100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Quantum mechanics' knowledge | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 09/14/08 10:38 AM
|
|
If I may........the "one" is not "one point of view" but ALL points of view simultaneously. As we have already covered, at least I thought it had been covered.......depending on the "point of view" you are looking at you can see things differently.........so; therefore, any conclusion you come to is not a matter of fact, and will change just by thinking of it from a different angle. One has the capacity the perceive from ever-changing vantage points. All of our ever-shifting COMBINED angles (together) comprise whole logic. Each "point of view" morphing freely to contribute to the whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 09/14/08 10:36 AM
|
|
This "one" unlike our minds (though I think we can train them to be better at it) is able to "see" all things at once......there is no limitation as it is the "ego" and the "point of view" that we are viewing things from that limit us in the first place. BUT.....when that "point of view" or "ego" vision is not there..........you realize that NO conclusions can be drawn because no conclusion truly exists as it is based on a "point of view"........something you are no longer limited by. Oh... to increased freedom from limiting point of view! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may........the "one" is not "one point of view" but ALL points of view simultaneously. As we have already covered, at least I thought it had been covered.......depending on the "point of view" you are looking at you can see things differently.........so; therefore, any conclusion you come to is not a matter of fact, and will change just by thinking of it from a different angle. We, in this (at least) 3-dimensional world, absolutely have the capacity the perceive from ever-changing vantage points. All of our ever-shifting combined angles comprise whole logic. Each "point of view" morphing freely to contribute to the whole. Oh, I wholeheartedly 100% agree..........we can/are capable, just a lot of people don't/haven't trained themself to be able to... My point was (I am sure u got it, though) was that it is the focus on specific points of view that are limiting......and anything that encapsulates the ALL would not/could not simply have one point of view.....but would be like the light of the sun...having every shade within one beam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may........the "one" is not "one point of view" but ALL points of view simultaneously. As we have already covered, at least I thought it had been covered.......depending on the "point of view" you are looking at you can see things differently.........so; therefore, any conclusion you come to is not a matter of fact, and will change just by thinking of it from a different angle. We, in this (at least) 3-dimensional world, absolutely have the capacity the perceive from ever-changing vantage points. All of our ever-shifting combined angles comprise whole logic. Each "point of view" morphing freely to contribute to the whole. Oh, I wholeheartedly 100% agree..........we can/are capable, just a lot of people don't/haven't trained themself to be able to... My point was (I am sure u got it, though) was that it is the focus on specific points of view that are limiting......and anything that encapsulates the ALL would not/could not simply have one point of view.....but would be like the light of the sun...having every shade within one beam. Indeed... See edits. It is with great elation hearing your logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 09/14/08 11:35 AM
|
|
JB: Having a human experience is not "identifying with this frame or ego." Isn't "identifying with this frame or ego" (for a time) PART of the Human Experience? Seems like a natural part of the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB: Having a human experience is not "identifying with this frame or ego." Isn't "identifying with this frame or ego" (for a time) PART of the Human Experience? Seems like a natural part of the process. Yes, I think it is a natural thing to think of yourself as your body and brain. But when spiritual awareness enters the picture, people begin to recognize that their true self, the observer, has a body and a brain, but it is not the body and brain. You can experience what it is like to be a human and have a body and live within the boundaries of time and space, then when your body dies, you leave it and go on to experience other things. You are not your body, is all I meant by the statment. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses...
Is it not merely a mechanics of observations??? Written after the fact in order to attempt to explain the results of the experiments? Electron tunneling is the true culprit of the confusion, is it not? I wonder how the Bell's theory, when tested, has not just supported the EPR paradox? Both particles "know" the same thing! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses... Is it not merely a mechanics of observations??? Written after the fact in order to attempt to explain the results of the experiments? Electron tunneling is the true culprit of the confusion, is it not? I wonder how the Bell's theory, when tested, has not just supported the EPR paradox? Both particles "know" the same thing! Sorry, you lost me... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am leaning more and more to the notion that it is our understanding of the true nature of light that has been false, and has snowballed into this misunderstood concept.
Planck's constant seems to be a common denominator in both Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Shrodinger's equation which is used as a sort of proof of their validity. This opens a huge can of worms in my opinion, the root of the inconsistencies. What if Planck's constant is not true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am leaning more and more to the notion that it is our understanding of the true nature of light that has been false, and has snowballed into this misunderstood concept. Planck's constant seems to be a common denominator in both Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Shrodinger's equation which is used as a sort of proof of their validity. This opens a huge can of worms in my opinion, the root of the inconsistencies. What if Planck's constant is not true? Planck's constant probably is not true where other dimensions are concerned because time may not be the same in another dimension. And then there is the problem of zero... Perhaps they will learn something new if they discover the existence of other dimensions with that giant machine.... JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once had a fleeting thought that the true nature of the "speed of light" ~is that light has no "speed" at all.
The only reason people in this spacetime environment perceive light having a "speed" is because of the lower frequency that "we" (our universe) exists at. That would seem to agree with the idea that "time" does not exist and is only a result of the movement of bodies (or light) through this warped space... Perhaps the natural order of things is that all that truly exists is NOW (no time) and light has no speed, ~~but because our universe is slowed down and warped, it has become out of sync with the natural and spiritual nature of the rest of the infinite world. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps...
I really feel that the notion of many possible worlds existing simultaneously has been mathematically effectively renounced... Quantum mechanics revolves around Planck's constant and the state vector collapse that happens upon measurement(observation), if I have a good understanding... A mechanics of observation, not of actuality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/14/08 04:53 PM
|
|
Perhaps... I really feel that the notion of many possible worlds existing simultaneously has been mathematically effectively renounced... By "simultaneously" do you mean at the same place at the same time or just at the same place or just at the same time? Remember you are talking about time and space here... (Which very possibly does not even exist.) Quantum mechanics revolves around Planck's constant and the state vector collapse that happens upon measurement(observation), if I have a good understanding... A mechanics of observation, not of actuality. Oh I don't think quantum mechanics will cease to exist if planck's constant is discovered not to be so constant. Life goes on. In fact I suspect it would open up a whole new world of ideas. It is the truth we seek, and I suspect it is stranger that everyone thinks. With every new discovery they will only know more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and space do not exist?
Hmmmm.... So much for everything we have concluded about anything concerning motion, which is everything in the universe, including quantum mechanics. So much for momentum, speed, location, mass, and any other factor involved in our knowledge of physics, which has been quite dependable outside the atomic world and has been the fuel for all of this world's technological advancements. Realistically speaking... Space, time, and motion most certainly do exist, and we not only witness it everyday it is quite easy to verify. Should Planck's constant be proven untrue, then all of physics entire conceptual understanding since it's existence would be in dire need of re-structure. It was the solution the the wave/particle duality problem... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and space do not exist? Hmmmm.... So much for everything we have concluded about anything concerning motion, which is everything in the universe, including quantum mechanics. So much for momentum, speed, location, mass, and any other factor involved in our knowledge of physics, which has been quite dependable outside the atomic world and has been the fuel for all of this world's technological advancements. Realistically speaking... Space, time, and motion most certainly do exist, and we not only witness it everyday it is quite easy to verify. Should Planck's constant be proven untrue, then all of physics entire conceptual understanding since it's existence would be in dire need of re-structure. It was the solution the the wave/particle duality problem... Time and space do not exist, and neither does the particle. Just the waves. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 09/15/08 02:24 PM
|
|
Time and space do not exist? Hmmmm.... So much for everything we have concluded about anything concerning motion, which is everything in the universe, including quantum mechanics. So much for momentum, speed, location, mass, and any other factor involved in our knowledge of physics, which has been quite dependable outside the atomic world and has been the fuel for all of this world's technological advancements. Realistically speaking... Space, time, and motion most certainly do exist, and we not only witness it everyday it is quite easy to verify. Should Planck's constant be proven untrue, then all of physics entire conceptual understanding since it's existence would be in dire need of re-structure. It was the solution the the wave/particle duality problem... Time and space do not exist, and neither does the particle. Just the waves. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 09/15/08 03:21 PM
|
|
Space and time exist only as concepts, but not as things, or entities.
There is no entity called "time" existing in "space." (Does time and space exist in your dreams? If not, why do you perceive them? Memory? How do you see things with your eyes closed, and walk through perceived space in a dream?) What happens to all that stuff and all that space and time perceived in your dreams when you wake up? Where does it go? Was it all in your mind? Was it created by your pineal gland? Space and time exist in the mind. It exists in the universal (collective) mind. It is all 'mindstuff.' So what makes this reality any different from your dreams? 1. It has a longer perceived Duration 2. The observer has enhanced senses 3. Agreements between inhabitants. 4. The Laws or rules of the program. So what is time? What does time have to do with Memory? What is memory? What is matter? What is a particle? Does it have mass or is it just a standing wave? Is it just a field of energy? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If time exists, then please describe it for me.
JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If time exists, then please describe it for me. "The change of position of objects in space." Take it away!
|
|
|
|
|
