Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 10:01pm

  

  The categorization of knowledges such as 3d experiences, 5d experiences (whatever such means), etc, belongs to a topic on its own, termed 'epistemology'. In fact it is branch of philosophy. We should discuss these when discussing epistemology, not other subjects.
  
  When someone say 'the sun is electric', does it sound good to reply with 'in 5d there is no sun' or such replies? Nope! Wait until the question is 'list the type of things in 3d that doesn't exist in 5d'. The person is not telling us what is it that exists where. That wasnt the topic. The topic was 'what is the source of light energy'. We should not deflect topics into claims that are unfalsifiable, all while thus trying to 'falsify' someone. This us unfair!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 9:37pm

  

  "RL, I do not want to silence you. I want you to leave me out of your diatribe"
  
  MD
  
  When I came here the other day, I saw QM topic and I was very happy that my most favourite topic was on the wall! I wanted to discuss QM and nothing more. If I wanted a diatribe, especially with you, I would pick your favourite topics topics and harass you. But diatribes are boring! Nothing compared with discussing about God, ETs, spaceships, QM, SR etc. These are very enjoyable topics! I peddle QM so I may hopefully get pple into talking about Copenhagen, quantum fields, quantum entanglement, Quantum tunnelling, superluminal speed, pilot-wave model, macroscopic qm effects, quantum mind, quantum biology, quantum immortality, quantum suicide, schrodinger cat, etc etc! Qm is an extremely rich subject that often drive pple to talk for long. There are so many things to discuss about QM.
  
  So when you drag me over and over into something about personalities rather than discussing the QM itself, I was often disappointed! Why am I not being engaged with someone interested with QM itself? Why am I being told 'arguments are stupid in 5d', 'you are in many words competition,' 'describing qm with many words is applying 3d models to 5d'. 'That type of physics is 3d and primitive' etc
  
  This is total harassment! Then you lecture me on 'respect' when I defend myself!!
  
  Why shouldn't someone engage me in QM itself, for instance, if you don't agree with say my explanation that the 'collapse' happen on the screen via quantum decoherence, object that 'the decohered wave is still a wavefunction and so what does born's rule mean. Then we will have moved to a second, even more enjoyable lesson! Those are the kind of objections I expect. I.e. we discuss QM itself and not some statements that generalize science, 3d, 5d etc, things that are not part of qm. Especial when it attempt to undermine my point, e.g. '3d phyc is primitive' or things like that!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 8:31pm

  Aspect's Experiment
  
  This is the true test of QM as the 'double slit' can also be explained by classic theory. Aspect's is meant to show that 'when a quantum particle is not being 'observed', it somehow behaves like 'it exists in all places all at once'! This is a truely quantum feature. It is this apparent 'omnipresence' that surprised physicists, not 'conscious observation' (they don't believe in this, new agers shoves it to them). Nothing in Aspect's experiment shows relevance of consciousness!! So this theory is without any experimental merit!!
  
  Finally note that I check experiments. 'New agers' only tell you theories, far fetched ones that has no experimental support nor are even scientifically testable and tells you 'this is quantum theory'. They lie to you, but I am honest!
• 

  marker dragon June 17, 2021 at 8:20pm

  RL, I do not want to silence you. I want you to leave me out of your diatribe
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 8:17pm

  

  So please be guided by two premises:
  
  1.) We can't observe a particle that is gazillions times smaller that anything visible, and often whizzing near the speed of light
  2.)We can't 'observe without observing' so we may know 'that the world doesn't exist etc' when we are not observing!! This leads to an oxymoron as 'observing without observing'
  
  So you realize that quantum mechanics, as often tought is absurd and cannot pissibly be correct!! We can't say 'the world is such and such WHEN WE ARE NOT OBSERVING IT. We can't claim to know how something is when we are not oobserving it! We are deceiving ourselves!!! Furthermore, we can't observe particles because they are too small. Therefore there is a whopper that goes alongside the common theory of 'quantum mechanics'!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 7:59pm

  

  Quantum Observation
  
  So let me reframe my arguments to rid of what one may interpret as 'arrogance', 'disrespect' or 'insults'. (Hopping that no one who disagree will have an excuse to create a red herring😉)
  
  Lets consider 'double slit experiment'. When we don't know which slit a particle went through, then we 'we haven't observed the location of the particle'. But of course we know that it EITHER goes through one slit OR the other. Wait a minute, actually, we INFER. Since we 'don't know which slit,' er 'we haven't observed location', then the particle 'goes through the slits as waves' and we infer these wave by the pattern on the screen. So it is not that we haven't observed the particle. We observed it on the screen but we haven't observed ITS LOCATION THROUGH THE SLIT. When we try to observe this location, the wave 'collapses into a particle'. But this 'observation' is, of course nota conscious observation. It is a great misnomer!! You can't get inside the box to watch the slits and see a particle whizzing at 99.99999% speed of light! Thats impossible!! What happen is that the interference pattern disappears when we place something near one of the slit. It is unfortunate that physicist called it 'observation' just because observation is what they wete trying to do, not what nature was trying to do! Placing iron fillings around s magnet so you may 'see' the 'field lines' cannot be equated with 'observing the field line'. It is you who want to 'observe'. What is taking place out there is just attraction of iron particles. Same applies to what is taking pkace in the slits. It is Quantum decoherence, not 'observation'.
  
  So the common theory that says 'the conscious observation creats reality' is false, and cannot be arived at from any quantum experiment!! It arouse due to sloppy language if mathematical physicists. Thats all!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 7:29pm

  "Ara June 17, 2021 at 6:42pm
  ok Roaring, please except my apology to make you feel that way."
  
  Ok thanks, I think you have understood me.
  
  I didn't say anyone here is 'stupid'. I just said 'the claim that QM is 'tree-in-the-forest' theory is 'stupid', which is not the same thing as saying 'those who buy into it are stupid' as even smart pple can believe in stupid theories, like someone like thomas Aquinas beleiving that the loving God created the hell for you, before he created you. What more? Quantum founders themselves ofted described QM as 'stupid', 'dippy' or 'silly'. Tesla described such research as 'insane' etc.
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 6:44pm

  

  "Qm may be one day be the way between 'religion' and 'science'."
  
  Ara,
  
  So you think QM is science. Good! From there we can move step by step and see that just what I said follows. My conclusion is that we cannot say consciousness creats the reality we observe, or even the reality of a quantum particle. My conclusion is 'observation' cannot possibly be 'conscious registration of a quantum particle'. Why? We begine by emphasizing that QM is SCIENCE, not RELIGION or 'SPIRITUALITY'.
  
  If QM is science, we justify its claims by OBSERVATION. If science makes claims of a quantum state before observation, then to 'proof' this, we must observe the quantum state 'without observing it'. So please explain to me how this can be done!!
• 

  Ara June 17, 2021 at 6:42pm

  ok Roaring, please except my apology to make you feel that way.
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 17, 2021 at 6:19pm

  

  "Roaring that's funny i am not assassinating your character at all, you came across more 'frustrated' with ppl - including myself than humorous"
  
  What? I talked about buttocks bursting, male sheeps tossing you, a pipeline of beer to Bohr's home, etc! These are just jockes!! Do you think I realy meant that a pipeline taking beer to Bohr's home exits? By zeroing in on just sideway jokes and taking them seriously, as though I was actually insulting pple, it looks like character assassination!