendant nonsense! How can it be claimed that it proves the LOA is true! Obviously there are simple alternative explanations of what actually is happening!"

Fair enough. Except that if you bother to look through this thread, you'll notice that in the first place..... nobody, absolutely nobody in this thread had tried to say that the pendant in any way proves the existence of the LOA.

Guess who raised the pendant example then? John himself. Yep. He gave his own absurd example, so that he could proceed to attack and refute it, and now he yaks on and on indignantly .... AS IF anyone except himself had claimed that the pendant demo proves the LOA in any way.

He's a real clown, this John. Half the time, he's just indignantly attacking his own silly points of view.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by richloaguy

"matter does not exist unless it is observed".

That has been proven.

I thought the Copenhagen interpretation was more that is is impossible to measure all the variables at any one time. If you observe the location of a partical, you can't observe its speed. If you observe its speed, then you can't measure its location. If you set up an experiment where you expect light to act as a wave, it does indeed act as a wave. If you set up an experiment where you expect it to act as a stream of particles, it does indeed act as a stream of particles.

To go from the above to saying matter doesn't exist if it isn't being observed it a leap too far imo.

[marinik]

Again thank ... whom or.... what ever... for the guy who invented the wheel! In the context of things or events or occurrence being a leap....!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I thought the Copenhagen interpretation was more that is is impossible to measure all the variables at any one time. If you observe the location of a partical, you can't observe its speed. If you observe its speed, then you can't measure its location. If you set up an experiment where you expect light to act as a wave, it does indeed act as a wave. If you set up an experiment where you expect it to act as a stream of particles, it does indeed act as a stream of particles.

To go from the above to saying matter doesn't exist if it isn't being observed it a leap too far imo.

Me too, but apparently there are those insane physicists alluded to earlier, who disappear when they close their eyes.

ETA: they don't bother doing physics anymore, in fact, they just make up worlds in their heads and then go and live in them.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

Again thank ... whom or.... what ever... for the guy who invented the wheel! In the context of things or events or occurrence being a leap....!

Yes, the invention of the wheel proves your point, I'm sure, whatever it is. Thank whomever that we can make them go round and round just with our minds, like we move pendants, and yogic fliers can really levitate, not just bounce across a bed in the lotus position. Thank heavens anything is possible if you put your mind to it. What a boring old universe it would be if there were laws of physics.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

JF is beginning to sound just a tad hysterical. Maybe he ought to take a chill pill and stop trying to save people from themselves for a while.

I'm not trying to save them from themselves, I'm trying to save them from people like you. I'm not at all hysterical.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm not trying to save them from themselves, I'm trying to save them from people like you. I'm not at all hysterical.

Oh please save us! Or save us from people who can think out of the box!

And by the way who was talking about the flying yogis? I thought the subject was Quantum Physics???

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In my view, normally this doesn't work unless you too have a strong belief that the guy can kill you.

I guess this duck will continue to fly for a long time then. Thanks for the links about bone pointing. I find it interesting that some people will allow others to have such a high control over their physical health, with a simple point of a bone.

"If the world was made out of john's we would be still in the caves."

Possibly. However, I think it's also likely that if the world were made out of marinik's, we'd be having sex with donkeys. Indeed, some people already do this, and some people still live in caves.

HEE-HAWWW.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

Oh please save us! Or save us from people who can think out of the box!

And by the way who was talking about the flying yogis? I thought the subject was Quantum Physics???

What, so wheels is on topic? I suppose they don't work without quantum physics - oh that's right, they don't exist without the collapsed wave-function that consciousness brings to the universe.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

...I think it's also likely that if the world were made out of marinik's, we'd be having sex with donkeys. Indeed, some people already do this,... HEE-HAWWW.

So it would appear. Thanks for the illustrative sound effects.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by marinik

Oh please save us! Or save us from people who can think out of the box!

Yes. Now then, you will send me all your cash by next Thursday (at least whatever ALG doesn't want). And remember, any beautiful young women you send must be of legal age.

Damn, it's good to know you all are dumbells who can be influenced and convinced merely by "people like me" posting in a forum. Makes it so easy to take over the world that way. I hope JF's efforts to foil us don't take hold.

I wish Johnny would take this opportunity to explain exactly what his Crusade really is all about. It seems quite irrational in itself - even more so as he approaches hysteria. It's like going into a Christian forum and saying "Jesus sucks" repeatedly. What's the point?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Yes. Now then, you will send me all your cash by next Thursday (at least whatever ALG doesn't want). And remember, any beautiful young women you send must be of legal age.

Damn, it's good to know you all are dumbells who can be influenced and convinced merely by "people like me" posting in a forum. Makes it so easy to take over the world that way. I hope JF's efforts to foil us don't take hold.

I wish Johnny would take this opportunity to explain exactly what his Crusade really is all about. It seems quite irrational in itself - even more so as he approaches hysteria. It's like going into a Christian forum and saying "Jesus sucks" repeatedly. What's the point?

*yawn* Crusade schmusade. What's the point in wishing I'd explain it? What's the point breathing? I like arguing with Borg. It's fun. I'm here mainly for the entertainment. If along the way a lifeform manages to be influenced by me and not get assimilated, well that's just great too.

[Wax Frog]

I can explain this thread. I am manifesting ALG as my intense hope and intent regarding IM/LoA, and John as my 'inner skeptic's' annoying, persistent resistance. I'll get through this somehow

"Once you find something in life that has meaning, it becomes evident that everything has to have meaning. And after that, there's no turning back"

Black swans and white crows, come and get me!

[marinik]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

What, so wheels is on topic? I suppose they don't work without quantum physics - oh that's right, they don't exist without the collapsed wave-function that consciousness brings to the universe.

Stone age - wheel
21st century - Quantum physics
John's world - flying yogi?????

or is my logic flawed?

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

*yawn*...It's fun. I'm here mainly for the entertainment.

Good for you, John, for proving your relevance (although it's pretty certain you're telling a little fib, eh?). I'm sure your "arguments" will be taken seriously now. You can go back to sleep.

Waxy, you're exactly right. JF's life plan was to be the way he is - for everyone and every thing there's a purpose. You need both extremes to find the ballpark of your truth, then you keep refining. It's the scientific method, you know.

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I can explain this thread. I am manifesting ALG as my intense hope and intent regarding IM/LoA, and John as my 'inner skeptic's' annoying, persistent resistance. I'll get through this somehow

I love the perspective in this statement, while being funny, also very true.. I think of ALG and marinik as being among my LOA teachers, but also realize that I'm still manifesting JF's in my life for whatever reason. I guess the best thing is just to allow it, and accept it for it's entertainment value. It's sort of like rooting for my favorite team at a sporting event.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I thought the Copenhagen interpretation was more that is is impossible to measure all the variables at any one time. If you observe the location of a partical, you can't observe its speed. If you observe its speed, then you can't measure its location. If you set up an experiment where you expect light to act as a wave, it does indeed act as a wave. If you set up an experiment where you expect it to act as a stream of particles, it does indeed act as a stream of particles.

To go from the above to saying matter doesn't exist if it isn't being observed it a leap too far imo.

Hi there ... This is how that particular line of reasoning works.

1. Let's take a simple object, eg a flower in a vase.

2. We know that the flower is made of molecules.

3. Molecules are made of atoms.

4. Atoms are mostly empty space, with some very tiny subatomic particles.

5. Now, many types of subatomic particles are very unstable & short-lived. A muon, for example, has an average lifespan of 10 to the power of minus six seconds, ie 0.000006 seconds. After that, it rapidly collapses into nothingness.

6. So we know that a flower is mostly empty space, with some very tiny subatomic particles, and those subatomic particles only exist for a very, very short time, before disappearing.

7. Yet the flower doesn't seem to be disappearing.

8. Why? Because new subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence, to replace the the earlier ones which are collapsing into nothingness.

9. Now, here's where the Copenhagen interpretation (or any other QM interpretation involving consciousness) comes in. What makes the subatomic particle pop into existence? Observation / consciousness.

10. So if you go by the Copenhagen interpretation, the fact that your flower seems to have a fairly stable, constant existence means that the flower (or the subatomic particles which comprise the flower) must be under continuous observation.

11. Or at least the flower must be under observation frequent enough such that to our senses, it appears that the flower is stable and permanent (when in fact it is rapidly blinking in and out of existence).

12. So this is what richloaguy is talking about, when he says that matter cannot exist, if it is not being observed. Going by the Copenhagen interpretation, subatomic particles come into existence only upon being observed, but they self-destruct quickly. For matter (such as a flower) to appear stable and permanent, the observation must go on more or less continuously, so that new subatomic particles reappear to constitute what we perceive as a flower.

13. The next question is - do things then exist, when you don't observe them?

14. If your answer is "Surely, yes", well then, Something or Somebody Else must be observing them.

15. In fact, Somebody Else must be observing them more or less ALL the time, Everywhere, otherwise all matter in the universe might well pop out of existence.

16. Hmmm .... But who or what might be that Somebody Else? Why, to be observing everything all the time and everywhere, he'd have to be .... omniscient, all-knowing, eternal & omnipresent.

17. Sounds like ..... Naaaaah.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hi there ... This is how that particular line of reasoning works.

1. Let's take a simple object, eg a flower in a vase.

2. We know that the flower is made of molecules.

3. Molecules are made of atoms.

4. Atoms are mostly empty space, with some very tiny subatomic particles.

5. Now, many types of subatomic particles are very unstable & short-lived. A muon, for example, has an average lifespan of 10 to the power of minus six seconds, ie 0.000006 seconds. After that, it rapidly collapses into nothingness.

6. So we know that a flower is mostly empty space, with some very tiny subatomic particles, and those subatomic particles only exist for a very, very short time, before disappearing.

7. Yet the flower doesn't seem to be disappearing.

8. Why? Because new subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence, to replace the the earlier ones which are collapsing into nothingness.

9. Now, here's where the Copenhagen interpretation (or any other QM interpretation involving consciousness) comes in. What makes the subatomic particle pop into existence? Observation / consciousness.

10. So if you go by the Copenhagen interpretation, the fact that your flower seems to have a fairly stable, constant existence means that the flower (or the subatomic particles which comprise the flower) must be under continuous observation.

11. Or at least the flower must be under observation frequent enough such that to our senses, it appears that the flower is stable and permanent (when in fact it is rapidly blinking in and out of existence).

12. So this is what richloaguy is talking about, when he says that matter cannot exist, if it is not being observed. Going by the Copenhagen interpretation, subatomic particles come into existence only upon being observed, but they self-destruct quickly. For matter (such as a flower) to appear stable and permanent, the observation must go on more or less continuously, so that new subatomic particles reappear to constitute what we perceive as a flower.

13. The next question is - do things then exist, when you don't observe them?

14. If your answer is "Surely, yes", well then, Something or Somebody Else must be observing them.

15. In fact, Somebody Else must be observing them more or less ALL the time, Everywhere, otherwise all matter in the universe might well pop out of existence.

16. Hmmm .... But who or what might be that Somebody Else? Why, to be observing everything all the time and everywhere, he'd have to be .... omniscient, all-knowing, eternal & omnipresent.

17. Sounds like ..... Naaaaah.

Oooh careful now or you'll say the G-word!


Thankyou very much for your explaination. That is very clear.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

Stone age - wheel
21st century - Quantum physics
John's world - flying yogi?????

or is my logic flawed?

What logic?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Oooh careful now or you'll say the G-word!


Thankyou very much for your explaination. That is very clear.

I was tempted to read your quoting of ALG, despite my having him on ignore (that doesn't stop quotes being posted), and I noticed the old Copenhagen drivel trotted out in support of God again. Holistic Star's correction was ignored in favour of religious dogma again. If the Copenhagen interpretation says what ALG says, he should inform Wikipedia. Check this page if you don't believe me (oh, but I never give references to learned science), where you will actually find this: ""Consciousness causes collapse is often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation."

The link within that quotation takes you to an interesting page about just the view that ALG holds. That page touches on some of the criticism of quantum mysticism. I'm with Tom Huston, "Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality."

One reason I have ALG on ignore is because I have confounded argument after argument that he has posted in the past. There are just too many for me to bother to refute them all, and my failure to take the bait on other issues in future should not be taken as my inability to do so. I make an exception in this case because the misdirection in praise of the almighty was so utterly blatant.

[Dan.Linehan]

I'm temporarily closing this thread for review, as several posts seem to have gotten pretty far off track from the topic, "Advanced LOA proof and practice."

Please check back in 24 hours.


Thread reopened. Thank you for being being kind, considerate and responsible in your posting.

[John Freestone]

Oh, but I just realised it is also you, Mystic Star, who, having corrected ALG on his quantum physics, said "Thankyou that was very clear" when the correction was ignored. That's odd.

[Daffy Duck]

I find it interesting that so many of you say you are attracting John Freestone's into your life.

Is John a puppet on a string, brought upon you by yourself to just annoy you? Is John not another living being with his own mind?

Surely, I must be a comical cartoon character, brought here by yourself to just make you question yourself. Oh what a funny philosophical discussion this is.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Oh, but I just realised it is also you, Mystic Star, who, having corrected ALG on his quantum physics, said "Thankyou that was very clear" when the correction was ignored. That's odd.

My name isn't Mystic Star - but I kinda like it.


Let me confess. My knowledge of Quantum Physics is limited. So limited in fact that the bulk of it was obtained, not in a science class, but in the theatre, watching the play 'Copenhagen' by Michael Frayn. A fascinating, informative play, which I would highly recommend to anyone, but a play non the less.
Therefore I stated my understanding of the Copenhagen principle and couldn't see how that led to things not being there when they weren't observered. I thought ALG's step by step explanation as to how people come to that conclusion was clear.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

My name isn't Mystic Star - but I kinda like it.

Whoops, sorry. Holistic Star.

Let me confess. My knowledge of Quantum Physics is limited. So limited in fact that the bulk of it was obtained, not in a science class, but in the theatre, watching the play 'Copenhagen' by Michael Frayn. A fascinating, informative play, which I would highly recommend to anyone, but a play non the less.
Therefore I stated my understanding of the Copenhagen principle and couldn't see how that led to things not being there when they weren't observered. I thought ALG's step by step explanation as to how people come to that conclusion was clear.

I'll look out for that. My knowledge of quantum physics is limited too. It's hardly a confession, really. I guess it's like saying our knowledge of brain surgery is limited. Hardly anyone knows what the hell they're talking about when they go on about these extremely complex mathematics.