(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory

Comments

Who sees the seer?

[timiathan.livejournal.com]

I always think this debate is a symptom of the human tendency not to take at face value anything novel. I think Quantum Mechanics is an accurate model, and not magic at all. If we believed the Vedic histories, the universe is Maya's a dream, and that's the closest we've gotten to understanding things. Maya is the collective mind, which actively constructs what we see as reality. At the quantum level, each little morsel of the dream tapestry is small enough for a room of scientists to effect on their own; when they see the electron spinning left, they all believe it, and suddenly it's spinning left. It's not that the discrete property didn't crystalize until it was observed -- the particle itself didn't exist. There's no way to observe what you're not actively creating, when you create everything. It's a metaphysical event horizon, and as cats, we will forever be chasing our tail.

Re: Who sees the seer?

[quiet-flame.livejournal.com]

the quantum level, each little morsel of the dream tapestry is small enough for a room of scientists to effect on their own; when they see the electron spinning left, they all believe it, and suddenly it's spinning left.

totally, that's what i always say.

Re: Who sees the seer?

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

If we believed the Vedic histories, we'd be stepping back HOW far in scientific development?

I hate to put this so bluntly, but this vague, fairy-tale bullshit is a large part of what's wrong with the American scientific establishment the past 20 years or so. Sort of an "I don't understand this, so I'll paint a mystical face on it and pretend that it's reality, even though other people who spent the time and effort to learn about it say otherwise." This is what causes so-called "theories" such as intelligent design to gain credibility. People who are ignorant of their subject would rather not admit that ignorance, so instead try to call the scientific method a "competing religion" and thus paint themselves as rationalists with an opposing viewpoint rather than crackpots who never bothered to learn about what they're denigrating. I'm not saying that's what YOU are doing here, but just saying "We don't know, and thus aren't meant to know" is equally bad. Why not just say "Let's stop all progress right now, since we're as wise as we'll ever be"? It's pointless and defeatist thinking, and frankly offensive to me as a scientist.

Re: Who sees the seer?

[timiathan.livejournal.com]

I think you're mis-interpreting my rambles, but that, of course, would be my fault for being vague.

I never meant to imply that scientific progress is dead, or that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed. Quite the contrary, I think we have a lot to explore, and a lot to learn about the universe, and that the oddities of quantum mechanics are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Things like William Tifft's finding that the redshifts of distant galaxies' are inexplicably quantized get underplayed... No one talks about Princeton's Noosphere project graphing spikes of randomness that correlate with global events at a margin of error of 0.0001. I think we're going to have physical explanations for paranormal phenomena, like 'ghosts' and 'ufos,' the entangled minds of twins, and on and on. Quantum Mechanics is the most tested and verified theory in history, and I think it's time to accept action at a distance as truth and start looking beyond it. Which, of course, many people are doing. My points in the ramble above are two: Science has a myopic tendency (though for good reason), and I think answers will be found to coincide with metaphysical precepts of the ancient East. Through scientific research we will be able to understand and utilize those principals to an extent no Vedic priest could ever dream of...but I think they were looking in the right direction.

Are you a scientist? What's your field of study? (I'm not, somehow I ended up a poet...I have spent some time in molecular biology, but that's another story.)

Re: Who sees the seer?

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

Ahh. OK. I thought you were saying that since scientists don't know everything yet they may as well stop seeking answers, since they may be forcing the answers they want to get. The true scientific method isn't proving anything, though, but rather DISproving everything and trying to interpret what's left. This is one thing that a lot of people never seem to get.

I'm currently in space science (read: plasma physics) by way of electrical and nanotech engineering.

Re: Who sees the seer?

[timiathan.livejournal.com]

Very cool. I have only a novice's interest in space sciences, and of the things I regret in my life, the biggest might be that I chose chemistry over physics -- if I'd stuck to theory I don't think my interest would have waned like it did.

Anyway, I always notice you around (god knows where) with articulate and interesting comments. Mind if I add you? Wouldn't be the first time I've thought of it.

Re: Who sees the seer?

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

I never restrict people adding me, but I don't automatically add back people that I don't know pretty well.

And I'm not in theoretical work at all! Well, not really. I'm an experimentalist. I work in a Class 100 clean room with nasty chemicals and furnaces and the like. The space science is the applications end of what I do, not the nuts-n-bolts. (Not that there actually ARE nuts'n'bolts... oh, nevermind! :) )