> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- "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 that he made while alive has been superceded by 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. > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > 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". > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > The term parallel universe is the one Deutsch uses and seems > correct as they are distinct from us. There appear to be many theoretical > types, the one in the map of which you speak sounds interesting but different > to the types I'm familiar with. Any > chance of a link? > >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > 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. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Treat yourself to the book, I'm sure you'd enjoy it. Deutsch > really goes into the electron behaviour in the dounle slit > experiment, best description I've heard, real sleepless-night > stuff. > > MUs aren't the omly expanation for it of course and there are > detractors who favour supersymmetry etc but the FoR is a must > read for people who like wild ideas that might just be provable. >
