That's right, without intent your decisions are invisible, just like your posts have been invisible for the past six months.

Even when you post, you're still invisible.

You'll always be invisible.

You've made a decision to be invisible and you did it with intent.

Now you're going to have a real hard time becoming visible again.

You could teach me to be online without a PC, couldn't you?
I'd very much like that, would save a lot of money, too

Exactly! And here is the difference.

In the quantum sense, a decision is stationary, but an intention is in motion.

Even if you have not actually begun to act in the physical sense, the intention in motion.

A decision is not in motion, an intention is. I know it is a very tiny subtle difference but it makes all the difference in the world when you are practicing the law of attraction.

To be online without technology you need to become a cyber ghost
You’ll reside in the memory of each PC that’s connect to the World Wide Web
You can infest a user’s CPU
Or rewrite their CD ROM
and if you have the inclination, you can become a cyber bomb

You’ll forfeit your physical body to become an electron wave
you’ll wander around in an endless loop in your virtual cyber grave

Is this what you crave?
To become a mere slave?
An endless wave of bits and bytes of binary words?

The invisible anti-user who became a cyber cruiser
wandering through dating sites and hordes of unused data bytes
in the hope of finding someone nice, who isn’t such a loser

The invisible little icon that no one ever sees
she hides behind the cyber blinds
and beneath the keyboard keys

She’s invisible to the material world
and undetected by technicians
but when she grabs your fast hard drive
she’ll delete your compositions

She's the Holy Terror of the underworld
The women who became a virus
She’ll plant her seed upon your screen
and you'll soon receive an iris

Yeh, I intend to pay my phone bill. I really do.

Procrastination is the worst enemy of good intentions.

Thats cool! Abra you should write science fiction. Kind of brought back memories of that film "Tron" . Very interesting. I haven't cracked a science fiction book in years. Last was Isaac Asimov. Thats dated now.

Skyhook:


Since 1968.

Ask and it is given.

An intention is the decision to act. It starts the wheels moving forward. It is placing the order. It is in motion.

Oh man

I think I stay as I am, invisibly invisible

Yep, that’s a good choice

So pay your fee to your ISP and remain in the world of users
those who chose to be cyber ghosts have become embedded losers

You've just described exactly why I defined intention as "continuous decision".

If we look at it from the viewpoint of "cessation" of decision, what is it that happens? Your decision changes and you start operating with that different decision. ("I don't want to do that anymore." or "I want to do something else.")

So yes, "intent and decision are in a very real way inseparable" in the same way that a film and photograph are inseparable, or line and point are inseparable.

If at any point, the decisions/photographs/points stop, then the intention/film/line stops.

So again, "intent and decision are in a very real way inseparable" is absolutely true. Trying to separate intention from decision is like trying to separate the line from the points or the film from the photographs.

(I could be flip and ask “What answer(s) are you willing to accept?” which would eventually lead to the same place I’m headed, but I’m going to come at it from a different direction.)

And so we finally come full circle back to The Big Question …

“Why am I here?”

So let’s look at the question.

Either there is a “why” or there’s not.

If there’s not a “why”, then the question is meaningless and there’s no point in even asking it and thus no point in answering it.

If there is a “why”, then the question becomes “who is most qualified to answer it?”
A physicist?
A religious leader?
A psychiapriest?
Your Bartender?
Me???

“Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls…”

Or as Jeannie put it so poetically:

In other words, the entirety of the pantheistic premise demands that you are the only one capable of answering that question. So the best reply is: “Why ask me? You’re the one who decided to be here. Why did you make that decision?”

Of course none of that answers the question. And since you’re apparently suffering from a severe case of the “hereafters” I’ll try and help you remember.

Take the game of checkers. Why do you make one move and then wait for your opponent to make their move? Why do you not make more than one move at a time? Why do you not move vertically or horizontally, but only diagonally? If the purpose of the game is to remove all your opponent’s pieces from the board, why do you not just push them all off the board in one swoop and be done with it? Why do you agree to abide by all the rules?

IMO, the ultimate answer to “Why are you playing ‘checkers’?” is exactly the same as the ultimate answer to “Why are you here?”. The difference is only a matter of degree.

<SkyHook watches his sorry attempt at a volley come sizzling back over the net out of his reach. >

Ok, I confess. You're a wiser sage than me. You know better than to ask such stupid questions, but you answer them very well anyway.

I'm not truly asking the question from a 'soul searching' perspective. I honestly don't care why I'm here.

I was asking it more as a philosophical question to see if you had any thoughts on the matter.

The next time owl know to ask your bartender instead.

I do think it's fun to believe in something though. So I've decided to believe in the Law of Attraction. And I've decide this with intent. Thus it must come to pass.

So let it be decided.

So let it be manifest.

Amen.

I am so grateful for the Law of Attraction.

I really should thank you for "asking it as a philosophical question". It was a nice fat pitch right over the middle that gave me the chance to do a little speachifyin'. And that's always fun.

Not sure you'd want to ask my bartender though. His answer would be to just keep buying drinks until the answer came to you - or you stop caring about the question.

Very good point Skyhook. The question "Why am I here?" can't be answered by anyone but me.

I came here for something.... hummmmm I forgot what.....
Oh well, while I'm here... I think I'll do this and this and this... I still wonder why I came here in the first place.

Is the above an example of an incarnated life? No, it is just me after I walk into my Mom's back door.........

..so then I leave and go back over to my apartment and then I remember... oh yeh, I forgot to get my whatever over at mom's place, I'll have to go back....

We are so easily distracted.

Now these are the kind of threads which I truly enjoy!

Thank you all once again for your participation...

James,

You have encouraged my curiosity concerning QM. During the process, and very much as a direct result of the need to better understand it's foundations, the pursuit has also took on a "mini life" of it's own.

Until recently, I have been almost completely ignorant to much of science's theories(QM, Relativity, String, etc.) however, since the very first words read, I have found this to be a very interesting subject of study for the last several months. It is also a good addition to my philosophical side.

Thank you for your continued support and patience, and know that I have grown tremendously from knowing you!

I will have to respond more in detail the next time to all that has been discussed up until this point...

Time constraints... Phooey!!!

Peace...

It is my understanding that the quantitative input that is placed into the Shrodinger and Heisenberg equations, as well as Dirac's is non other than the product of particle physics' deterministic localized view(Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, etc.)

This makes Q.M. completely dependent upon something that it refutes???

THAT makes little to no sense to me.

The accuracy of the theory is incredibly "precise", non-the-less, I suppose. Just how precise can a solution be considered to be though, if it contains all known possibilities???

What and where would Q.M. be though without the classical perspective and those who built upon it?


James...



Agreed!!!




Quantum fluctuations and "tunneling" seem to be right smack in the middle of the warping of time, do they it not???

On borrowed time, non the less...lol



Simultaneously instantaneous does not exist, does it???

If one believes that the object is in all possible locations simultaneously until observation, which is the implication of the double slit experiment when slowed down to produce individual photons, then there must be a cause for the collapse.









Agreed...



This explanation contradicts my understanding of that which I have read thus far...






I have been guilty of this... lol It was done so purposefully, as it was not the focus of my thought at the time...



EDIT>>>>

Sky,

John Donne is cool!!!

By golly Michael you've just answer the question of why we are here! We are here to interact with each other!

It makes me feel very good to hear your words. I long to be a mentor but I can no longer teach. If I have inspired you to delve into areas that interest you that you might not have otherwise found so easily I am very pleased.

Unfortunately, I think you're already at the point of knowledge that I have on this topic. So I'm not sure if I can be of further help. But that's cool.

I've been moving away from science lately. I've decided to take up sorcery instead. I've also become interested in Gregorian chants of the Medieval Church. Not the words, but the music. I've realized that these Dorian mode chants will make perfect melodic brew for incantations.

In fact, that reminds of a thread I've been meaning to start,...

Actually it does.

Relativity doesn't truly do away with the notion of simultaneity all together. It simply states that there can be no *absolute* simultaneity for all possible observers.

In other words, simultaneity exists for me, and it exists for you. But we may not agree with each other on what we perceive to be simultaneous.

Of course, if we're both in the same inertial frame of reference then we will agree!

So I guess another way of saying this is that there is such a thing as simultaneity with respect to a single frame of reference.

So in this regard, we can still talk about the 'simultaneous' collapse of the wave function with respect to a specific frame of reference. And this is what I was trying to get at.

In fact that brings up an interesting question. A question that I already know the answer to! WOW! An experiment I don't need to do because it's already been done!

The question is simply this,... Would a wave function appear to collapse 'simultaneously' to all observers?

The answer necessarily must be a resounding YES!

Why do I say that?

Because no one has ever observed a wave function to collapse non-simultaneously!

However, that brings up an extremely interesting question!

Every observer who has ever observed a wave function collapse has been here on earth (i.e. in the same reference frame as all the other Earthling's who have observed wave functions to collapse.

But WHAT IF????

What if an observer was traveling at near the speed of light? Then what would they observe when a wave function collapses?

Hmmm? I wish I had my 20-year-old brain again. I'm too tired to even think at the speed of light anymore.

Well that's a thought for you to ponder.

I can't ever remember reading anything where anyone has actually considered that perspective. But then again, I haven't read everything there is to read.

It's probably a moot point anyway. An argument could be made that moving relative to a wave function collapse is a meaningless concept.

In fact, just thinking about this even momentarily I'm pretty sure that must be the case. The reason is that wave functions are localized until they collapse, so moving *relative* to a collapsing wave function is probably a moot point.

I used to enjoy thinking about this stuff when I was young.

Now it just gives me a headache.

I just want a nice warm fire, a glass of wine, a sexy woman, and then hope we can have sex before my wave function collapses.

we are here to entertain God