• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

3 idiots walk into a quantum mechanics

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#51
Several things: quantum mechanics doesn't really talk about good feelings- it doesn't really point to good feelings doing good things, it's more about observation that does it. Quantum mechanics is more you cannot know the velocity and the location of a particle at once because photons, or light particles have mass in it themselves, which causes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't think you can deduce from that a law where good feelings can change things. Perhaps it's more that good people attract good people because they want to be in the same company, not because there's a quasi-scientific natural law at a fundamental level that causes this.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#53

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
664
Location
beyond space and time
#54
Wikipedia said:
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. [...]

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#55
Wikipedia said:
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. [...]

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
That's interesting. How exactly do they explain it then?
 
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,858
Location
38S 145E
#56
wow so high iq imo

if you act like a dickhead, people treat you like a dickhead

law of attraction just can't stop winning
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
664
Location
beyond space and time
#57
Wikipedia said:
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. [...]

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
That's interesting. How exactly do they explain it then?
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#58
Wikipedia said:
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. [...]

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
That's interesting. How exactly do they explain it then?
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.
Oh, so they sorta think the opposite of what I think. That's interesting, because like RB says, my IQ is friggen huge. I am so smart, I can't even, LOL (or was that LoA :confused:).
 
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,858
Location
38S 145E
#60
wow so true imo

i believed i was the authority, and now i really am

if you can believe, you can achieve
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#62

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 21:08
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,257
#63
Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.

Hoooold up. Can you clarify something for me?

This isn't my area, so I might be reading this wrong. To me, it doesn't seem like they're just claiming this distinction, but demonstrating it.

The electronic detector is not conscious. Ergo, observation does not require consciousness. Are you saying it remains in superposition while observed electronically but before observed by conscious entity? Is that not testable?
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
664
Location
beyond space and time
#64
Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.

Hoooold up. Can you clarify something for me?

This isn't my area, so I might be reading this wrong. To me, it doesn't seem like they're just claiming this distinction, but demonstrating it.

The electronic detector is not conscious. Ergo, observation does not require consciousness. Are you saying it remains in superposition while observed electronically but before observed by conscious entity? Is that not testable?
No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if we have a conscious perception, then that is observation, or a form of measurement. Just like the detector has to transfer the energies through the instrument of measure, perception itself is an instrument of measure.

Electromagnetic radiation transferred through induction, as waveform. The aggregate effects alter the state of the entire system, through electromagnetic induction.
 
Local time
Today, 04:38
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,852
Location
subjective
#65
chaos magick
I base the operation of LoA on the theoretical assumption of the multiverse's existence. Pathways exist leading to alternate worlds that we can hone into by concentration. Say you concentration on some event happening (boyfriend brings you flowers) then you increase the probability you will end up in a world where that actually happens. The act of concentration is actually a kind of feedback loop that guides you into others worlds within the higher dimensional space that is the multiverse.

LoA is about using your mind to increase the probability that certain events will happen within the framework of the many-worlds hypothesis.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 21:08
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,257
#66
Right but is that in contention?

They're saying consciousness is not a requirement to be an observer, you're saying consciousness is sufficient to be classed as an observer.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#67
Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.

Hoooold up. Can you clarify something for me?

This isn't my area, so I might be reading this wrong. To me, it doesn't seem like they're just claiming this distinction, but demonstrating it.

The electronic detector is not conscious. Ergo, observation does not require consciousness. Are you saying it remains in superposition while observed electronically but before observed by conscious entity? Is that not testable?
No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if we have a conscious perception, then that is observation, or a form of measurement. Just like the detector has to transfer the energies through the instrument of measure, perception itself is an instrument of measure.

Electromagnetic radiation transferred through induction, as waveform. The aggregate effects alter the state of the entire system, through electromagnetic induction.
It's more so the presence of people there (or "observers") that registers actions' values as being legible observers in the process. The brain sends neuronic impulses as messages to the rest of the body split seconds before the brain actually realizes it did that. To move your hand, requires the static electronic energy to be transferred throughout the brain's network in the body, to tell it to move your hand.

It's predetermined by at least some lapse in time (a gap). It's not that you decide "I'm going to eat", then wait five minutes before walking to the kitchen and trying to eat. Your thoughts, impulses, decisions, all decided already. That piano that fell on your head when you stepped outside, was going to happen anyway like 5 times out of 10, statistically. So being in the room, merely existing, affects not just probability, but outcome of the observation. Very little intent needed.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#68
Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
They use this to "debunk" new age woo-woo, by rejecting that perception is observation.

Observation is measurement. There's no way to be consciously affected without measure.

Hoooold up. Can you clarify something for me?

This isn't my area, so I might be reading this wrong. To me, it doesn't seem like they're just claiming this distinction, but demonstrating it.

The electronic detector is not conscious. Ergo, observation does not require consciousness. Are you saying it remains in superposition while observed electronically but before observed by conscious entity? Is that not testable?
No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if we have a conscious perception, then that is observation, or a form of measurement. Just like the detector has to transfer the energies through the instrument of measure, perception itself is an instrument of measure.

Electromagnetic radiation transferred through induction, as waveform. The aggregate effects alter the state of the entire system, through electromagnetic induction.
It's more so the presence of people there (or "observers") that registers actions' values as being legible observers in the process. The brain sends neuronic impulses as messages to the rest of the body split seconds before the brain actually realizes it did that. To move your hand, requires the static electronic energy to be transferred throughout the brain's network in the body, to tell it to move your hand.

It's predetermined by at least some lapse in time (a gap). It's not that you decide "I'm going to eat", then wait five minutes before walking to the kitchen and trying to eat. Your thoughts, impulses, decisions, all decided already. That piano that fell on your head when you stepped outside, was going to happen anyway like 5 times out of 10, statistically. So being in the room, merely existing, affects not just probability, but outcome of the observation. Very little intent needed.
Oh, I see this ties into our unconscious will, how exciting.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#69
Several things: quantum mechanics doesn't really talk about good feelings- it doesn't really point to good feelings doing good things, it's more about observation that does it. Quantum mechanics is more you cannot know the velocity and the location of a particle at once because photons, or light particles have mass in it themselves, which causes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't think you can deduce from that a law where good feelings can change things. Perhaps it's more that good people attract good people because they want to be in the same company, not because there's a quasi-scientific natural law at a fundamental level that causes this.
It's more so "how much should you base your life on scientific truth?" Take for instance the uncertainty principle and what it means.

Certain things are suggested to be unknowable. You may as well break into your neighbor's house to look in their bathroom and know what kind of decorations they have up, in the grand scheme of things. If not, be like Sherlock Holmes and deduce what must be there - because you're so smart and "woke". So you "should" know certain things, if only to live up to your reputation. If you're smart enough, you can see, if not, more whining and complaining thus struggling to understand or comprehend basic things in life. Non-contentment.

Buddhist preach non-attachment. However, I still like playing videogames and the vanity of the artistry involved. You people struggle to understand the way people act. While others struggle with the actual physics of how the universe works, and each component inside it - like clockwork. Call it Schrodinger's Cat.

The Bible was generally handed down by Mesopotamians from stories of legend before to some people (like Jews). Aristotle and Plato lived in the 50's and 100's. All religious truths were already known, not necessarily experienced, since at least the mid-twelfth century. The most popular philosophers such as Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Kant, Russell, or whoever else, lived from the 1500's-1800's, quantum physics came out at the turn of the century in the 1900's, so it's the newest and latest.

All paths generally lead to the same one. Figure out what it is you want, then go for it. Tell people what they want to hear.

It's all predetermined anyway, nothing you do really matters, or it should, not in this lifetime/reality though. Most people are trapped in some ego-identity trying to be a comedian or something, make people laugh so they can be known as good people. Hopefully something will always be there, documenting it all like Martians observing Earth. Some Holy Spirit probably knows what the problem is. So it's all been known for at least 10,000 years already.

So like-minded people attract each other.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#70
Several things: quantum mechanics doesn't really talk about good feelings- it doesn't really point to good feelings doing good things, it's more about observation that does it. Quantum mechanics is more you cannot know the velocity and the location of a particle at once because photons, or light particles have mass in it themselves, which causes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't think you can deduce from that a law where good feelings can change things. Perhaps it's more that good people attract good people because they want to be in the same company, not because there's a quasi-scientific natural law at a fundamental level that causes this.
It's more so "how much should you base your life on scientific truth?" Take for instance the uncertainty principle and what it means.

Certain things are suggested to be unknowable. You may as well break into your neighbor's house to look in their bathroom and know what kind of decorations they have up, in the grand scheme of things. If not, be like Sherlock Holmes and deduce what must be there - because you're so smart and "woke". So you "should" know certain things, if only to live up to your reputation. If you're smart enough, you can see, if not, more whining and complaining thus struggling to understand or comprehend basic things in life. Non-contentment.

Buddhist preach non-attachment. However, I still like playing videogames and the vanity of the artistry involved. You people struggle to understand the way people act. While others struggle with the actual physics of how the universe works, and each component inside it - like clockwork. Call it Schrodinger's Cat.

The Bible was generally handed down by Mesopotamians from stories of legend before to some people (like Jews). Aristotle and Plato lived in the 50's and 100's. All religious truths were already known, not necessarily experienced, since at least the mid-twelfth century. The most popular philosophers such as Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Kant, Russell, or whoever else, lived from the 1500's-1800's, quantum physics came out at the turn of the century in the 1900's, so it's the newest and latest.

All paths generally lead to the same one. Figure out what it is you want, then go for it. Tell people what they want to hear.

It's all predetermined anyway, nothing you do really matters, or it should, not in this lifetime/reality though. Most people are trapped in some ego-identity trying to be a comedian or something, make people laugh so they can be known as good people. Hopefully something will always be there, documenting it all like Martians observing Earth. Some Holy Spirit probably knows what the problem is. So it's all been known for at least 10,000 years already.

So like-minded people attract each other.
Tell... Mar... Tell Margret.... I love her. *Gah*

Dead.

To be real here... Why take the pessimistic route exactly?
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#71
What's done is done. Show me a time machine so we can go back and make it better. Otherwise, it's ever forward.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
664
Location
beyond space and time
#72
To be clear, I am talking about observation in regards to where you focus your attention.

When you tune in to frequencies, they ping your radar, bringing them into your concious awareness. The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is an example of this in action.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#73
What's done is done. Show me a time machine so we can go back and make it better. Otherwise, it's ever forward.
I don't understand what you mean. You should not put heuristics before truth, IMO.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#74
To be clear, I am talking about observation in regards to where you focus your attention.

When you tune in to frequencies, they ping your radar, bringing them into your concious awareness. The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is an example of this in action.
It isn't just that. It's a scramble for meaning and order in the organism in the midst of so seeming chaos. So that's been known for a while. It is literally what it could be or represents symbolically. It's not just regulated to hallucination. It's stimuli from some source determining your perception. Perception is one of the oldest sciences, related to optics and Euclidean geometry. It's not just "there's a name for that", it's maximizing your time and breath for optimum results in this mad dash for survival and existence. Learn to coexist with people, and what they prefer.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#75
You can't necessarily just manifest the reality you want or desire automatically. It can't be guaranteed. Skepticism will only get you so far. I wouldn't place too much stock in bizarre hopes or ideas, life is about balance. Live in the now, it's the only moment that is.
Sure. That is why there are things like dedication and hard work - because sometimes you have to actually show the universe you mean business with what you believe.
Back to square 1, step 0. :clap:
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#76
What's done is done. Show me a time machine so we can go back and make it better. Otherwise, it's ever forward.
I don't understand what you mean. You should not put heuristics before truth, IMO.
"Keep your secrets hidden, until you're certain of just what you found"?
It's a process. A conversation should be at least twelve hours before you even begin to start to make any progress. It's someone's fault for not understanding, another person's for not being clear enough. It's basically no fun, and simplicity is key.
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#77
Pizza I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. Are you saying that in the mists of the nihilism of the purpose of life it's somewhat pointless to lead a life of "scientificism"?
 
Local time
Today, 04:38
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,852
Location
subjective
#78
Since the title of the thread has changed I would like to confirm whether or not I am one of the three idiots. (my tiny little ego is curious)
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#79
I don't know much about the law of attraction, but it's probably one of those things that are an oversimplification but nonetheless highly informative regarding how the world operates on a more spiritual level.

There are all kinds of truths that science does not speak about which one who has "eyes that see and ears that hear" can gradually become aware of, and which are indeed approximated by various folk memes.

You'd think that if something were so clear that a single individual, and indeed many single individuals, could become aware of it, that science would have been able to prove it and create working theories long ago, but that's not the case. If you can't see the limitations of science and go beyond it in your own life, then that is a failure on your own part to see the truth.

Now I'm not saying LoA is true or isn't, but I can say that there is a magical linking up of the conscious observer and their environment which would hint at something similar being the case.

We can say that: whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours, to show that this kind of idea has a long-standing tradition, but those who have brought it upon themselves to condemn self-evident spiritual truths as nonsense in the name of some limited paradigm will dismiss such claims outright.

Science might be one path to truth, but has it ever claimed to be the only way to arrive at truth? Really - has it? Whatever the answer is there, it certainly isn't the only path to truth. There are many truths that science will only mislead you about if you're searching for them, so leave scientific questions to the scientific method, and other questions to other methods.

Environmental synching up, synchronicity, psychic phenomena, spirit communication, personal manifestation of prophecy - these are a few of the phenomena that I have encountered, and the closest I've seen to a scientific investigation of these questions is a study by the CIA into remote viewing (with results indicating the affirmative).

Now, you don't have to accept this if you don't want to, but it would be advisable. I guess though... that you see what you want to see, and what you believe will show itself to be truth, since the mind and the world are intricately linked.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#80
You'd think that if something were so clear that a single individual, and indeed many single individuals, could become aware of it, that science would have been able to prove it and create working theories long ago, but that's not the case. If you can't see the limitations of science and go beyond it in your own life, then that is a failure on your own part to see the truth.
Oh, and just because science hasn't done it, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done, e.g. through various spiritual traditions. Maybe not done in an overly rigourised sense, but enough that you can learn a whole lot if you do some digging into the literature that's available. Pop approaches can give you a pointer, but you're best off looking into esoteric materials and the likes. Not that I have or haven't done so myself but I know it's there.

For whatever reason, scientists just haven't approached this stuff. I don't know if it's inherently beyond the scientific method, but there's certainly something about it that is at odds with science. And again, there's no point getting all of your info-for-truth from science. Science deals with certain things. There are plenty of aspects of life where you'd want to go somewhere else to find it.

And this gets at why I think schizophrenia is such a promising condition. Schizophrenics seem to understand this stuff better than most people, probably because in their "break from reality" they gained access to certain features of reality that they had previously not considered, so it actually makes them more in touch with reality than others (seeing layers of being that others miss).

So I can't really blame people for not understanding this stuff. If you haven't had these kinds of eye-opening experiences, whatever it is that causes them (and don't think you can't have them - you can if you search hard enough), then you won't have expanded your mind to the point that you can become aware of this stuff.

Though you should at least be aware that other people are aware of it, and stop assuming that whatever you've come to believe in terms of science or whatever is all that there is, because it's not,
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#81
So I can't really blame people for not understanding this stuff. If you haven't had these kinds of eye-opening experiences, whatever it is that causes them (and don't think you can't have them - you can if you search hard enough), then you won't have expanded your mind to the point that you can become aware of this stuff.
Actually, I don't think this is quite true.

Even children are probably often aware of this stuff. Education makes us stupid in a variety of ways. It's just some people have realised its stupidity more than others.

I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
 
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
3
#82
You guys should try splitting things up into competing ideas and beliefs and argue from there cause I see a lot of problems with everyone's arguments.

Namely,

subjective vs objective (what do they mean, how do they play into LOA and science and why does it matter?)
what is consciousness (do we have free will?)
Is physics determinate? if so or if not, what does that mean for something like the law of attraction or even science for that matter?
Why is quantum mechanics about probabilities and why does the action of taking a measurement influence the system? Because it's possible we don't even have the proper tools to measure quantum level phenomena. Our current understanding might be the equivalent to me smashing my car into yours in order to see what speed you are going or where you are....of course I will end up doing more than checking your speed and location. So talking about wavefunctions and consciousness and measurements effecting things on say a quantum level might just be complete ignorance...
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 11:38
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,638
Location
Stockholm
#83
It's a known idiosyncrasy of human psyche: belief in control over things we cannot control. Thus perception of reality itself is warped in our minds in order to satisfy our desires. I guess it goes to show how much people crave control over things in general. Control is what we need in order to get what we want.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#84
Pizza I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. Are you saying that in the mists of the nihilism of the purpose of life it's somewhat pointless to lead a life of "scientificism"?
I'm unsure how you got that from what I put at all.

As long as you reproduce, you win. You could get hit by a bus as soon as your offspring is born; you still win because you passed on your DNA.

You could be Stephen Hawking. It's about being as smart as possible.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#86
You can just keep doing something because you notice a result.

If you drink too much water, you can die.

In this vast cosmos of void, the depths of human psychology can only go so far. It's possible to watch a small action cascade into effect like dominoes with future altering consequences.

There can be no practical way of getting information from the other side, no way of communication or contacting anything. The loss of that pulse, synonymous with the library conflagration of Alexandria circa 250 BC.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#87
Pizza I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. Are you saying that in the mists of the nihilism of the purpose of life it's somewhat pointless to lead a life of "scientificism"?
I'm unsure how you got that from what I put at all.

As long as you reproduce, you win. You could get hit by a bus as soon as your offspring is born; you still win because you passed on your DNA.

You could be Stephen Hawking. It's about being as smart as possible.
Win what exactly?

You pass on your ideas, you win.

You make a positive impact on the world, you win.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#88
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#89
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
*yawn*

It's so bloody boring to say the only goal in life is to produce offspring. It's just a dreadful concept, morally speaking.
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#91
An atheistic biological teleology is a juvenile conception of purpose. If that's what should be our purpose in life, we should all be doing our mothers like what they do in the animal kingdom and going anti-technological and spread like rabbits like the Amish.
 
Local time
Today, 22:38
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,858
Location
38S 145E
#92
An atheistic biological teleology is a juvenile conception of purpose. If that's what should be our purpose in life, we should all be doing our mothers like what they do in the animal kingdom and going anti-technological and spread like rabbits like the Amish.
it's not that it's a juvenile teleology, just that your conception of it is
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#93
Whats your conception of it then?
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#94
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
*yawn*

It's so bloody boring to say the only goal in life is to produce offspring. It's just a dreadful concept, morally speaking.
Technically, it's what life was designed for, morally dreadful is relative then, and people could have a choice in their say in a free country, besides arranged marriages on a local communal scale.

Planet doesn't have enough resources to supply all that food and extra material for people's family if it makes them feel better to have one. Otherwise producing offspring is a selfish way of trapping someone within your confines without their volition. You should enjoy your life, do some good. Do what makes you happy.

It's more an inherent, unconscious choice. So you could choose and decide with your partner beforehand not to have any. Not only are kids expensive, they're time consuming. It's a life changing decision, and all your actions lead up to the creation of that child.

That's like saying breathing air sucks. What are you going to do about that? Turn into a fish and swim instead? It's possible but that's just adapt, to survive.

So reality really is like the Stone Age or prehistoric eras still. At what cost will peace be obtained?

Suffering is the modus through which extradimensional data is harvested by entities. It gets recorded in the cosmic unconscious and Akashic Records.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#95
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
*yawn*

It's so bloody boring to say the only goal in life is to produce offspring. It's just a dreadful concept, morally speaking.
Technically, it's what life was designed for, morally dreadful is relative then, and people could have a choice in their say in a free country, besides arranged marriages on a local communal scale.

Planet doesn't have enough resources to supply all that food and extra material for people's family if it makes them feel better to have one. Otherwise producing offspring is a selfish way of trapping someone within your confines without their volition. You should enjoy your life, do some good. Do what makes you happy.

It's more an inherent, unconscious choice. So you could choose and decide with your partner beforehand not to have any. Not only are kids expensive, they're time consuming. It's a life changing decision, and all your actions lead up to the creation of that child.

That's like saying breathing air sucks. What are you going to do about that? Turn into a fish and swim instead? It's possible but that's just adapt, to survive.

So reality really is like the Stone Age or prehistoric eras still. At what cost will peace be obtained?

Suffering is the modus through which extradimensional data is harvested by entities. It gets recorded in the cosmic unconscious and Akashic Records.
More deterministic arguments, how dull.

No, basically if you follow your idea, all you have to do is produce children in the hopes some of them survive. To do this, all you really have to do is sleep with a lot of women and try and have as many children as possible and let the woman worry about the kids.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#96
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
*yawn*

It's so bloody boring to say the only goal in life is to produce offspring. It's just a dreadful concept, morally speaking.
Technically, it's what life was designed for, morally dreadful is relative then, and people could have a choice in their say in a free country, besides arranged marriages on a local communal scale.

Planet doesn't have enough resources to supply all that food and extra material for people's family if it makes them feel better to have one. Otherwise producing offspring is a selfish way of trapping someone within your confines without their volition. You should enjoy your life, do some good. Do what makes you happy.

It's more an inherent, unconscious choice. So you could choose and decide with your partner beforehand not to have any. Not only are kids expensive, they're time consuming. It's a life changing decision, and all your actions lead up to the creation of that child.

That's like saying breathing air sucks. What are you going to do about that? Turn into a fish and swim instead? It's possible but that's just adapt, to survive.

So reality really is like the Stone Age or prehistoric eras still. At what cost will peace be obtained?

Suffering is the modus through which extradimensional data is harvested by entities. It gets recorded in the cosmic unconscious and Akashic Records.
More deterministic arguments, how dull.

No, basically if you follow your idea, all you have to do is produce children in the hopes some of them survive. To do this, all you really have to do is sleep with a lot of women and try and have as many children as possible and let the woman worry about the kids.
No.
That's not what I'm saying or advocating at all, if you copy. It's more original than that. It's all rooted in the foundations plus new, novel material. We're humans and have a choice. An animal does what it does as to survive. Currently, our planet is going through a crisis and we could burn alive. Millions of species go extinct on a daily basis. It's about that, not every couple need reproduce, or person start a family for whatever reason. Sometimes it's best not even to mention it, and rather rely on mind communication with your partner to understand each other's feelings on a more spiritual level. It's not religious, necessarily. No one said anything about sex, it was a more academic, biological observation like Darwin's Origin of the Species. This has all really been known since Ancient Greece.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 05:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#97
Win the game of biological life, as far as survival. Some people don't want kids or a phone to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet by going greener.

Any other win is metaphorical, and these aren't my terms. My background is in Astronomy, planetary and interstellar (Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Huygens, Einstein; etc), some astrophysics, and astrobiology (with some extra chemistry to understand planetary compositions more and other celestial bodies in general).

You can influence people and change the world, but was it really? As much fun as seemed? What is being measured? You'll have to ask that person specifically how they felt or what it was, then see if they're lying or embellishing facts.

Anything else is just a matter of processing space to reduce waste for maximizing efficiency. The organism needs a specific amount of bandwidth in their brain to register stimuli and react. To use intent, utilizes non potential energy. Intuition is the organism not fully aware addressing stimuli, because you can really only focus on one thing at a time (you can't multitask).

It's not a contest to see who's the most woke, or indirect methods of gauging someone's IQ or life goals. Life could be about making as much money as possible.

If you really want to know the truth, the universe could be a simulation designed by some entities like or such as Annunaki - designed to gather more data on human emotion (gold). In that way, everything could happen, or everything that can happen does, until the end of time. Thus, there could be some kind of "cosmic unconscious" or other dimensions.
*yawn*

It's so bloody boring to say the only goal in life is to produce offspring. It's just a dreadful concept, morally speaking.
Technically, it's what life was designed for, morally dreadful is relative then, and people could have a choice in their say in a free country, besides arranged marriages on a local communal scale.

Planet doesn't have enough resources to supply all that food and extra material for people's family if it makes them feel better to have one. Otherwise producing offspring is a selfish way of trapping someone within your confines without their volition. You should enjoy your life, do some good. Do what makes you happy.

It's more an inherent, unconscious choice. So you could choose and decide with your partner beforehand not to have any. Not only are kids expensive, they're time consuming. It's a life changing decision, and all your actions lead up to the creation of that child.

That's like saying breathing air sucks. What are you going to do about that? Turn into a fish and swim instead? It's possible but that's just adapt, to survive.

So reality really is like the Stone Age or prehistoric eras still. At what cost will peace be obtained?

Suffering is the modus through which extradimensional data is harvested by entities. It gets recorded in the cosmic unconscious and Akashic Records.
More deterministic arguments, how dull.

No, basically if you follow your idea, all you have to do is produce children in the hopes some of them survive. To do this, all you really have to do is sleep with a lot of women and try and have as many children as possible and let the woman worry about the kids.
No.
That's not what I'm saying or advocating at all, if you copy. It's more original than that. It's all rooted in the foundations plus new, novel material. We're humans and have a choice. An animal does what it does as to survive. Currently, our planet is going through a crisis and we could burn alive. Millions of species go extinct on a daily basis. It's about that, not every couple need reproduce, or person start a family for whatever reason. Sometimes it's best not even to mention it, and rather rely on mind communication with your partner to understand each other's feelings on a more spiritual level. It's not religious, necessarily. No one said anything about sex, it was a more academic, biological observation like Darwin's Origin of the Species. This has all really been known since Ancient Greece.
Now you are switching from a micro perspective to a macro perspective and the two are not necessarily equatable.

Re-explain this if I am wrong here.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 03:38
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,986
#98
It isn't about that. One girl can produce multiple offspring as it is. If you don't want kids, just as well. It should be the last thing on your mind. What you really want to do is make friends and understand people, forming a connection. It couldn't get simpler than that. You have to prove you aren't autistic by how you can function in society, words and talk are cheap. It's about making money, then you can focus on your hobbies and any family obligations (parents, rent, bills, essentials, health, education, savings).
 
Top Bottom