> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > > > >>>> ... > > > > > > > >>>> " > > > > > > > >>>> The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to > > > > > > > >>>> do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion > > > > > > > >>>> that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to > > > > > > > >>>> do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large > > > > > > > >>>> numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by > > > > > > > >>>> creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of > > > > > > > >>>> a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern > > > > > > > >>>> physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the > > > > > > > >>>> ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be > > > > > > > >>>> intended to deceive those who might not know any better. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes > > > > > > > >>>> me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see > > > > > > > >>>> the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the > > > > > > > >>>> labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted > > > > > > > >>>> provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be > > > > > > > >>>> taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous > > > > > > > >>>> to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world > > > > > > > >>>> peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could > > > > > > > >>>> possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy > > > > > > > >>>> that so willfully distorts scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > > > >>>> What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his > > > > > > > opinion? It is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum > > > > > > > mechanics. This was based on things Larry Domash had written. As > > > > > > > I recall, Domash used the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an > > > > > > > analogy to explain TM, much in the way one might use an orange > > > > > > > and a golf ball to create an analogy describing how the Moon and > > > > > > > Earth, orbit around a common centre of gravity. I am not acutally > > > > > > > aware of how the quantum vacuum analogy morphed into TC *is* the > > > > > > > quantum vacuum, or how this subsequently morphed into the Unified > > > > > > > Field equivalency that we see today under Hagelin. Hagelin is > > > > > > > still of course talking about this. I do not know what Domash's > > > > > > > view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak > > > > > > > Chopra, neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and > > > > > > > scholar Jean Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is > > > > > > > not in the movement any more, he does hew to the new age quantum > > > > > > > nonsense that many, including the TMO, make their stock in trade. > > > > > > > In this debate, the skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals > > > > > > > repeatedly for this. What was really interesting about this > > > > > > > debate was it was a Cal Tech, and physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was > > > > > > > in the audience stood up and offered Chopra a short course of > > > > > > > quantum mechanics to straighten out his misuse of quantum > > > > > > > notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical physics, recently > > > > > > > wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design). Mlodinaw > > > > > > > said he had never come across a definition of consciousness that > > > > > > > made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the correlations > > > > > > > between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra was > > > > > > > presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of > > > > > > > spiritual nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xeno, > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about > > > > > > the importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. > > > > > > Let me present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the > > > > > > only sentient being in a given universe, and you died, would the > > > > > > universe still exist? The answer is NO. The universe will > > > > > > disappear to nothingness. Why? Because you are the only person > > > > > > who is capable of conceiving the dimensions of space and time. > > > > > > Without your presence, how is it possible for the universe to exist? > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote > > > > > > > > > > For the first 30 or 40 million years after the big-bang > > > > > there was no life, not even bacteria in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > The first generation stars made of pure hydrogen had to > > > > > create other elements and explode. Most of them collapsed > > > > > into stellar black holes. > > > > > > > > > > These stellar black-holes merged with one another to form > > > > > super-massive blackholes and used their massive gravity to > > > > > evolve galaxies. > > > > > > > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This > > > > could be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > > > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > > > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > > > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > > > > > > > It's also possible that It is everything that you can think of, but at > > > the same time It is NOT. > > > > > > I'm fairly sure that doesn't make sense.... > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > It's the local bubble Universe that came from the big-bang. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > I know and the multiverse is in the same place as ours, it > uses the same electrons. This is why it got postulated as > a solution to the (to us) strange behaviour of subatomic > particles that appear to be interacting with something. which > coincedentally is where all this consciousness in QP came > from. With the electrons interfering with themselves in a > parallel universe you don't need an observer to collapse the > waveform. Sounds wildly speculative but the guy behind the > quantum computing lab at Oxford is convinced it's the simplest > explanation (and therefore most likely)for the double slit experiments, and > he intends to prove it using a quantum > computer to run a virtual reality programme of electron waves borrowing > computing power from themselves in their other > universes! > > Read all about it: > > http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Reality-Universes-Implications/dp/0713990619 > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > We really don't know how the Multiverse-Cosmos was created. > > As Barry points out, it could be an eternal machine that > > always there. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > If you had a good enough telescope you could see it by looking > at the cosmic microwave background, an experiment that is being > discussed. >
The COBE map has one spot which is a cold spot and some scientists think there is a parallel universe lurking nearby which is exerting it's gravitational pull on that spot. Data also show clusters of Galaxies racing in a stream towards that area. The parallel universes which David Deutch refers to because of the 'wave interference pattern' in the double slit experiment in more of a "parallel reality" or "parallel history". However, please note that in the double slit experiment in which the 'wave interference pattern' take place, As soon as particle detectors are placed to find out what is happening the 'wave interference pattern' instantly disappears and two straight bands indicating that only one photon is passing through. When the particle detectors are removed, again the 'wave interference pattern' reappears. This means the very act of 'observation' makes the particle localised.
