Who else would like to hear Steve's take on quantum physics?

[tomn8er]

I was first exposed to quantum physics just the other day in the movie "What the Bleep do We Know?" But that really didn't explain it all. All I know so far, and maybe I am completely misunderstanding it, is:
1) that matter (at least in the case of light) is undefined until it is measured.
This seems to correspond to the Law of Attraction, and even moreso to Steve's suggestion that reality only exists as and when we perceive it.
2) And that it is possible for the same atom or substance to exist in two locations simultaneously. I can't even begin to grasp how this is possible, let alone its implications.

I'm obviously no physics wiz, even when it comes to basic everyday Newtonian physics (I think Newtonian is the term...), but I can bet I'm not alone here.
Since Steve is so great at explaining extremely complicated concepts like the nature of reality, I would really love for him to do a podcast or an in-depth article on the philosophical implications of quantum physics and how it relates to subjectivity/spirituality - without getting too technical in terms of mathematical theory.

Anybody else in favour???

[NightOwlNation]

Gosh, this is so up my alley that I can hardly stand it. Probably why I waited awhile before posting in this forum overall.

I, too, would love for Steve to offer a podcast about his take on the subject.

First, I'll say that there are people alive today who continue to address this - and in layman's terms, too, so that is a plus. I'll point you towards the ones I can think of while I'm writing this post.

1) that matter (at least in the case of light) is undefined until it is measured.
This seems to correspond to the Law of Attraction, and even moreso to Steve's suggestion that reality only exists as and when we perceive it.

I'd offer that matter (or rather light) is undefined until it is observed.

2) And that it is possible for the same atom or substance to exist in two locations simultaneously. I can't even begin to grasp how this is possible, let alone its implications.

The Holographic Model/Theory Of The Universe addresses (and I feel answers) this specifically.

This page gives a good overview:

The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks

And you'll definitely want to get your hands on a copy of The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbott. Your question # 2 is answered within the first few chapters.

Gregg Braden has traveled and done extensive research also in these areas. And is one of the first modern day "Secret" or Law Of Attraction r/t quantum physics teachers in this current generation. I have a couple of his books on tape and they are astounding:

Gregg Braden » Home

Also, DR. Michio Kaku teaches quantum physics in New York. He does a lot of radio interviews and I've chatted with the members of his website once. It was all very civil - and though some things went over my head it was a fun and friendly environment. Dr. K. is supposed to come in and chat from time to time also. Either way it's a good opportunity to ask questions. You might want to check it out (on my computer I have to scroll down 1/3 page to see the main content):

Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

Among other resources Gregg B. has studied heavily the work of Hans Jenny. If you want even more rationale for how deliberate creating and the law of attraction works, this info is not to be missed!:

Cymatics a study of Wave Phenomena by Hans Jenny

Hope this contributes to your search.

[tomn8er]

Thanks a bunch NightOwlNation. Those are some awesome online sources!

[dor]

I second the recommendation for the holographic universe. I don't agree with all of it, but its well written and challenges a lot of assumptions.

[Keith]

Umm, Steve's pretty cool, but AFAIK he's not a Quantum Physicist. Since he'd have the same layman's understanding of Quantum Physics as the rest of us, I'm not sure why his opinion would be particularly enlightening...

[Shaden]

He said in one of his podcasts that he thinks people overuse it, especially those who don't have a proper understanding of basic mechanics.

He definitely thinks Subjective reality is superior.

[skydust]

thanks for that information nightowlnation. very interesting. im going to borrow that book from the library now.

[tomn8er]

Umm, Steve's pretty cool, but AFAIK he's not a Quantum Physicist. Since he'd have the same layman's understanding of Quantum Physics as the rest of us, I'm not sure why his opinion would be particularly enlightening...

Yes, I understand your point Keith. But I'd be most interested in learning about how quantum physics ties into something like subjective reality and the LoA, and to what extent they coincide.

This relationship is something that I think Steve would be able to explain even better than a lot of quantum physicists out there, because he's not a physicist! (So he wouldn't have the tendency to bore us to death with mathematical theory that no one understands).

Besides, IMO Steve is excellent at taking complicating subjects and breaking them down into more practical terms, so I'm sure his explanation for this would be no different.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tomn8er

I was first exposed to quantum physics just the other day in the movie "What the Bleep do We Know?" But that really didn't explain it all. All I know so far, and maybe I am completely misunderstanding it, is:
1) that matter (at least in the case of light) is undefined until it is measured.
This seems to correspond to the Law of Attraction, and even moreso to Steve's suggestion that reality only exists as and when we perceive it.
2) And that it is possible for the same atom or substance to exist in two locations simultaneously. I can't even begin to grasp how this is possible, let alone its implications.

I'm obviously no physics wiz, even when it comes to basic everyday Newtonian physics (I think Newtonian is the term...), but I can bet I'm not alone here.
Since Steve is so great at explaining extremely complicated concepts like the nature of reality, I would really love for him to do a podcast or an in-depth article on the philosophical implications of quantum physics and how it relates to subjectivity/spirituality - without getting too technical in terms of mathematical theory.

Anybody else in favour???

Um, I've read a lot of about quantum physics and maybe I can help to answer some of your questions but I'm not a quantum physicist and if you delve deeply enough you will realize that quantum physicists don't really know very much at all.

First of all what the bleep was (sorry) complete bullshit. NONE OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED WERE PHYSICISTS. That doesn't nessecarily mean they are full of crap but trust me all they did was spew out huge public misconceptions about QM. Keep in mind that I agree a lot with the subjective reality model presented by Jane Roberts/Seth for those familiar but quantum mechanics is down right abused by these people to make a case for subjectivity.

The idea that matter is undefined until it is measured comes from the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics basically saying that atoms and quantum particles can be explained in terms of probability waves. It basically says that the point where the particle exists cannot be precisley measured and that it exists in a probable area until measured. This interpretation comes from the concept of wave-particle duality which was the result of the Double-slit experiment (wiki it)

The concept of superpostion (matter being in two places at once until observed) comes from this non-deterministic interpretation. What the bleep uses it to say that everything is everywhere until observed, which is in fact according to the copenhagen interpretation, wrong because superposition only exists at the quantum level. On our larger scale these small feilds of probability where the particle exists create a uniform probability feild so that matter is indeed stable on our level.

However the copehenhagen interpretation and the wave-particle duality of matter is in my opinion ridiculous. There are new theories stating that there is no such thing as particles-only waves. In other words there are no singular point of existance for matter. Rather, waves like ripples in a sea of background energy propagate at their wave center infinitley into "space". More on that if you are interested.

The wave theory of matter relates to subjectivity in that it explains the interconnectivity of everything in a much more elegant way. Note: you do not shape energy with your thoughts, consciousness (ideas, experience, creativity etc.) is the energy. You are living in a world of ideas.

[John Wesley]

After Steve explains Quantum Physics to all of us, I'd love it if he could also tell us where we go when we die, and whether or not their is a God.

These questions should be easy, considering he can help you find the meaning of life in 20 minutes.

[tomn8er]

After Steve explains Quantum Physics to all of us, I'd love it if he could also tell us where we go when we die, and whether or not their is a God.

These questions should be easy, considering he can help you find the meaning of life in 20 minutes.

Please John, keep your smart-ass comments to yourself. There's nothing of constructive value in what you just said, so why bother saying it? For that matter, why are you even on this forum? To mock the man who's running it?

I was asking a serious question. These topics you just listed aren't a joke to me, and even though you're right to point out that Steve Pavlina doesn't hold all the answers, that doesn't mean that these questions are not worth asking, or that it is futile to try to answer them as best we can. There is value in trying to answer such questions - it's in the process. And guess what? You're not helping that process with sarcastic remarks like that.

[Marierama]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

After Steve explains Quantum Physics to all of us, I'd love it if he could also tell us where we go when we die, and whether or not their is a God.

These questions should be easy, considering he can help you find the meaning of life in 20 minutes.

To be honest, I think Steve could probably do just what you say, and more.

What do you mean when you say "Where we go when we die" and what do you mean by the term "God"?

There's enough here for a discussion that could last a year!

Cheers.

[Shaden]

Please John, keep your smart-ass comments to yourself. There's nothing of constructive value in what you just said, so why bother saying it? For that matter, why are you even on this forum? To mock the man who's running it?

I was asking a serious question. These topics you just listed aren't a joke to me, and even though you're right to point out that Steve Pavlina doesn't hold all the answers, that doesn't mean that these questions are not worth asking, or that it is futile to try to answer them as best we can. There is value in trying to answer such questions - it's in the process. And guess what? You're not helping that process with sarcastic remarks like that.

To be completely honest you need to control your own reactions. If someone chooses to make smart-ass comments accept that that is their own choice and the only thing you have control over is your own reaction to such an action. Besides I happen to agree with John - why are we in Steve's section of the forum instead of the Spiritual & Awareness section? Are these questions equally valid for everybody - or just Steve?

Steve holds some answer, yes, but the important element of Personal Development, is that it is "Personal". We can have answers provided for us or we can find them ourselves. Ultimately the ones we develop for ourselves are far more effective.

[tomn8er]

To be completely honest you need to control your own reactions. If someone chooses to make smart-ass comments accept that that is their own choice and the only thing you have control over is your own reaction to such an action.

Steve holds some answer, yes, but the important element of Personal Development, is that it is "Personal". We can have answers provided for us or we can find them ourselves. Ultimately the ones we develop for ourselves are far more effective.

Yes Shaden you are right. I am young (19 years old) and very new to all of these self-empowerment beliefs/paradigms. So sometimes I tend to fall back into old habits, like lashing out at people who I disagree with. But yeah, I admit that I was wrong to flame on him like that, and actually hypocritical as well because i wasn't contributing anything useful either. So I don't expect praise or a pat on the back or whatever for saying this but I am glad you pointed that out to me Shaden. I'll try to stay 100% positive in the future.

[Shaden]

Yes Shaden you are right. I am young (19 years old) and very new to all of these self-empowerment beliefs/paradigms. So sometimes I tend to fall back into old habits, like lashing out at people who I disagree with. But yeah, I admit that I was wrong to flame on him like that, and actually hypocritical as well because i wasn't contributing anything useful either. So I don't expect praise or a pat on the back or whatever for saying this but I am glad you pointed that out to me Shaden. I'll try to stay 100% positive in the future.

Don't worry about it. I'm younger then you are (17) and just as culpable to become defensive when I disagree with what other peoples believe. What's important is that we help each other when we slip up and we don't ignore someone when they're trying to give us advice. You pass with flying colours by the way