Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illyrius

Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

1,182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Illyrius
7 minutes ago, joc said:

I don't need to take anything s l o w l y. 

But...since you insist...what is 'observable'?  

The fact that electron for example can behave as a wave and as a particle. That is observable.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
Just now, Illyrius said:

The fact that electron for example can behave as a wave and as a particle. That is observable.

How do you know it is behaving as a wave unless you are observing it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
Just now, joc said:

How do you know it is behaving as a wave unless you are observing it?

By the result of experiment. If electrons are shooted through two slits they leave a wave pattern. It is clearly demonstrated in a video i posted.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

By the result of experiment. If electrons are shooted through two slits they leave a wave pattern. It is clearly demonstrated in a video i posted.

Sorry...I missed it.  I'll look for it.  How do you know they leave a wave pattern?

If it wasn't 'observed'

 

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
7 minutes ago, joc said:

Sorry...I missed it.  I'll look for it.  How do you know they leave a wave pattern?

 

Video will explain it. It is only 5 mins long.

Post #1008

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Video will explain it. It is only 5 mins long.

Post #1008

I didn't miss it actually.  I didn't watch it because I thought it would be something stupid.  I was right.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]

It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Through the work of Max Planck, Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[2] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[3]

Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved; see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity.[4] Bohr regarded renunciation of the cause-effect relation, or complementarity, of the space-time picture, as essential to the quantum mechanical account.[5]

-source-

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

I noticed that you are now using the term gods rather then the singular god that you generally use. Do you have more than one father now or is there one father and the others are someone elses father? Are you suggesting that there are several but that there is one that carries greater influence and powers? If so how do you determine which one is which and what purpose these other gods satisfy?

jmccr8

 

You know, I absolutely knew you would ask me about that.

You ready? Here's the answer:

 

Spoiler

There is only ONE Gods

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

You know, I absolutely knew you would ask me about that.

You ready? Here's the answer:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

There is only ONE Gods

 

 

So god has multiple person disorder?,:innocent::lol:

jmccr8 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
46 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

So god has multiple person disorder?,:innocent::lol:

jmccr8 

 

Yeah, you might say that.

He is a God of laws but some of his offspring think they have better ideas and sow them to the wind while others reap the multiple dis-orders of the whirlwind.

For example:

 

Spoiler

Lucifer

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
5 hours ago, joc said:

I didn't miss it actually.  I didn't watch it because I thought it would be something stupid.  I was right.

That the video was stupid or the concept behind it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
Just now, Timonthy said:

That the video was stupid or the concept behind it?

Both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
10 minutes ago, joc said:

Both

Why is the concept stupid?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
10 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

Why is the concept stupid?

It isn't really the concept that is stupid...it is more, the conclusions many seem to draw from the concept.

Such as, Reality doesn't really exist...it phases in and out in a nano second of time.  

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
9 minutes ago, joc said:

It isn't really the concept that is stupid...it is more, the conclusions many seem to draw from the concept.

Such as, Reality doesn't really exist...it phases in and out in a nano second of time.  

Okay, well yeah the concept is sound, but I can’t speak for the people! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
25 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

Okay, well yeah the concept is sound, but I can’t speak for the people! 

 

People?

Does that include the scientists who are doing the observing?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
51 minutes ago, Will Due said:

People?

Does that include the scientists who are doing the observing?

Not at all, just some of the overly fringey ones.

Having said that, I’m pretty sure there’s a massive difference between what I consider a ‘stupid conclusion’ to be and what @joc does.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
2 hours ago, Timonthy said:

but I can’t speak for the people! 

Atamarie To You ..

You Are Absolutely Correct .

You Can't.. I Can't, Nobody Can..

That is What Having Our Own Mind is About ..

And Each To Their Own... Really ..

Mo..xx

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
11 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Not at all, just some of the overly fringey ones.

Having said that, I’m pretty sure there’s a massive difference between what I consider a ‘stupid conclusion’ to be and what @joc does.

mmmm...I am not so sure about that.  I have just read a lot of crap about Quantum this or that.  I am not downplaying science..good lord...I did NOT excel in science....well, I got As in Chemistry...but I am not downplaying the science.  There are a lot of conclusions that some make and post and apparently I have read....and some of them are stupid.

As far as the material world phasing in and out of reality on a Quantum level...I can actually understand that ...I just think it is a stupid conclusion.  Kind of like I understand the concept of God..I just don't agree with it...(note I did not say I think the conclusion of God is stupid)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
On 2/6/2018 at 2:58 PM, Illyrius said:

There can be no true moral values if we think of ourselves as automatons without free will and soul.

That is how I feel with religions are of the day and age.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
On 2/6/2018 at 1:45 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Entering an argument of logic and reason alone, a man of Faith comes as a sheep among wolves, incapable of mounting any kind of defense. To that sort of exchange, it is wise to concede victory before it starts. When it comes to death, most people are neither logical or reasonable. They will seek some way out other than that sort of fatalistic acceptance. For instance, there are few whom I consider true atheists in the forums or elsewhere, for that manner. Even the most strident antitheists embrace some sort of alternate or designer form of mysticism or seek out an extant one. One set of rituals is replaced by another to fill the void apostasy leaves in it's wake. The true atheist is, indeed, a minority among a minority. 

It sounds to me like you are equating atheism with nihilism.  An atheist doesn't believe in god(s) , nihilists don't believe in anything.  Huge difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
2 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

An atheist doesn't believe in god(s) , nihilists don't believe in anything.  

 

They believe in nihilism.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Mystic Crusader said:

It sounds to me like you are equating atheism with nihilism.  An atheist doesn't believe in god(s) , nihilists don't believe in anything.  Huge difference.

Sort of undermines the argument against belief in deity if you are only going to substitute your own choice of unprovable nonsense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
42 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Sort of undermines the argument against belief in deity if you are only going to substitute your own choice of unprovable nonsense. 

Sounds nihilistic towards everything not "God".

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
34 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Sounds nihilistic towards everything not "God".

 

As opposed to everything "nihilistic" that is God?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.