Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[richloaguy]

devoted to help people believe more.

O.K. I will start by questioning your beliefs.

Do you believe in "law of attraction"?

If you answered yes; how does that impact your perception of "The Universe". If you answered Yes then you must believe there is a "Universal mind" or "source" or "god" or scientific explanation.

The greatest scientific proof that L.O.A. exists comes from a simple experiment first conceived in 1801.

It was called the double-slit experiment.
Now if you have not heard of this experiment then be amazed, as it reveals a world of quantum mechanics that seems unbelieveable.

Sound familiar. It is sciences greatest mystery. Presented in this 5 minute youtube video

YouTube - Dr. Quantum Explains Double Slit Experiment

(watch this 5 minute cartoon of double slit experiment)

This is the most famous experiment/breakthrough ever in quantum physics and was a milestone understanding for me personally.

I have a need to understand how the universe works, and LOA has become a religion to me. It led me to the "double slit" experiment.

Now if you watched it you will see that light behaves differently when observed.

Einstein had to rewrite his theory of relativity because of it, and currently 80% of the worlds quantum physicists believe in the "coppenhagen interpretation" of this experiment which basically states

"matter does not exist unless it is observed".

That has been proven.

The movie "What the bleep; down the rabbit hole" is based on that experiment. So is much of our "new age" thought.

So the video will open your mind a bit. The teachings of "SETH" are currently the best description of reality as I see it.

Now beyond science experiments such as related schroinders (mispelled)"cat in the box" experiment dealling with realities of thought merging on a world scale into actuality (manifesting), there is not a lot of scientific proof beyond theories.

Watch this again though as it is important.

YouTube - Dr. Quantum Explains Double Slit Experiment


now affirm/visualize/meditate/ask for/intend and everything else you see here and keep tabs on your synchros. It will help with your belief.

I also have a youtube video concerning telepathy as I've had extraordinary results that were able to convince me. Try this experiment as well.
YouTube - Telepathy for dummies (easy proof with this method)
I manifested 20000 hits already.
i also have a simple loa video on will smith
YouTube - Law of Attraction Wisdom from Will Smith (the actor)

I have proven enough to myself that I can never doubt again.

Isn't that all that matters. Knowing yourself.

Yet that Double-slit experiment is the greatest discovery of our time. It literally means that your bedroom does not exist when you are not in it.

If a lone tree falls in the forest it does not make a noise because it exists only as a possibility wave (wave of potentials). It cannot materialize into reality (particles) unless it is observed, and then it must fit with the expectations of others before it is actualized. (pause for breath)

good luck grasping it all. You can find thousands upon thousands of speculation on the double slit experiment. Try wiki though for 2nds.

The "E.P.R." paradox and schrodingers cat in the box experiment also are thinking type experiments as well. You have a whole new world to view.

So.....

Didn't know you were so religious eh?

Well if "law of attraction" exists then it must mean that something is operating on a higher power and hence we have religion.

I have proven to myself LOA is real. I have proven to myself that telepathy is real. So what religions are they.

Hindu? Buddhist? Christian? More?

I think they are all valid however they all teach the same thing.
creation and belief are close cousins.

"We are created in gods image"
"On earth as it is in heaven"
"if ye have faith as small as a mustard seed..."
"ask and ye shall recieve"
etc.
"walk on water" "move mountains", fish for multitudes, etc.

Although all bibles are constructed by their governing religions. The messages are the same. Believe that something will come true and it will.

Now is the time to pay attention to the synchros in your life.

SETH is great theory even if from a sceptical source.

"god knows when every sparrow falls in the woods because he is every sparrow that falls in the woods" - SETH

Imagine that you are nothing but source energy/ether/god.
Wouldn't it be boring. Wouldn't you want to experience sensations as they appear. The experiences motive strengthened and matter was brought about, and life was born. Everything (all that is), materialized out of this essence. It is an attempt to experience. You are here to experience. You are also a part of god with creation abilities of your own.

I believe all matter is conscious (a step beyond some I know). Your stapler is aware that it is a stapler (i lost a few of you there). Just pretend though.

Now imagine that you are now the universe. Your life force is divided among all matter and beyond. If you recall from the double-slit experiment
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
Matter only exists when it is observed so your stapker must ony be a stapler for short periods of time. Matter does not exist unless it is observed.

Now everyone has their own views of matter as well. You will look different to Jack as to how Jill percieves you. It is your own perceptions.

Now to lose a few more of you. Time does not exist. No past/no future.
only present.

O.K. yep I don't share that with colleagues!!!

Let me explain. Your thoughts (creating reality) are immediately solid tangible things. You can touch them, drive them, everything. Pink elephants, jobs, anything. They are all real....

That is why you can tell yourself... "I own a hobby farm" and it is true. It is true. So don't feel like you are lying to yourself when you say "I am elmer j fudd. miwwionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht. You are. You are. You are.

Now how come you don't feel like a cartoon character if you are?

because there is a world of "gods" out there. I may be elmer j fudd, but until the source majority believes cartoon characters can walk it will only exist as a "possibility wave"

What you are experiencing now is a culmination of fitting possibility waves that solidify into actuality/reality

However your current intentions and thoughts carry weight that can affect the past as well. Your lottery numbers may not be fixed when you buy them. Let's say you pick the number 1,2,3,4,5,6 as your lottery number. Then you are in a positive vibration that attracts wealth. The moment in time that you picked your numbers could change them to 7,8,9,10,11,12 the true winning numbers. You now won the lottery. Both of these realities occurred yet only the winning lotto pick fit with your vibrational level and "fit' with the universe"

Please devote some study to "The double slit experiment"
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment


it is a hard concept to grasp for some but well worth the effort.

So how would that affect synchros? Imagine the world as a jigsaw puzzle of thoughts and our current reality is its best fit with time inconsequential.

Does law of attraction fit better. Does it mean that eventually all history can change. Does it mean everything is possible.

My views are mostly SETH type stuff, as that is the best explanation I have seen. I welcome other opinions (I've already heard the fruitcake stuff). However I am very successful in many areas and formally educated. I was a production manager with over 50 employees and am currently retired and living well. I have websites under construction as I've developed a new form of quija board (subconscious decisions stuff). My youtube vid mentioned earlier. I do Okay (even as a fruitcake).

So if you say
"I am a millionaire" you can say it WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

that is important. You can now say it and not doubt.

If you are stuck on some of the stuff I've said because it does not conform to your Judao/christian ethics; try this.
repeat one word. "WEALTH" . Forget affirming, just repeat that one word. I took the idea from Napolean Hill (who died penniless), it worked for me. I wrote down everything I WANTED IN THE FORM OF HOUSE FURNITURE APPLIANCES (EVEN TOOTHPASTE/toiletpaper), i THEN PUT THEM IN ORDER THAT I WANTED THEM (CHEAPER STUFF FIRST).

I then read my list out loud daily, and added a few hours of the word "WEALTH" while i commuted. I was unemployed and had never made more than $20/hr. Within 2 weeks I got a job as a Union printing Pressman from a classified (printing unions don't normally advertise in papers). The job paid $32.60/hr. (THANKS NAPOLEAN HILL)

My grandfather never made more than $7/hr yet he retired a millionaire because he said he spent 15 minutes a day visualizing security for his family. He even went so far as to put an offer in on a chicken farm because he figured they'd always have meat/eggs (farm was condemned before deal went through). His wife practised gratitude. Everyday she'd wake up and thank-god for her toes, her arms, her ..........etc.

What better attitude or "THOUGHT" to hold than thankfulness.
Thankfulness. Thank-you. Thank-you. thank-you.

By holding that thank-you emotion you attract thankfulness.
"reap what ye sow"
You will attract more circumstances to be thankful for

It is food for thought, and I ask the universe that people who need to see this do

Let's hear your plausible(or in plausible) ideas. I'd also like to adress resistance. You are possibly reading this because you are resisting success. It is important for you to focus until you can bend your normal comfort zone to your will. Skipping meditations is resistance. Reading all of this when you "KNOW" how to manifest is resistance.

"resistance is futile"

wayne

[forynav]

Thank you.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by richloaguy

devoted to help people believe more.

O.K. I will start by questioning your beliefs.

Do you believe in "law of attraction"?

No.

If you answered yes <snip>

"resistance is futile"

Not quite, but you can choose to be Borg if you like.

Here's an interesting video I meandered to from the stupid pseudo-physics link you posted: YouTube - Move It With Your Mind - See The Law of Attraction In Action

Now, what's interesting about that is that if you attach the pendant to something solid instead of holding it, suddenly energy stops going where attention flows. It's a great demo of how good our minds are at moving our bodies and not noticing, and of how good we are at fooling ourselves that we have psychic powers. You have proved it to yourself so much you will never doubt again. And that's all that matters, you say, "knowing yourself". Unfortunately, you don't.

Quantum effects are averaged out by the time we get to anywhere near the human scale. Sane physicists don't believe that the weirdness of particle physics means that matter doesn't exist if they're not looking at it, or that this gives them direct mental power over the physical world. Most physicists don't believe in the Law of Attraction. Pseudo-physics has always been peddled in support of religion. These days it's QM and chaos, that's all.

Enjoy the hive.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Quantum effects are averaged out by the time we get to anywhere near the human scale.

LOL.


Hiroshima.

[John Freestone]

Yeah that's relevant.

[Elrond]

And they're at it again...

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Elrond

And they're at it again...

Monsieur Unstoppable Force, meet Senor Immovable Object; I'm sure you'll get along wonderfully!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

if you attach the pendant to something solid

Gasp, attaching a pendant to something solid!

I sense some kind of thought at work here. Might the intention be to stop the pendant from further movement?! Will this manifest into reality?

[fellowtraveler]

Looks like Johnny got his fishing license renewed. How tiresome.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Sane physicists don't believe that the weirdness of particle physics <snip>

Here then are some insane physicists:



Werner Heisenberg. Nobel Prize winner for physics. Brief cv:

Honorary doctorates from the University of Bruxelles, the Technological University of Karlsruhe, and the University of Budapest.
Order of Merit of Bavaria
Romano Guardini Prize[155]
Grand Cross for Federal Service with Star
Knight of the Order of Merit (Peace Class)
Fellow of the Royal Society of London
Member of the Academies of Sciences of Göttingen, Bavaria, Saxony, Prussia, Sweden, Rumania, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Rome (Pontifical), the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Halle), the Accademia dei Lincei (Rome), and the American Academy of Sciences.
1932–Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen".[160]
1933–Max-Planck-Medaille of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft



Erwin Schrodinger. Just another Nobel Prize winner for physics. Erwin Schrödinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Niels Bohr, on the left (the guy on the right is Einstein). Bohr also won the Nobel Prize winner for physics. Also one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb. Generally regarded as one of the most influential physicists of the 20th century.



Eugene Wigner. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 for his contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the elementary particles.

----------------------------------

So these are the people that John Freestone casually dismisses as insane.

Make your own judgment.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So these are the people that John Freestone casually dismisses as insane.
Make your own judgment.

John is his own proof. Fully self-contained. Nothing works, therefore nothing works. Brilliant.

[John Freestone]

Interesting place to end the quote so that you can post some photos of influential physicists, pretending that they refute my claim. Let's continue the quote, and perhaps you can show me which of them support it: "...means that matter doesn't exist if they're not looking at it, or that this gives them direct mental power over the physical world."

Does the atom bomb depend on a collapsing quantum wave function, and does that mean that it won't go off if we don't look? Shall we put one in a box with a cat?

[marinik]

The sad part is that your bomb will always go of, cat or no cat. The whole concept just eludes you.... shame.

But happy New Year anyway time folded or not.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

The sad part is that your bomb will always go of, cat or no cat. The whole concept just eludes you.... shame.

But happy New Year anyway time folded or not.

That was my point, which is why the 'whole concept' doesn't elude me. Happy New Year.

[marinik]

Mine won't - my bomb won't go of! And my cat is 50% live 50% dead ......still.

[Acting Like Godot]

More insane physicists, for John.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat.

From 1959 until his retirement in 1987, D'Espagnat was a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Sciences at the Sorbonne University. He was director of the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics and Elementary Particles at the University of Paris XI (Orsay), 1980-87. He was a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Austin in 1977, and at the University of California - Santa Barbara in 1984.

He has been a member of the Brussels International Academy of the Philosophy of Science since 1975, and of the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences since 1996.

"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." - Martin Rees.

Martin Rees is Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics and Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester University. After studying at the University of Cambridge, he held post-doctoral positions in the UK and the USA, before becoming a professor at Sussex University. In 1973, he became a fellow of King's College and Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge (continuing in the latter post until 1991) and served for ten years as director of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. From 1992 to 2003 he was a Royal Society Research Professor.

He is a foreign associate of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy, and several other foreign academies. His awards include the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Balzan International Prize, the Bruce Medal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the Heineman Prize for Astrophysics (AAS/AIP), the Bower Award for Science of the Franklin Institute, the Cosmology Prize of the Peter Gruber Foundation, the Einstein Award of the World Cultural Council and the Crafoord Prize (Royal Swedish Academy). He has been president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1994-95) and the Royal Astronomical Society (1992-94) and a trustee of the British Museum, NESTA and the Kennedy Memorial Trust. He is currently on the Board of Trustees of the National Museum of Science and Industry the Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, and has served on many bodies connected with education, space research, arms control and international collaboration in science. In 2005 he was appointed to the House of Lords and elected President of the Royal Society.

"[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." - Werner Heisenberg.

Heisenberg is one of the earlier-mentioned Nobel Prize winners for physics.

"It [is] not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

Wigner is one of the earlier-mentioned Nobel Prize winners for physics.

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." - Pascual Jordan

Along with Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, Jordan is regarded as one of the founders and foremost proponents of quantum physics.

Excerpt from a Livescience article:

"Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.

Penrose also believes that quantum mechanics, the rules governing the physical world at the subatomic level, might play an important role in consciousness."

Roger Penrose deserves special mention, because he definitely qualifies as one of the most eminent scientists alive on this planet today. His extended cv:

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. In 1994, Penrose was knighted for services to science.[9] In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. To quote the citation from the London Mathematical Society:

His deep work on General Relativity has been a major factor in our understanding of black holes. His development of Twistor Theory has produced a beautiful and productive approach to the classical equations of mathematical physics. His tilings of the plane underlie the newly discovered quasi-crystals.

In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. in 2008 Penrose was awarded the Copley Medal. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

"Now, in ordinary physics, or in ordinary physiology, or in most of the classical realms of science, perception is something which is taken to be outside the realm of physicality. In other words, if you perceive something, you know that you see something. Light will strike your retina; you'll get an idea, or something will pop off in your brain, or something of that sort. But we never got the notion that somehow the act of seeing something was affecting what you were seeing or what you were looking at. But in quantum physics we've learned that when you're looking at very small objects, subatomic particles for example, the very action of looking at them disturbs them to such an extent that we never really get a complete picture as to what they actually are. Now, this has led me to think that consciousness may be at the core of this problem as to how perception can affect and change reality, and that maybe what we're doing when we're thinking or feeling or sensing or even listening to a conversation is using this action of consciousness, this fundamental act, which sort of what I call pops the qwiff -- that suddenly alters the physical reality of, say, the human body." - Fred Alan Wolf

Wolf received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from UCLA in 1963 and began researching the field of high atmospheric particle behavior following a nuclear explosion. His book "Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists" won the National Book Award as science paperback for 1980 from the National Book Foundation. Wolf has taught at San Diego State University, the University of Paris, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of London, and Birkbeck College.

[Judge]

The LoA only exists if you believe in time.

As the thoughts of past and future can only ever exist in this present moment, then there really is no time, therefore no LoA.

So you don't attract anything..........you change the present moment (the only thing that exists) to reflect a choice or a certain way you require to perceive the present moment.

There is no movement as awareness, doesn't move, change or grow. The one constant in the universe is you as awareness. Regardless of where you go and what you do, you are always present and it's always now.

People, stuff, thoughts, emotions, all come in to your life, stay awhile and then leave, but the one thing that never leaves, never changes is the one thing you are. There is no denying the present moment, it's the only reference point.......we can say it's self referencial (you have your present moment and everyone else has theirs) but that is simply further illusion.

You can't manifest stuff you want, you can only perceive stuff you already have. The trick is not to try to attract anything, but to perceive the unmanifested as real and that is a lot easier to do if you don't try to find yourself (ego) in it.

Judge.

[Coloratura]

Well, in all fairness, I just learned about the LOA not too long ago, so I have nothing invested in it either way. However, in talking about manifestation and LOA, who is to say that the subconscious has no understanding of negatives, i.e. "no" and "do not"?
For me personally, it's easier for me to grasp things in pictures, feelings, etc. However, I am beginning to see the same type of dogmatism crop up in the New aAge circles as from the fundamentalist relgions.
I think that it would be wise to at the very least consider John's point as opposed to engaging in a war of creds and names. I also, on the other hand, feel that John, or anyone else who feels that the scientific method and the sciences are the be-all and end-all to knowing and explaining the universe, to consider that not everything can be, and should be, explained away by means of imperical study and observation.
Just my $0.02, though.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Coloratura

I think that it would be wise to at the very least consider John's point as opposed to engaging in a war of creds and names.

You feel the way you feel, because you are new to this forum. Regulars here have seen a few hundred posts between John and I already.

Those threads normally end after about six pages, when John gets furious after realising that he has no logical rebuttal to any of the points I make, and that in fact his own arguments have been exposed to be highly illogical. At that point, John will resort to name-calling & insults, thereby forcing the moderator to block off the thread.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Coloratura

I also, on the other hand, feel that John, or anyone else who feels that the scientific method and the sciences

Oh and by the way .... John's knowledge of science is very shallow. If you bother to look up past threads, you'll see that he is definitely not the kind of guy who will cite scientific journals, scientific studies, mathematical formulae etc. Ironically, the kind of guy who would do that is .... me.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Coloratura

Well, in all fairness, I just learned about the LOA not too long ago, so I have nothing invested in it either way.

Hi Coloratura. That's a good way to be.

However, in talking about manifestation and LOA, who is to say that the subconscious has no understanding of negatives, i.e. "no" and "do not"?

There is a great number of unsubstantiated claims about the subconscious.

For me personally, it's easier for me to grasp things in pictures, feelings, etc. However, I am beginning to see the same type of dogmatism crop up in the New aAge circles as from the fundamentalist relgions.

A good point, though I don't think the dogmatism is just cropping up now.

I think that it would be wise to at the very least consider John's point as opposed to engaging in a war of creds and names.

Yes. It's not easy to stick to the issues, but we should really if we can.

I also, on the other hand, feel that John, or anyone else who feels that the scientific method and the sciences are the be-all and end-all to knowing and explaining the universe, to consider that not everything can be, and should be, explained away by means of imperical study and observation.
Just my $0.02, though.

I used to say the same thing. I still sometimes entertain that thought. I never wish to discount the possibility that there may be "more to life...", etc. But I find it a difficult position to hold for long. If it is important to know the truth, to learn about life, to see things the way they really are, it is hard to get the better of "empirical study and observation". For those still not assimilated into the hive mind of Secrets and Magick, it would be worth noting how often the proponents of the religion (a) appeal to reason and logic, (b) deny reason and logic when they wish to argue that there is something irrational that they know about, (c) use empirical study and observation to investigate their supernatural claims, and yet (d) fail to follow through with hard statistical measurement, instead relying on confirmation bias and all the other tricks of self-delusion. In the final analysis, there is, of course, no defeating the solipsism, "I choose to believe...and thus it is so".

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You feel the way you feel, because you are new to this forum. Regulars here have seen a few hundred posts between John and I already.

Oh the cheeky tongue again, following an early insult in the third person. How well I know this Acting character. Did you notice that? Insulting me, and saying that eventually in our exchanges I am defeated logically and insult him.

Did you notice how he even pretends to know why you feel the way you feel, because you're new to the forum? It is irrelevant. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Did you notice that I was talking to someone else about their original post, and Acting had to jump in with both feet and jump down my throat?

Those threads normally end after about six pages, when John gets furious after realising that he has no logical rebuttal to any of the points I make, and that in fact his own arguments have been exposed to be highly illogical. At that point, John will resort to name-calling & insults, thereby forcing the moderator to block off the thread.

A blatant lie with a smiley face. Happy New Year.

I concede the earlier point - there are quite a number of physicists who consider consciousness intrinsic to nature, etc., if you can be trusted to have posted true quotations (and I think even you aren't so low as to twist their words). I don't see Einstein there, but no matter. You win. Have it your way. Consciousness is necessary for matter to exist. God came first. God is everything. We make the world with our thoughts. I don't want to argue with you ALG. You're very difficult to have a nice, respectful discussion with. You seem to want to defend your position so forcefully that I find I haven't got the stomach for it. If you want to consider that as supporting your world view, go ahead. You're on ignore, and your last post is reported [ETA: last but one, in fact - you managed to squeeze another insult in before I posted this.]. I will do my best to avoid you on this forum. I don't come here often anyway.

It's "...between John and me", by the way.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

Mine won't - my bomb won't go of! And my cat is 50% live 50% dead ......still.

You're supposed to pull the pin out. How long ago was it, and how fond were you of the cat?

[marinik]

Pin... pull out... atomic bomb... are we even in the same string of reality or you cross over here from time to time?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by marinik

Pin... pull out... atomic bomb... are we even in the same string of reality or you cross over here from time to time?

Hi marinik,

Maybe we're being a bit too brief to really make sense to each other. Were you seriously suggesting that you have an atomic bomb, armed, in a box with a cat, the bomb hasn't gone off and the cat is 50% alive. I don't think so. What your actual point might be, I'm afraid I don't know, so I was replying tongue-in-cheek to what I thought must be an equally silly comment.

If the double slit experiment in the OP changes its result depending on whether it's looked at or not, and that is because the quantum state doesn't collapse one way or the other without an observer, just like shrodinger's cat thought experiment (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), and the same collapse of the quantum state is required for an atom bomb to go off, then presumably we could arm one and go on holiday, and it would, or wouldn't, or would half go off - which? I am making the point that this is clearly a stupid reading of physical principles and somewhere along the line things don't stack up like that. However, if you don't believe me, you're free to take an ordinary hand grenade, or just a fire cracker if you want to play it a bit safer, and try it for yourself.

Anywhere our realities are meeting?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I concede the earlier point - there are quite a number of physicists who consider consciousness intrinsic to nature, etc.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your point. My objection was to your use of the adjective "insane" to describe these physicists, some of whom are very eminent, and very renowned.

As a matter of fact, these physicists may be wrong or they may be right. Who knows? Perhaps science will tell us in 30 years time. However, whether they are right or wrong, I do not think it's quite fair to dismiss these physicists as "insane".

However, it now appears from your latest comment that you had merely doubted the existence of these physicists. So this is no longer a matter of being you being grossly unfair. It's simply a matter of you being completely wrong. For these physicists definitely do exist.

Ahhh, I'm glad I cleared that up for you. But no need to thank me, John. :P

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If the double slit experiment in the OP changes its result depending on whether it's looked at or not, and that is because the quantum state doesn't collapse one way or the other without an observer, just like shrodinger's cat thought experiment (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), and the same collapse of the quantum state is required for an atom bomb to go off, then presumably we could arm one and go on holiday, and it would, or wouldn't, or would half go off - which?

It depends. If you do not like quantum theories dependent on consciousness, you could always go the quantum theories which are not.

For example, there is Hugh Everitt's Many Worlds theory, which tells you effectively that there are alternative dimensions. According to his theory, there would be at least one reality where the bomb went off,and at least one reality where the bomb did not.

Since you are so fearful of the notion of reality depending on consciousness, perhaps you would like to say that reality actually doesn't, and merely exists simultaneously in multiple dimensions, LOL.

Incidentally, Hugh Everett's theory is what sparked off a long-running theme in sci-fi movies & fantasy books, about alternate realities. At the heart of all that, was his very serious theory in quantum physics.


Hugh Everett. He had a relatively brief career as an academic in physics. He spent much more time working for the Pentagon in developing nuclear weapons

Hugh Everett III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Gasp, attaching a pendant to something solid!

I sense some kind of thought at work here. Might the intention be to stop the pendant from further movement?! Will this manifest into reality?

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

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Does the atom bomb depend on a collapsing quantum wave function, and does that mean that it won't go off if we don't look?

Hmm. Actally I do not know whether the atom bomb would depend on a collapsing of the wavefunction. I mentioned the atom bomb mainly to demonstrate that your earlier point ....

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Quantum effects are averaged out by the time we get to anywhere near the human scale.

... was completely wrong. Atomic bombs do depend on quantum effects, and no, the effect of atom bombs do not disappear "by the time we get to anywhere near the human scale".

There are also other, less-dramatic examples of quantum effects appearing on the macroscopic level. For example, see this:

Access : Quantum physicsEntanglement hits the big time : Nature

Brief excerpt:

"Quantum physics: Entanglement hits the big time
Vlatko Vedral1

Top of pageAbstract Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon usually associated with the microscopic world. Now it is clear that its effects are also relevant on macroscopic scales, such as in the magnetic properties of some solids."

This is from Nature, which by any criteria, must be considered as a very serious, very respectable scientific journal.

There are even highly practical uses for the fact that quantum effects can translate into macroscopic effects. It will lead to quantum computer technology, for example:

Quantum computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case some readers are not following my point, well, basically, as far as this thread is concerned ...

1. John belabours under the mistaken impression that even if consciousness can cause certain effects at the quantum level, these effects are too small to have any relevance for the usual realities of human beings.

2. In previous threads, I have corrected his mistaken impression, and once again I'll correct it. Effects at the quantum level *can* translate into effects at a much larger level.

3. If consciousness can cause effects at the quantum level, it follows therefore that these effects can translate at something observable and significant at a much larger level, eg atomic bombs and quantum computers (and also some other stuff like crystalline structures in some solids etc).

[Daffy Duck]

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

I will attempt to manifest life for myself instead.

Let's see who is better at this.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Hi marinik,

Maybe we're being a bit too brief to really make sense to each other. Were you seriously suggesting that you have an atomic bomb, armed, in a box with a cat, the bomb hasn't gone off and the cat is 50% alive. I don't think so. What your actual point might be, I'm afraid I don't know, so I was replying tongue-in-cheek to what I thought must be an equally silly comment.

If the double slit experiment in the OP changes its result depending on whether it's looked at or not, and that is because the quantum state doesn't collapse one way or the other without an observer, just like shrodinger's cat thought experiment (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), and the same collapse of the quantum state is required for an atom bomb to go off, then presumably we could arm one and go on holiday, and it would, or wouldn't, or would half go off - which? I am making the point that this is clearly a stupid reading of physical principles and somewhere along the line things don't stack up like that. However, if you don't believe me, you're free to take an ordinary hand grenade, or just a fire cracker if you want to play it a bit safer, and try it for yourself.

Anywhere our realities are meeting?

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!