Wikipedia says:

In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle

Dictionary.com says

a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/particle

Wikipedia is full of shit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fucking correct.

Fucking aye.

Eh. fireworks are boring, and so is the 4th of July.

If you knew chemistry, they'd be entertaining.

That's true. There's other ways for the male and female terminals to look. How prejudiced of me.

IIRC, you have one of those electric cars. Check how most of the components are linked together to make a circuit.

Well, send them good vibes then.

I think keeping them mulched and using copperfield's diluted piss fertilizer works pretty well. The tomatoes are the exception 'cause they need trace elements.

Nevertheless, the evidence exists. Materialists don't want to believe it so they try to dismiss it.

Well, at least the have an operative Occam's Razor to keep junk away.

Living things are beautiful.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

They think so; that is their problem. They need to get over it so they can be good managers during the 4T like the theory says!

Maybe cynicism helps them to be better managers. Xer's can spot BS a mile away.

My alchemy book says it's possible, but only for one who has mastered the great work, which is inner spiritual work. But he gave no evidence for this, so it's only woo-woo possibility, or hearsay. But the supernatural is natural; anything is possible, because there are no physical laws, only habits as Dr. Sheldrake says. He is the new Einstein, and his theories gel with all my metaphysical knowledge explained on my website. He is an integral philosopher and a scientist providing evidence for the philosophy.

As I said, it's the wrong question. spiritual stuff doesn't "work." Machines built by humans "work." Nothing else. Spiritual stuff is just there; it's the truth just being the truth. Watch again the spoon segment from The Matrix.

As long as one doesn't tie it to science, ok.

You succeeded, but the problem is that it's irrelevant.

It's relevant to me.

Listen to Strawberry Alarm clock again, and get back to me.

I might, when the time arises.

What I wrote is what happened, and it was nonsense. TED had to put it back in a special section with warnings, rather than remove it, because of the support Dr. Sheldrake and Mr. Hancock got for those videos, and ONLY because of that support.

Yeah. But still.... it's there now, that's what I was saying all along.

Chakras are essential knowledge and used by millions of practitioners; they are not just my opinion.

No. Your claim is that Dr. Sheldrake does not use scientific protocols. Prove it.

http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html

Sheldrake merely reported the fact that those who measure the speed of light show that it is not a constant. They already did the work; Sheldrake merely exposed the lie.

1. Yes, he compiled a list of readings from [folks who measure the speed of light] BUT [used different instruments to do it.]
2. The use of different instruments is called bias in science. That means his data is rubbish, therefore his conclusions are also rubbish.

Wikipedia is a resource commonly used by students and everyone. To censor it is reprehensible. It is hypocritical to claim wikipedia is neutral, and then to censor data that don't fit the taboo.

1. Did Wikipedia ever say it accepts everything?
2. If folks think something is quackery then that's why they chucked it. Let's do a test flight.
3 is a lucky number.
poison ivy leaves come in clusters of 3.
therefore poison ivy is lucky and you should wear it when you go to a casino.
See how absurd those 3 statements I made are? Now, I could fashion a bandana from poison ivy since the stuff doesn't really bother me, but I think other casino goers would object. Now, wrt Wikipedia, is it alright if I submit this piece of work on their poison ivy entry?

If you want to start another argument with me over Bieber, at least spell his name right.

1. nawww. Waste of time.
2. Argument? Well, I suppose you could, but you see, I'm lazy/efficient. I'd just peruse the shrine thread and recycle a post from there rebutting whatever you say.

I still think electrons move at the speed of light. Perhaps you can show me a non-wikipedia site that says no. Meanwhile I am reading up on some nuclear physics; maybe I'll find out. The use of color as an apparent metaphor for how force is exchanged between quarks is very interesting, considering how important color is to my own philosophy theory.

Here you go.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-physici...electrons.html

You have an ancestral relationship to a Norse myth event. Good.

You bet.

Oh and
Why can't Sheldrake work on this?

or

this?

OK, so maybe Fido can know shit about us because we have unique magnetic fields, eh?

But you don't have to be hung up on Vandal.

I'm not the one hung up on Vandal. So who is it that brings him up the most here, hmmmmmmmmm?

You don't need heavy metal either. It is not good for your plants. Play them some soothing ambient music, or Indian ragas, or some Bach. Toccata in F is the music of the spheres; the universal archetype of truth and the spiritual journey. Rage is not so healthy for plants.

No, but maybe just being around them works if it can be proven that plants can detect magnetic fields.

Nice!

Eric deserved a break.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fucking correct.

Eh. fireworks are boring, and so is the 4th of July.

That's true. There's other ways for the male and female terminals to look. How prejudiced of me.

Well, send them good vibes then.

Nevertheless, the evidence exists. Materialists don't want to believe it so they try to dismiss it.

Living things are beautiful.

They think so; that is their problem. They need to get over it so they can be good managers during the 4T like the theory says!

My alchemy book says it's possible, but only for one who has mastered the great work, which is inner spiritual work.

How convenient.

But he gave no evidence for this, so it's only woo-woo possibility, or hearsay. But the supernatural is natural; anything is possible, because there are no physical laws, only habits as Dr. Sheldrake says.

Says the guy who doesn't know that objects with mass can not travel at c.

He is the new Einstein,

No. He really isn't. The only current scientists who even know who he is are ones that spend some of their time refuting pseudoscientific nonsense.

and his theories gell with all my metaphysical knowledge explained on my website.

And that is the only test of validity you ever use when you hear something new. "Does it agree with what I already believe?"

He is an integral philosopher and a scientist providing evidence for the philosophy.

No, he really isn't.

As I said, it's the wrong question. spiritual stuff doesn't "work." Machines built by humans "work." Nothing else. Spiritual stuff is just there; it's the truth just being the truth. Watch again the spoon segment from The Matrix.

You succeeded, but the problem is that it's irrelevant.

Listen to Strawberry Alarm clock again, and get back to me.

What I wrote is what happened, and it was nonsense. TED had to put it back in a special section with warnings, rather than remove it, because of the support Dr. Sheldrake and Mr. Hancock got for those videos, and ONLY because of that support.

Chakras are essential knowledge and used by millions of practitioners; they are not just my opinion.

And the sun orbited the Earth according to the opinions of most people prior to 1543.

No. Your claim is that Dr. Sheldrake does not use scientific protocols. Prove it.

Sheldrake merely reported the fact that those who measure the speed of light show that it is not a constant. They already did the work; Sheldrake merely exposed the lie.

He did no such thing. He claimed that the measured values changed through time because the speed was changing rather than physicists developing better tools and techniques.

Wikipedia is a resource commonly used by students and everyone. To censor it is reprehensible. It is hypocritical to claim wikipedia is neutral, and then to censor data that don't fit the taboo.

Please stop talking about stuff that you don't understand. Here is a relevant section of Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
. . .
-claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The Wikipedia editors are doing exactly what they are supposed to.

If you want to start another argument with me over Bieber, at least spell his name right.

I still think electrons move at the speed of light. Perhaps you can show me a non-wikipedia site that says no.

Check out the words of an actual physicist that studies the motion of electrons in circuits.

Sixty Symbols: Speed of Light

Meanwhile I am reading up on some nuclear physics; maybe I'll find out. The use of color as an apparent metaphor for how force is exchanged between quarks is very interesting, considering how important color is to my own philosophy theory.

Color was chosen strictly as an analogy, just like spin was chosen for one of the quantum numbers.

You have an ancestral relationship to a Norse myth event. Good.

But you don't have to be hung up on Vandal.

Says the guy who seems to mention me in most of his posts these days.

You don't need heavy metal either. It is not good for your plants. Play them some soothing ambient music, or Indian ragas, or some Bach. Toccata in F is the music of the spheres; the universal archetype of truth and the spiritual journey. Rage is not so healthy for plants.

Nice!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

If you knew chemistry, they'd be entertaining.

I know some chemistry. Fireworks and 4th of July are boring. Ho hummm.

I think keeping them mulched and using copperfield's diluted piss fertilizer works pretty well. The tomatoes are the exception 'cause they need trace elements.

You can also appreciate them. Mulch etc. works; love works too.

Well, at least the have an operative Occam's Razor to keep junk away.

Not at all; quite the opposite. They do not examine their dogmatic assumptions. Sheldrake laid that out clearly, as have many others since the Awakening, and before in other Awakenings, and other times when people were sensitive to the truth, as many are not today.

And what do you call the many worlds interpretation of QM? A violation of Occam's Razor as I already pointed out. An extreme violation. It is simply a way of avoiding the inevitable conclusion that Berkeley was right.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

No, but you would say that. Your choice of 3T music says you think "beauty" is just arbitrary, yes. Anything is as good as anything else. I disagree. Living things are beautiful. You can see the life in them. But NOT if you cut them up, mentally or physically. Western science has put Nature on a rack, as Francis Bacon said. It kills Nature, both mentally and physically.

Maybe cynicism helps them to be better managers. Xer's can spot BS a mile away.

Cynicism does not spot BS; it creates vast amounts of it. Xers are prone to BS far more than any other generation. Exhibit A: Vandal. Exhibit B: Galen. Exhibit C: JDG.

Cynicism is just a negative attitude. Healthy skepticism and willingness to question = spotting BS. There's a difference. Gen Xers are just cynical. It is not healthy. Exceptions apply of course; not all Gen Xers are cynical.

I am just trying to open your mind a bit on these subjects. It is up to you to go through the door. Winning an argument or converting you to my view is not the point. Maybe inserting in your mind a slight awareness of another point of view; that's the point.

Remember though, I was already a materialist and science fan. I'm the one who moved and expanded my view. Materialism and typical science dogma? Been there, done that. Nothing there is new to me, even if I may learn some specific info.

As long as one doesn't tie it to science, ok.

What "works" is a matter of technology; science is broader than technology.

It's relevant to me.

How?

I might, when the time arises.

The time has arisen. The point is what is meant by self-examination. They spelled it out in that song. Don't pretend you don't know the lyrics I mean. You do.

Yeah. But still.... it's there now, that's what I was saying all along.

Yeah, only because their supporters protested against censorship. That's always a good response to censorship.

http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html

You have not proven it at all. You just put a link up to an idiot skeptic dogmatist. He's a skep-dick. Fuck him.

1. Yes, he compiled a list of readings from [folks who measure the speed of light] BUT [used different instruments to do it.]
2. The use of different instruments is called bias in science. That means his data is rubbish, therefore his conclusions are also rubbish.

They are not his conclusions; they are the conclusions of the guys who measured the data. Those guys just covered up their conclusions and data. Sheldrake revealed it. Sheldrake did not use any instruments.

1. Did Wikipedia ever say it accepts everything?
2. If folks think something is quackery then that's why they chucked it. Let's do a test flight.
3 is a lucky number.
poison ivy leaves come in clusters of 3.
therefore poison ivy is lucky and you should wear it when you go to a casino.
See how absurd those 3 statements I made are? Now, I could fashion a bandana from poison ivy since the stuff doesn't really bother me, but I think other casino goers would object. Now, wrt Wikipedia, is it alright if I submit this piece of work on their poison ivy entry?

wikipedia is a nest of skeptics who are biased. That is my experience, and Sheldrake's. I have checked a number of their pages on paranormal subjects. They are all biased.

Here you go.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-physici...electrons.html

You tend to lose track of the issue sometimes. The question was whether electrons move at the speed of light, including when they are part of atoms. We know they do when they are part of an electric current. Whether c is a constant is a different issue.

You bet.

Oh and
Why can't Sheldrake work on this?

or

this?

I imagine he doesn't study magnetism because it would not explain how organisms learn and evolve. His field was morphogenetics.

OK, so maybe Fido can know shit about us because we have unique magnetic fields, eh?

How far would these fields stretch? In Sheldrake's experiments the effect stretches for many miles away, and begins when the owner decides to come home. It is psychic. I don't think magnetism explains psi, and I don't think Sheldrake thinks it does. Given his wide awareness and background, I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't studied magnetism too. I don't have a reference now tho.

I'm not the one hung up on Vandal. So who is it that brings him up the most here, hmmmmmmmmm?

You are the one who accepts and refers to his bullshit.

No, but maybe just being around them works if it can be proven that plants can detect magnetic fields.

I don't think magnetic fields make the difference. It's another kind of field that explains psi. Less physical.

Sheldrake mentioned that the person who discovered magnetic fields, Michael Faraday, was a bit of a "skeptic." He dared to ask this question: "are fields made of matter, or is matter made of fields?"

Physical does not equal real. Quite the opposite. The spiritual is more real. At least it's a plausible point of view.

Proving it works does not entail theorizing that magnetic fields are involved. Proving it entails testing the effects of good music and love on the growth of plants. That experiment has been done. Vandal rejects it because he doesn't like the result.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I know some chemistry. Fireworks and 4th of July are boring. Ho hummm.

You have amply demonstrated that you only pretend to "know some chemistry."

You can also appreciate them. Mulch etc. works; love works too.


Not at all; quite the opposite. They do not examine their dogmatic assumptions. Sheldrake laid that out clearly, as have many others since the Awakening, and before in other Awakenings, and other times when people were sensitive to the truth, as many are not today.


And what do you call the many worlds interpretation of QM? A violation of Occam's Razor as I already pointed out. An extreme violation. It is simply a way of avoiding the inevitable conclusion that Berkeley was right.

And your interpretation isn't a violation?


BTW: Occam's Razor isn't a law. Violating it doesn't invalidate an idea. Occam's Razor is just a helpful guide.

No, but you would say that. Your choice of 3T music says you think "beauty" is just arbitrary, yes. Anything is as good as anything else. I disagree. Living things are beautiful. You can see the life in them. But NOT if you cut them up, mentally or physically. Western science has put Nature on a rack, as Francis Bacon said. It kills Nature, both mentally and physically.

So what? Your opinion about "killing" nature is just that, an opinion.

Cynicism does not spot BS; it creates vast amounts of it. Xers are prone to BS far more than any other generation. Exhibit A: Vandal. Exhibit B: Galen. Exhibit C: JDG.

We've been able to spot when you are only pretending to understand things.

Cynicism is just a negative attitude. Healthy skepticism and willingness to question = spotting BS.

You wouldn't know "healthy skepticism" even if it up and farted in your face.

There's a difference. Gen Xers are just cynical. It is not healthy. Exceptions apply of course; not all Gen Xers are cynical.


I am just trying to open your mind a bit on these subjects. It is up to you to go through the door. Winning an argument or converting you to my view is not the point. Maybe inserting in your mind a slight awareness of another point of view; that's the point.


Remember though, I was already a materialist and science fan.

Oh please. Being a "fan" does not mean you know the slightest thing about science.

I'm the one who moved and expanded my view. Materialism and typical science dogma? Been there, done that. Nothing there is new to me, even if I may learn some specific info.

Yeah, we already know that. You spend all your time in search of things that you think confirm what you wish was true about the universe. Skepticism need not apply.

What "works" is a matter of technology; science is broader than technology.


How?


The time has arisen. The point is what is meant by self-examination. They spelled it out in that song. Don't pretend you don't know the lyrics I mean. You do.


Yeah, only because their supporters protested against censorship. That's always a good response to censorship.

It wasn't censorship. Scientists pointed out that the talks did not meet the organization's (TED) stated goals concerning validity of ideas.


"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism…Just because the government can’t punish you for saying something stupid doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t." - Nick Offerman

You have not proven it at all. You just put a link up to an idiot skeptic dogmatist. He's a skep-dick. Fuck him.

You always go around accusing others of rejecting the truth because we don't want to believe it. Why can you not see that it is really you projecting your weakness onto others?

They are not his conclusions; they are the conclusions of the guys who measured the data. Those guys just covered up their conclusions and data. Sheldrake revealed it. Sheldrake did not use any instruments.

That is exactly Rag's point. Sheldrake doesn't have any actual evidence that the speed of light is changing. He refuses to do any actual research into the matter. He's a crackpot.

wikipedia is a nest of skeptics who are biased. That is my experience, and Sheldrake's. I have checked a number of their pages on paranormal subjects. They are all biased.

Translation: the editors of those pages are following Wikipedia's policies concerning extreme claims.

You tend to lose track of the issue sometimes. The question was whether electrons move at the speed of light, including when they are part of atoms. We know they do when they are part of an electric current. Whether c is a constant is a different issue.

No, they don't. The links provided by both of us have shown that.

I imagine he doesn't study magnetism because it would not explain how organisms learn and evolve. His field was morphogenetics.

Morphogenetics isn't a field. It's a made up nonsense term.

How far would these fields stretch? In Sheldrake's experiments the effect stretches for many miles away, and begins when the owner decides to come home. It is psychic. I don't think magnetism explains psi, and I don't think Sheldrake thinks it does. Given his wide awareness and background, I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't studied magnetism too. I don't have a reference now tho.

The behavior you are referring to has been shown to be a function of decay rate of owner's scent molecules, not psi.

You are the one who accepts and refers to his bullshit.


I don't think magnetic fields make the difference. It's another kind of field that explains psi. Less physical.


Sheldrake mentioned that the person who discovered magnetic fields, Michael Faraday, was a bit of a "skeptic." He dared to ask this question: "are fields made of matter, or is matter made of fields?"

Faraday then followed his question with a series of brilliant experiments designed to answer the question. New Age crackpots never seem to get around to the hard part of experimentation. They sometimes set up pseudo-experiments designed to get exactly the answer that they want but that isn't the same as actually being a skeptic.

Physical does not equal real. Quite the opposite. The spiritual is more real. At least it's a plausible point of view.

Up is down, war is peace.

Proving it works does not entail theorizing that magnetic fields are involved. Proving it entails testing the effects of good music and love on the growth of plants. That experiment has been done. Vandal rejects it because he doesn't like the result.

The experiment has been done. The results showed that music has no effect on plant growth at all.

Rags has said that he has experienced pre-cognition.

It is good to seek more understanding of psychic and other paranormal phenomena.

My thoughts about this might help steer you in a better direction.

You have to start with acknowledging that it is woo-woo, and will always be woo-woo. Or, at least some of the things we can't explain physically, will always be woo-woo.

And physical explanations, since they are limited in their power to explain, do not clear away woo-woo at all. The world remains entirely woo-woo!

If you have experienced woo-woo, then there is no point in putting down other kinds of woo-woo.

But you can be skeptical, because claims can be false or deceiving.

Science can be a check on false claims. Not an absolute and certain check, but fairly reliable.

However, science is NOT reliable, if it tries to reduce woo-woo to what it isn't, based on dogmatic assumptions never themselves verified.

One such assumption is that "matter" or observable phenomena is unconscious. There is no evidence at all for this assumption.

Personal experience is a better check. Ultimately, you are the only basis for your knowledge.

Trying to explain how woo-woo or anything else "works," is trying to explain woo-woo as non woo-woo.

It is using the metaphor of human-made machines that "work," to explain Nature, which is not human-made, is not a machine, and does not exist in order to carry out our commands.

Nature doesn't "work," it just flows forth in being. It self-organizes. It is alive and organic.

You can't find out how psychic abilities or other woo-woo "work." The point is to verify (to the extent possible) that it exists, to experience it and develop it; to learn from it. Your own consciousness, which is connected to all consciousness, is the only explanation you need. Woo-woo's existence verifies that the world is spiritual. To explain the spiritual as material, is to try to explain it away.

To complain that you don't know consciousness or woo-woo because "you don't know how it works," is to complain that woo-woo and consciousness have not been reduced to matter yet.

But what if it can't be so reduced? And why should it be so reduced?

Matter is as flaky a basis for explaining the world as spirit, spooks and ghosts are. Much more flaky, in fact.

You experience your own consciousness at every moment. No-one has ever experienced matter. It is just a flaky idea. The solid and other states of being; yes. "Matter?" WTF?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Rags has said that he has experienced pre-cognition.

True. However, I never ascribed any scientific theory to explain it or have expectations that science is even the proper tool to do so.

It is good to seek more understanding of psychic and other paranormal phenomena.

Eric can provide folks or information that haven't been discredited.

My thoughts about this might help steer you in a better direction.

1. When will Eric get off his soapbox about Wiki censorship. Nada info there. It comes off as whining.
2. When will Eric get off his soapbox wrt Xer's? That does not help.
3. Uh, Sheldrake is no help. He's got:

You have to start with acknowledging that it is woo-woo, and will always be woo-woo. Or, at least some of the things we can't explain physically, will always be woo-woo.

Yes, quite so. When's Sheldrake gonna get this?

And physical explanations, since they are limited in their power to explain, do not clear away woo-woo at all. The world remains entirely woo-woo!

If you have experienced woo-woo, then there is no point in putting down other kinds of woo-woo.

But you can be skeptical, because claims can be false or deceiving.

Science can be a check on false claims. Not an absolute and certain check, but fairly reliable.

Finally! It's taken how long for you to get what Vandal and I've been getting at. Science ain't the right tool. People who ascribe science to explain woo-woo tend to step on their dicks.

However, science is NOT reliable, if it tries to reduce woo-woo to what it isn't, based on dogmatic assumptions never themselves verified.

Gads. If people who study woo-woo dosn't suck science into their stuff that wouldn't be problem, would it?

One such assumption is that "matter" or observable phenomena is unconscious. There is no evidence at all for this assumption.

Try getting a dog. My dogs seem to know whether something is conscious or not. They're very interested in birds or Mr. bunny rabbit. They don't give a rat's ass about the rocks by the fence.

Personal experience is a better check. Ultimately, you are the only basis for your knowledge.

on stuff like woo-woo. Science can very well tell what elements a particular star has by looking at the star's spectral lines for example.

Trying to explain how woo-woo or anything else "works," is trying to explain woo-woo as non woo-woo.

Yes, and again, that's why ascribing science or attaching science to woo-woo = dick stepping.

It is using the metaphor of human-made machines that "work," to explain Nature, which is not human-made, is not a machine, and does not exist in order to carry out our commands.

?

Nature doesn't "work," it just flows forth in being. It self-organizes. It is alive and organic.

Define "nature".
Stars aren't alive nor are the minerals in my rock collection. Some of my minerals are organized as crystals because of the laws of nature. Ditto on how stars form , evolve , and then die.

You can't find out how psychic abilities or other woo-woo "work." The point is to verify (to the extent possible) that it exists, to experience it and develop it; to learn from it. Your own consciousness, which is connected to all consciousness, is the only explanation you need. Woo-woo's existence verifies that the world is spiritual. To explain the spiritual as material, is to try to explain it away.

No, they are 2 different entities.

To complain that you don't know consciousness or woo-woo because "you don't know how it works," is to complain that woo-woo and consciousness have not been reduced to matter yet.

No. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just not an arrogant fruit bat that knows.
1. I've experienced woo-woo
2. Yeah, OK, but I don't know how the hell it works and I'm OK with that.

But what if it can't be so reduced? And why should it be so reduced?

When you find someone who isn't tainted with rubbish, I'll catch you the next time around, OK?

Matter is as flaky a basis for explaining the world as spirit, spooks and ghosts are. Much more flaky, in fact.

Then don't do it that way.

You experience your own consciousness at every moment. No-one has ever experienced matter. It is just a flaky idea. The solid and other states of being; yes. "Matter?" WTF?

I'm experiencing matter right now. The atoms on my right palm are touching the atoms on my forehead.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

True. However, I never ascribed any scientific theory to explain it or have expectations that science is even the proper tool to do so.

That's right; it isn't. It can only verify that it happens, to some extent.

Eric can provide folks or information that haven't been discredited.

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

Remember, to be knocked by skeptics is not to be discredited.

1. When will Eric get off his soapbox about Wiki censorship. Nada info there. It comes off as whining.
2. When will Eric get off his soapbox wrt Xer's? That does not help.
3. Uh, Sheldrake is no help. He's got:

1. I don't know when. Perhaps when you get my point. Sometimes whining is needed. That's the only reason Sheldrake's and Hancock's videos got put back up, remember?
2/3. no comment.

Yes, quite so. When's Sheldrake gonna get this?

He does. His very first statement in his Science Delusion video implies this. Science cannot know all things in principle, with only the details to be filled in. Vandal thinks it can.

Finally! It's taken how long for you to get what Vandal and I've been getting at. Science ain't the right tool. People who ascribe science to explain woo-woo tend to step on their dicks.

No, I don't think we're quite together, but close. Science can't "explain" it, but science might (and has) developed theories that open the door to it. Quantum entanglement for example, or Sheldrake's morphic fields, might allow for woo-woo, but science theories like this can't fully explain it. It can confirm or verify observations and claims of phenomena. It can describe regularities.

Gads. If people who study woo-woo don't suck science into their stuff that wouldn't be problem, would it?

Science is useful to verify claims. It can be useful to revise peoples' worldviews. The problem I mentioned, however, would not at all disappear if people who study woo-woo don't "suck science into their stuff."
"However, science is NOT reliable, if it tries to reduce woo-woo to what it isn't, based on dogmatic assumptions never themselves verified." That means the scientific skeptics try to invalidate woo-woo practitioners who are just minding their own business, and try to prove that their practice is invalid.

Try getting a dog. My dogs seem to know whether something is conscious or not. They're very interested in birds or Mr. bunny rabbit. They don't give a rat's ass about the rocks by the fence.

Yes, they know. Rocks, though, are also conscious on a lower level. They are part of the planet. They are part of a larger phenomena. Rocks next to the fence are "rolling stones" whom we have separated from the larger process. That's what I'd say 'bout that!

on stuff like woo-woo. Science can very well tell what elements a particular star has by looking at the star's spectral lines for example.

Yes, and that was verified by each observer, him or herself; and each scientist decides what to conclude or hold as true about it.

Yes, and again, that's why ascribing science or attaching science to woo-woo = dick stepping.

That seems to be Vandal's complaint, but I don't give it any creedence.

Science can give us info about anything. It cannot give complete knowledge about anything.

It is using the metaphor of human-made machines that "work," to explain Nature, which is not human-made, is not a machine, and does not exist in order to carry out our commands.

I'm saying that understanding how things "work" is really about understanding how to make things work for us. We recognize causes and effects and use this knowledge to manipulate and control Nature for our ends. That's good; that's part of being human. But being in itself does not really operate mechanically. We just isolate these causal, mechanical factors in order to control it.

Define "nature".
Stars aren't alive nor are the minerals in my rock collection. Some of my minerals are organized as crystals because of the laws of nature. Ditto on how stars form , evolve , and then die.

Nature could be defined as everything, but usually it means everything we can observe through our senses.

That stars are not alive is just a philosophical assumption, not a scientific fact. Vandal and you have said that I am trying to make woo-woo scientific. But what really happens most of the time, is that scientists or skeptic admirers of science like Vandal put woo-woo philosophy into science and call it science.

It is an alternative world view that the stars and planets and minerals are alive. Remember "rocks" as we usually see them are taken out of context by us, for our purposes. But I prefer the ancient and medieval/renaissance view that the world is alive; all of it is alive, in varying degrees, and all-connected. It is self-organizing, at least. That's called Pan-psychism. That idea may well be too woo-woo to ever prove scientifically. But I am not against science studying things and seeking to demonstrate that they are alive, or connected, or trying to prove that the life force exists. It hasn't probably been done yet. Even if it IS done, you are right that science won't be able to explain this life force. Life remains a miracle, beyond full scientific explanation.

And I agree with Sheldrake that there are no laws of nature, and have thought this for 47 years. Laws are made to be broken. I think Sheldrake busted that idea pretty well. Laws are metaphors for human laws. No, we are arrogant to think we can determine "laws of nature." There are only regularities, and life breaks out of them, and forms new ones. Since the world is alive, "laws" of nature do not explain it. "Laws" are part of the desire to reduce the world to a mechanism, and the reason we do that is to create mechanisms. Useful? Yes, to a point. True? No.

No, they are 2 different entities.

You're a "dualist" then.

Not me, I'm spiritualist, but pan-psychist; degrees of consciousness.

The philosopher Descartes laid out the dualist idea in c. 1740. It is an idea, not a fact; but was just assumed as true by scientists. Then in the 19th century, they just lopped off the spirit part and reduced everything to matter; at least in their own minds!

No. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just not an arrogant fruit bat that knows.
1. I've experienced woo-woo
2. Yeah, OK, but I don't know how the hell it works and I'm OK with that.

OK, that's good enough for me.

I'm experiencing matter right now. The atoms on my right palm are touching the atoms on my forehead.

That only means you are touching "being" in a solid state (I won't call it the solid "state of matter"). You are experiencing solidity. It is just energy and mind in a slower vibration. Your forehead is solid only in relation to your hand. It's all relative, sorta like Einstein said (sorry ) But that's the way to look at it. Your forehead and your palm, though, are also united as part of one body and soul. When you look inside your body directly, with your mind, you don't see any matter, or any cells, molecules, atoms or any other objects. You are all of a piece and pure consciousness. You seem not to understand what I mean by looking within. Listen to Strawberry Alarm Clock.

Some of what science calls "matter" zips right through your forehead, like radio waves. Whether you can touch them or not is irrelevant.

Solidity is a state of being; it is not matter. The same being can be solid, then melt into liquid, then evaporate into gas, or convert into energy, and energy is all generated by spirit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's right; it isn't. It can only verify that it happens, to some extent.

How? I've never seen where woo-woo can fit within the scientific paradigm.

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

Remember, to be knocked by skeptics is not to be discredited.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. People who think matter can travel the speed of light have fruit bats in the belfry.

1. I don't know when. Perhaps when you get my point. Sometimes whining is needed. That's the only reason Sheldrake's and Hancock's videos got put back up, remember?

Well, that could work under the "chief sticky finger of the no wipey-diapy tribe paradigm, right"? IOW, if enough shit is tossed during a shit storm, some shit sticks to stuff.

2/3. no comment.

I liked that pic though. The bat on the far right is razzing you.

He does. His very first statement in his Science Delusion video implies this. Science cannot know all things in principle, with only the details to be filled in. Vandal thinks it can.

1. I'll defer to Vandal on that one.
2. You might want to check element , Z=117 data. Exciting stuff there.

No, I don't think we're quite together, but close. Science can't "explain" it, but science might (and has) developed theories that open the door to it. Quantum entanglement for example, or Sheldrake's morphic fields, might allow for woo-woo, but science theories like this can't fully explain it. It can confirm or verify observations and claims of phenomena. It can describe regularities.

Ah, the morphic fields. Yes, the force carrying particle for that is the Bozo-on. Ain't science grand? I mean really, why can't he stick with something real, like magnetic fields?

Science is useful to verify claims. It can be useful to revise peoples' worldviews. The problem I mentioned, however, would not at all disappear if people who study woo-woo don't "suck science into their stuff."

1. Why not?
2. Yes, science is useful to verify claims with the proviso, the procedures are followed. Sheldrake has no clue about that.

"However, science is NOT reliable, if it tries to reduce woo-woo to what it isn't, based on dogmatic assumptions never themselves verified." That means the scientific skeptics try to invalidate woo-woo practitioners who are just minding their own business, and try to prove that their practice is invalid.

Yeah, but Eric states below that things like rocks are alive.
"Alive" = respond to stimuli. Dogs[bark,whine to let you know they want to be fed, if housebroken, pester you to let them go outside, shit, pee, run around, and are warm to the touch].

rocks[never move, don't respond to stimuli, no sounds]

Yes, they know. Rocks, though, are also conscious on a lower level. They are part of the planet. They are part of a larger phenomena. Rocks next to the fence are "rolling stones" whom we have separated from the larger process. That's what I'd say 'bout that!

See above. Eric seems to have as well:

Yes, and that was verified by each observer, him or herself; and each scientist decides what to conclude or hold as true about it.

That seems to be Vandal's complaint, but I don't give it any credence.

I can see why. "Rocks are alive?????" <- Battier than Carlsbad Caverns.

Science can give us info about anything. It cannot give complete knowledge about anything.

Yes.

I'm saying that understanding how things "work" is really about understanding how to make things work for us. We recognize causes and effects and use this knowledge to manipulate and control Nature for our ends. That's good; that's part of being human. But being in itself does not really operate mechanically. We just isolate these causal, mechanical factors in order to control it.

Close. That would be to understand it for knowledge sake as well. New data often causes a shift in the current attributes for an object. The object can be anything which is currently known or a set of attributes ascribed to a recently discovered object. If one knows object oriented computer programing, anything can be defined as a programmed object. The computer program can be written so add or remove attributes about the object as desired. Objects are also assigned "operators" which define how objects interact with other objects. That's how I think Sim City works. For example, in chemistry, you have a known number of elements, each of which has attributes like melting poing, electronegativity, number of stable isotopes, total number of known isotopes, etc. The operators could be the fundamental 4 forces for starters. I'm sure there are programs which do this sort of thing.

Nature could be defined as everything, but usually it means everything we can observe through our senses.

Uh, would that include plastics?

That stars are not alive is just a philosophical assumption, not a scientific fact. Vandal and you have said that I am trying to make woo-woo scientific. But what really happens most of the time, is that scientists or skeptic admirers of science like Vandal put woo-woo philosophy into science and call it science.

Well, again, a star is an object with a list of attributes. Which attributes do stars have that indicate that they are alive? You don't have to rely on a scientific answer here, Eric. Just list out attributes of a star and compare them to some lifeform of your choosing. Here, you needn't bother yourself with whether your answer is "scientifically correct". It's more of a computer programming excercise. Your "program" just has to produce reasonable results. Think of it like a RPG game, you're free to distance yourself what is actually defined as "real".

It is an alternative world view that the stars and planets and minerals are alive. Remember "rocks" as we usually see them are taken out of context by us, for our purposes. But I prefer the ancient and medieval/renaissance view that the world is alive; all of it is alive, in varying degrees, and all-connected. It is self-organizing, at least. That's called Pan-psychism. That idea may well be too woo-woo to ever prove scientifically. But I am not against science studying things and seeking to demonstrate that they are alive, or connected, or trying to prove that the life force exists. It hasn't probably been done yet. Even if it IS done, you are right that science won't be able to explain this life force. Life remains a miracle, beyond full scientific explanation.

That's why I have a Chinese wall built between [objects science can reasonably explain, right now] vs. [objects science can't really handle, right now]

And I agree with Sheldrake that there are no laws of nature, and have thought this for 47 years. Laws are made to be broken. I think Sheldrake busted that idea pretty well. Laws are metaphors for human laws. No, we are arrogant to think we can determine "laws of nature." There are only regularities, and life breaks out of them, and forms new ones. Since the world is alive, "laws" of nature do not explain it. "Laws" are part of the desire to reduce the world to a mechanism, and the reason we do that is to create mechanisms. Useful? Yes, to a point. True? No.

Yeah, whatever. Sheldrake >>> fruit bat.

You're a "dualist" then.

Not me, I'm spiritualist, but pan-psychist; degrees of consciousness.

The philosopher Descartes laid out the dualist idea in c. 1740. It is an idea, not a fact; but was just assumed as true by scientists. Then in the 19th century, they just lopped off the spirit part and reduced everything to matter; at least in their own minds!

If that refers to the Chinese Wall, then sure. Rags has
1. Stuff that makes complete sense to him.
2. Stuff that's just mysterious.

That only means you are touching "being" in a solid state (I won't call it the solid "state of matter"). You are experiencing solidity. It is just energy and mind in a slower vibration. Your forehead is solid only in relation to your hand. It's all relative, sorta like Einstein said (sorry ) But that's the way to look at it. Your forehead and your palm, though, are also united as part of one body and soul. When you look inside your body directly, with your mind, you don't see any matter, or any cells, molecules, atoms or any other objects. You are all of a piece and pure consciousness. You seem not to understand what I mean by looking within. Listen to Strawberry Alarm Clock.

Uh, a simpler explanation is that the my palm is a bunch of swirling electrons as is my forehead. I'm also a solid. That means it takes relatively more force than a hand from passing though my forehead. It's not perfect because a bullet can pass through my forehead. Yes, solid state, no energy/mind needed to explain.

Some of what science calls "matter" zips right through your forehead, like radio waves. Whether you can touch them or not is irrelevant.

Eric, why in God's name do you do stuff like this? Radio waves are NOT matter! They are just photons.

Solidity is a state of being; it is not matter. The same being can be solid, then melt into liquid, then evaporate into gas, or convert into energy, and energy is all generated by spirit.

Sorry Eric, the above is really mush. You've outdone yourself there. Did you drop acid when you wrote that?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

How? I've never seen where woo-woo can fit within the scientific paradigm.

Why not? I've posted videos by Radin and Sheldrake that explain how parapsychology research is done. You just follow the procedures of the scientific method and you test for it.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. People who think matter can travel the speed of light have fruit bats in the belfry.

Sounds like something you said because Vandal said it. Fail. Vandal is a fruitbat.

Matter when it travels at the speed of light is energy. Matter and energy are interchangeable terms. Everything is energy, not matter.

You said this in response to me saying Sheldrake has not been discredited. That is irrelevant. The only people who say Sheldrake has been discredited are the stupid militant skeptics with an agenda to protect their philosophy. That has nothing to do with the speed of light. Sheldrake revealed that the scientists who measure the speed of light showed that the speed varies, but they won't reveal that fact. For goodness sake, get off it; the matter is settled.

I mean really, why can't he stick with something real, like magnetic fields?

You are just stuck on materialist dogma. You need to reexamine your assumptions. What is "real"? That's ontology. Don't criticize what you can't understand.

1. Why not?
2. Yes, science is useful to verify claims with the proviso, the procedures are followed. Sheldrake has no clue about that.

I've lost track of the issue; sorry.

Sheldrake uses scientific protocols and procedures. You really have no basis for contesting that at all.

the scientific skeptics try to invalidate woo-woo practitioners who are just minding their own business, and try to prove that their practice is invalid.

The new agers are not trying to interfere with science. The science fanatics are trying to interfere with new agers.

Yeah, but Eric states below that things like rocks are alive.
"Alive" = respond to stimuli. Dogs[bark,whine to let you know they want to be fed, if housebroken, pester you to let them go outside, shit, pee, run around, and are warm to the touch].

rocks[never move, don't respond to stimuli, no sounds]

You throw a rock against another rock, it will make a sound.

Yes.

Good; at least we agree on something.

Close. That would be to understand it for knowledge sake as well. New data often causes a shift in the current attributes for an object. The object can be anything which is currently known or a set of attributes ascribed to a recently discovered object...

I understand what you mean that we like to know about chemical elements. I think we study things in that way (i.e. reduce them to objects) in order to control them, not to know them. If we really want to know them, don't reduce them to objects. an object is something you hold in your hand in order to manipulate it. Knowing things as "programmed object" is a good example of this. A programmed object is programmed to operate for our use; it is obviously technology = what "works" = useful to us. I'm saying that to define the world in terms of how things "work" is to define it in terms of how we can use, predict and control it and make it work for us. I'm not saying to ban analysis in order to know things; just also see it in context to really know things.

Uh, would that include plastics?

That's a good question, actually. Some people define "natural" as "not artificial." That goes back to defining things as existing for itself, or for us as something that "works." Obviously I agree, in a sense. But in a larger sense, humans are part of Nature and so is everything we do. It's just a question of seeing things from the larger perspective than from our own impulse to control things for our own use. Materialists (including yourself as a partial materialist, and Vandal as a whole-hog materialist) are hung up on doing that.

Well, again, a star is an object with a list of attributes. Which attributes do stars have that indicate that they are alive? You don't have to rely on a scientific answer here, Eric. Just list out attributes of a star and compare them to some lifeform of your choosing. Here, you needn't bother yourself with whether your answer is "scientifically correct". It's more of a computer programming excercise. Your "program" just has to produce reasonable results. Think of it like a RPG game, you're free to distance yourself what is actually defined as "real".

See, the Western and rationalist/materialist impulse is indeed to break things up into parts. It focuses on analysis. Making a list of attributes, for example. Not on synthesis or seeing things whole. You know stars and planets are alive when you know them as wholes. Living things are wholes. Sheldrake suggested that stars are alive because they are self-organizing. That's a good way to look at it. All life-forms are self-organizing systems. Again, that's the difference between living and mechanical. Systems organized by humans "work," and exist to serve our needs. They are put together from outside themselves. They are machines and work mechanically. Materialism sees everything from that point of view.

Ancient through Renaissance humanity did not do that. Non-Western-science-brainwashed folks do not do that. They saw/see things as they are, for themselves; alive and whole. We moderns are wrong; the ancients were right. Modernism is a diversion from life; it has failed. We need to recover our lost connection to Spirit, or the whole house of cards will soon fall on us. That's what Hancock said. He was banned on TED because he challenged this Western science paradigm. It's still true. The world is not mechanical; it is alive. It does not require an outside God to infuse it with life. Life is the natural condition of things. "Matter" is indeterminate. It is frolicking spontaneity built right in.

That does not mean we have to ban machines and getting things to work for us. We just need to see this for what it is, and consider and value our world from the perspective of wholeness, if we don't want to pollute and screw ourselves and everything up. Materialism as a dominant paradigm needs to go, Rags. It needs to be put in its proper place. That's what the Awakening discovered; it's the only thing it discovered. To throw out the Awakening is not to progress as a people.

That's why I have a Chinese wall built between [objects science can reasonably explain, right now] vs. [objects science can't really handle, right now]

Yes, but it's not really the objects that need walls between them. It is methods. If you use scientific methods, stick to them. If you use spiritual methods, stick to them. And don't cling to them as sources of the only truth, in either case. And the same person (e.g. Dr. Sheldrake) can switch back and forth between them during the same lecture, without getting mixed up.

It is true that science can handle some things more easily than others; basically, those objects that are less alive. The more alive, the harder it is to use science to study it. But it can still study it.

I had this discussion with Brian Rush some years ago. He said science could not study consciousness; I said it could. More recently, he referred to the relatively-new consciousness studies going on in science. Evidently, I was right. Of course, the materialists forever want to reduce it to non-consciousness. That is what cannot be done. It's like reducing apples to oranges, or something like that.

Yeah, whatever. Sheldrake >>> fruit bat.

His point >>> important truth.

If that refers to the Chinese Wall, then sure. Rags has
1. Stuff that makes complete sense to him.
2. Stuff that's just mysterious.

Build the wall between methods. If you don't stick to a method, it doesn't work.

Uh, a simpler explanation is that the my palm is a bunch of swirling electrons as is my forehead. I'm also a solid. That means it takes relatively more force than a hand from passing though my forehead. It's not perfect because a bullet can pass through my forehead. Yes, solid state, no energy/mind needed to explain.

You are using the example of your body. That's good. Solidity is just a condition, a "state," not anything fundamental. If you feel your body and observe it consciously, you know it is not a bunch of swirling electrons or any other objects. It is whole and pure. You are not a solid object; you are an energy system. That hand, and that forehead, are swirling vortexes of energy. You are physically a process, ever-changing and maintaining itself. It is one energy system. It certainly is not two separate objects, a forehead and a hand. All the parts of you depend on each other. The wholeness of those parts is your soul, your consciousness. If you value yourself, and esteem yourself properly, then you look upon yourself as free, self-organizing, self-intending; not being forced around by outside objects and forces.

You see what materialism does? In its zeal to control and dominate the world for us, it ends up turning us all into objects to control. That is in a nutshell the history of Western Civilization from the late Renaissance to the 20th century holocausts.

Of course, you know that your body is not really solid at all; it is mostly liquid, and quite a bit gaseous too. And energy, with fire going on in it. The solid part just holds us together in a world of other solids. Each energy state has its purpose. That's why the ancients correctly called them elements.

Eric, why in God's name do you do stuff like this? Radio waves are NOT matter! They are just photons.

Matter then is just a state of being, not matter. Matter becomes energy; there's no difference. Photons are one of the constituent particles of matter, are they not? They are running around in there in those protons, aren't they? They are being exchanged as the electro-magnetic force, apparently.

Sorry Eric, the above is really mush. You've outdone yourself there. Did you drop acid when you wrote that?

As I pointed out, states of "matter" or being are just conditions, not fundamental. The conditions change in a higher or lower energy state. That's not mush; that's basic physics.

What this glowing ember of a thread needs is some gas:



Pay particular attention to the point when an actual quantum mechanic physicist explains why Sheldrake's idea of a universal consciousness is ridiculous.

Surprising oil drop experiments suggest that the quantum world may not be as strange as advertised.

Seems like a balanced approach:

Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones
http://physics.about.com/od/QuantumC...essQuantum.htm

Originally Posted by Odin

Surprising oil drop experiments suggest that the quantum world may not be as strange as advertised.

The de Broglie - Bohm idea was one of the ones listed in the video I linked in. It got a whopping 0% in the survey of experts. That could grow of course, but your link seems to indicate that they still have a long, long way to go.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Seems like a balanced approach:

Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones
http://physics.about.com/od/QuantumC...essQuantum.htm

Your source repeats the mistaken description of what physicists mean by "observation" in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

You'll also notice that your source never, ever says that there is any scientific evidence of a universal consciousness.

Finally, you may have noticed that your favorite ex-botanist is not mentioned at all.

Quantum Mechanics and Reality
© Thomas J. McFarlane 1995
www.integralscience.org
http://www.integralscience.org/sacre...S_quantum.html

Tom describes the double slit and double beam/mirror experiments, and goes on to say:

These experiments can be done with electrons, photons, protons, neutrons--any subatomic particle you like. The result will be the same. It unequivocally demonstrates that all subatomic particles do not have definite material existence when they are not being observed. These effects can also be observed with atoms and small molecules. When millions and millions of molecules are clumped together into a macroscopic object, however, the effects are not usually noticeable. This does not mean, however, that the weird quantum reality is not there anymore. It is just that it is not noticeable anymore. It is like when we consider only a small area of the earth: just because the curvature effects are not noticeable does not mean that the earth is not round anymore. As Heisenberg said,

The statistical features of natural laws are ubiquitous and a matter of principle. It's just that these quantum-mechanical features are far more obvious in atomic structures than in the objects of daily experience. [8]

So all matter is really this way. Even large macroscopic chunks of matter. The independent existence of the material world is an illusion. This is very startling--or it should be very startling. As Niels Bohr once said,

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. [9]

Schrödinger, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, understood just how radical this is. To dramatize it, he imagined putting a cat in a box with a radioactive atom and a detector that would trigger a bottle of poison to break when the atom decayed. Since the whole thing is unobserved in the box, the state of the atom, and consequently the state of the cat, is not determinate. Just as the photon does not take one route or the other unless it is observed, the cat is not alive or dead unless it is observed. This is so outrageous that even some quantum physicists find it hard to swallow. Yet that is exactly what quantum mechanics itself says. There is even hard evidence now that large macroscopic objects can exist in these strange non-local quantum states. Examples are superconductors, superfluids, and lasers. These are the exceptions, though. For most macroscopic objects, the quantum effects are not noticeable. They are there, to be sure, but they are not noticeable.

The reason the quantum nature of most objects is not noticeable is because of a phenomenon called decoherence. When the one wave went through the two slits, the resulting two waves had a phase relationship with each other that created the interference pattern. Such waves are called coherent. When millions and millions of particles are involved, though, there are so many of these phase relationships interfering that they appear on the macroscopic scale to average out, or decohere. This is analogous to how the curvature of the earth appears to disappear in a limited area of its surface. The decoherence effect is the reason we can usually get away with ignoring the quantum coherence effects of macroscopic objects. It is the reason classical physics works so well for ordinary objects.

It is important to remember that, like the earth appearing flat, this decoherence effect is only an appearance and is not real. The quantum coherence is really still there--it is just hidden in the microscopic details and is not noticeable on the macroscopic scale. So, in principle, macroscopic objects, just like microscopic objects, do not have objective existence in definite locations while they are not observed. Nevertheless, because of this decoherence effect, the macroscopic world appears in a manner that is consistent with objectively existing matter. So, although the objects of the world do not actually exist objectively, they appear as if they did.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The de Broglie - Bohm idea was one of the ones listed in the video I linked in. It got a whopping 0% in the survey of experts. That could grow of course, but your link seems to indicate that they still have a long, long way to go.

Scientists are no different than anyone else. They risk ridicule for being wrong in an unacceptable way. So right or wrong, statistical quantum theory is acceptable and determinism, less so. I see them as two versions of the same truth, like the blind men and the elephant. Then again, I'm an engineer, not a physicist. I have no skin in the game.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Scientists are no different than anyone else. They risk ridicule for being wrong in an unacceptable way. So right or wrong, statistical quantum theory is acceptable and determinism, less so. I see them as two versions of the same truth, like the blind men and the elephant. Then again, I'm an engineer, not a physicist. I have no skin in the game.

There are some serious problems with the pilot-wave interpretation beyond it "not being popular."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quantum Mechanics and Reality
© Thomas J. McFarlane 1995
www.integralscience.org
http://www.integralscience.org/sacre...S_quantum.html


Tom describes the double slit

His description is nothing of the sort. He actually presents his interpretation as if it was part of the description.

"It is not that the particle has a real position and we just do not know what it is. It positively does not have a position in space and time. Its existence is not that of an ordinary object which we think of as having a definite and objective position in space. It is a non-local wave of probability, with no definite or objective existence in the ordinary sense."

Your source is not actually being objective.

and double beam/mirror experiments, and goes on to say:

These experiments can be done with electrons, photons, protons, neutrons--any subatomic particle you like. The result will be the same. It unequivocally demonstrates that all subatomic particles do not have definite material existence when they are not being observed.

No. That is only one interpretation of the results.

These effects can also be observed with atoms and small molecules. When millions and millions of molecules are clumped together into a macroscopic object, however, the effects are not usually noticeable. This does not mean, however, that the weird quantum reality is not there anymore. It is just that it is not noticeable anymore. It is like when we consider only a small area of the earth: just because the curvature effects are not noticeable does not mean that the earth is not round anymore.

Nope. This is more opinion. Your source isn't even being honest in its description of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Macro-objects do not display quantum weirdness because the trillions of particles are interacting with each other. According to Copenhagen, that causes the individual wave functions to collapse.

His analogy about the curvature of the Earth is inappropriate as well as being confusingly wrong.

As Heisenberg said,

The statistical features of natural laws are ubiquitous and a matter of principle. It's just that these quantum-mechanical features are far more obvious in atomic structures than in the objects of daily experience. [8]

So all matter is really this way.

Got to love the ubiquitous quote mine.

Even large macroscopic chunks of matter. The independent existence of the material world is an illusion. This is very startling--or it should be very startling. As Niels Bohr once said,

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. [9]

Hey look, two quote mines for the price of one!

Schrödinger, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, understood just how radical this is. To dramatize it, he imagined putting a cat in a box with a radioactive atom and a detector that would trigger a bottle of poison to break when the atom decayed. Since the whole thing is unobserved in the box, the state of the atom, and consequently the state of the cat, is not determinate. Just as the photon does not take one route or the other unless it is observed, the cat is not alive or dead unless it is observed. This is so outrageous that even some quantum physicists find it hard to swallow. Yet that is exactly what quantum mechanics itself says.

Actually, the Copenhagen Interpretation implies that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time if "unobserved." The problem is that the cat in the box gedanken is only an illustrative tool. A cat is such a large group of particles itself that it will decohere, whether you observe it or not.

There is even hard evidence now that large macroscopic objects can exist in these strange non-local quantum states. Examples are superconductors, superfluids, and lasers.

Your source is just babbling now because he clearly doesn't know how any of those three things actually work.

These are the exceptions, though. For most macroscopic objects, the quantum effects are not noticeable. They are there, to be sure, but they are not noticeable.

No. They aren't there because of quantum system interactions. Why does you're source refuse to use the complete Copenhagen Interpretation? Why does he seem to be picking and choosing among parts of the idea he likes and discarding the pieces that refute his claims?

The reason the quantum nature of most objects is not noticeable is because of a phenomenon called decoherence. When the one wave went through the two slits, the resulting two waves had a phase relationship with each other that created the interference pattern. Such waves are called coherent. When millions and millions of particles are involved, though, there are so many of these phase relationships interfering that they appear on the macroscopic scale to average out, or decohere.

Quantum decoherence is not an appearance of "averaging out." It is a result, an event that occurs when a quantum system interacts with its environment. This is what happens to photons when they are detected going through the double slit.

This is analogous to how the curvature of the earth appears to disappear in a limited area of its surface. The decoherence effect is the reason we can usually get away with ignoring the quantum coherence effects of macroscopic objects. It is the reason classical physics works so well for ordinary objects.

It also completely refutes his earlier descriptions.

It is important to remember that, like the earth appearing flat, this decoherence effect is only an appearance and is not real.

How does he know that? What experiment did he conduct to show that decoherence is illusory?

The quantum coherence is really still there--it is just hidden in the microscopic details and is not noticeable on the macroscopic scale. So, in principle, macroscopic objects, just like microscopic objects, do not have objective existence in definite locations while they are not observed. Nevertheless, because of this decoherence effect, the macroscopic world appears in a manner that is consistent with objectively existing matter. So, although the objects of the world do not actually exist objectively, they appear as if they did.

He has absolutely no evidence to support this final conclusion.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Got to love the ubiquitous quote mine.



Hey look, two quote mines for the price of one!

.

Nope.

Eric has a single, but huge quote mine:

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Nope.

Eric has a single, but huge quote mine:

While I agree with the sentiment, in this particular case, it was the author of the site that Eric linked to who was doing the mining.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

There are some serious problems with the pilot-wave interpretation beyond it "not being popular."

If we start with the assumption that dark energy and dark matter are real phenomena, then the medium for pilot-waves can also be real.

Personally, I think everything is deterministic, but chaos theory delineates the difference between determinism that involves calculable systems, and those that are not. Would you argue that the weather is not deterministic? Would you argue that it can be predicted with non-statistical tools?

So I don't see the tension, except in the abstract. As a theoretician, my attitude would be different.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Nope.

Eric has a single, but huge quote mine:

We need to change that mine. It is cooking the planet.

That mine is the direct result of Vandal's world view-- and yours too if you believe it.

Vandal's assertions do not have any basis, and are not justified or demonstrated by anything he says. So why just believe him? Just because he's a science teacher?

Acceptance from authority. Kinda like, argument from authority. Bowing down to science dogma. Come on Rags. Think for yourself. Don't feed out of the mouth of a demented ideologue.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

There are some serious problems with the pilot-wave interpretation beyond it "not being popular."

I'm a proponent of Max Tegmark's take on the Many Worlds Interpretation, myself. I just thought it was an interesting article, and a refreshing antidote to Copenhagenism and all the Quantum Woo it has spawned.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we start with the assumption that dark energy and dark matter are real phenomena, then the medium for pilot-waves can also be real.

Personally, I think everything is deterministic, but chaos theory delineates the difference between determinism that involves calculable systems, and those that are not. Would you argue that the weather is not deterministic? Would you argue that it can be predicted with non-statistical tools?

So I don't see the tension, except in the abstract. As a theoretician, my attitude would be different.

I don't see how you connect dark matter and dark energy to de Broglie-Bohm. Going to have to ask to see your work on that one.

Can we predict the weather with non-statistical tools? Theoretically, yes. In actuality, no.