Thats not the way the particles are described in physics. They can not be located until observed.Originally posted by Mentat
Nobody can conceive of QM. We just don't progress that way mentally. Man, centuries ago, didn't need to leap out of the way of one creature jumping at him from two different sides.
But we have models and ideas to rationalize how it works and we know it does or we would not be able to watch TV.
As it is, conscious observation is not necessary for Quantum Mechanics to work.
That cannot be true. If there was no objective reality, there would have been no observation, in the first place. IOW, objective reality can exist without being observed, but observation cannot take place without an objective reality that existed before said observation.
Thats contradictory to what is reality. There must be a first observer then the first wave funtion collapses and the virtual particle leaves subjective reality and becomes oblective reality. The chain of observations continues from 1> infinity > evolution occurs and we exist.
And how long did you think science had existed altogether. The human species has existed for less than the blink of an eye in geological or astronomical terms. I've only got "small time frames" to deal with.
You use my observation and argument to confirm something is not true. Yes we agree we have been here a short period of time BUT scientific advancement is growiing in quantum leaps. 2>4>16>256>65536> not 1>2>3>4>5. Tecknology start slows but when it gets moving it is like a locamotive train.
No, but I don't like to cut against the grain of Occam's Razor when I don't need to.
If nobody cut against grain and disagreed there would be no new ideas and advancement.
There is nothing to the body but the physical. I've already explained the deductive logical validity of this statement. If there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect.
Wrong there is scientific study and documenttion all over the planet that confirms your statement is false.
It has been said that the distance from you and me to the end of the universe is equivilent to the distance from the center of an atom to the planck length. We have not discovered what is there yet, do you realize how large a distance that is, it is another universe. Yet whatever is there effects objective reality and it is until viewed subjective reality. Yet you say, if there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect. When we can see what is there at the planck lenght and it is objective, i will believe it, until then my thesis is as valid as yours.
They should take unconsciousness out of the dictionary or refrase its meaning, as it has the same meaning as subconsciousness. They should take the un and make it a no. Noconsciousness meaning dead, gone back to fundamental base conciousness found in the atom. As you would say electro-magnetic covalent bonding.
A human does nothing without a body. Look up the definition of "human".
Got you there, check mate. You mean a word and meaning in the dictionary makes a divine truth. Human today is not what it was yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. There is scientific evidence that it is false.
Besides, flying without any apparatus, if it will be possible at some point, should be possible now.
It is, it is called among many things a astral trip.
Why do you say that? If I'm not paying any attention to what I'm feeling right now, but only thinking about the words on the computer screen, I'm not "subconscious" or "dreaming", am I?
You had better go to my thread on Why do we dream? WoW you mean to tell me you do not daydream. Nobody can keep a perfect concentration in the objective world, we move between the objective and subjective during the day as well as sleeptime..
This is becoming a completely ad hoc argument on your side, since this is yet another added assumption.
Without assumption there is no advancement, i do agree that objective proofs of subjective reality is necessary and there are.
But you have not proven the first two propositions, so "therefore" doesn't really belong in that sentence, does it? You are stating this as though there were deductive validity to it, but there is no proof for the first two premises.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
There are two realities and for me the purpose of the subjective is perfection in the objective.. The question is why? and for me the answer is the beauty of creation is to create something from nothing and evolve into perfection.
Does purpose exist, Rader?
Does purpose exist? Ya for me it does and for who it does not, there is no need for existance. Everything has a purpose...