Attention, New Age Freaks and Weirdos.

[LMNO]

I agree; if we know why, then we'll try and control it.

[hooplala]

And profit from it...  NEVAR forget the PROFIT.

[Thurnez Isa]

one way it was explained to me in a very basic way
maybe LMNO can help is
elementary particles are probabilistic but as they make larger atoms probabilities converge on either 0 or a 100 percent and becomes deterministic and Einstein's realitivity takes over
and
ah
yah
I like donuts

[Cain]

http://www.mediafire.com/?g3th92ynv29

36 MB of Quantumn goodness.

[Daruko]

No, I trust you... you know much more about it than I ever will.

Maybe its better we don't know why the weird shit happens.

Think for yourself, Schmuck!

[Daruko]

That ain't mystical; that's just a bunch o' balls floatin' around.   
And I get enough of that on public transportation.

I think everyone missed the point here.  The notion that the planet's followed elliptical orbits around the sun was once a "mystical" notion of blasphemous pseudo-science.  Until Galileo...[Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof...]   Of course, heliocentrism wasn't correct either, but if you're not eating the menu, talking about what is FACT and non-FACT, then it's easy for this ever-present obstacle of science not to impede you.

60% of physics research today is viewed as pseudo-science.  Some of it is, and much of it isn't.   I recommend John Lilly's Belief's Unlimited self-hypnosis technique, before any further declarations of REAL science are made.  Also, 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics" Richard Feynman
i have to say I hate people that bring up QM for what ever bullshit belief they happen to believe in
very few ppl understand QM and those who do readily admit they don't understand QM
if some of the theories of QM turn out to hold up against experiment, that does in NO way mean there is some "mystical" plane of existence
To me it seems like a bounch of hippies using science to justify their stoner ideas

Feynman was right.  I bring up QM because I'm a physics student, and there are models that relate to the discussion.  I hate how taboo it has become to invoke scientific explanation, except under the guise of outdated Newtonian views about "THE objective reality".    There are many reference points, and all science is theory.   

You wouldn't know the Wheeler interpretation if it bit you on your arse.

I know the Everett-Wheeler interpretation.  Or rather, I have some understanding.  Anyway, let's keep this simple and understandable.   The Wiki summary will put this into a better field of view, perhaps.
The many-worlds interpretation or MWI (also known as relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or many worlds), is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many-worlds denies the objective reality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds then explains the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse with the mechanism of quantum decoherence. Consequently, many-worlds claims this resolves all the "paradoxes" of quantum theory since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, this means that there are an infinite number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another.
Proponents argue that MWI reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events (such as the random decay of a radioactive atom) with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many worlds this had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds rather views it as a many-branched tree where every possible branch of history is realised.
The relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett[1] who formulated it in 1957. Later, this formulation was popularised and renamed many worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s.[2][3][4][5] The decoherence approach to interpreting quantum theory has been further explored and developed[6][7][8] becoming quite popular, taken as a class overall. MWI is one of many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen interpretation.
The many worlds interpretation offers the possibility of deriving the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics from other assumptions. In fact, this was first done by Everett and DeWitt in the 1950's, but the old argument was criticized on philosophical grounds. In a September 2007 conference[9] David Wallace reports on a proof by Deutsch and himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions[10] and this has been reported in the press as support for parallel universes.[11][12]

Also, there have plenty of experiments.... Just how DO you perform 10 to the 500th power operations within a few seconds and not have a very big problem on your hands?

Need elaboration on the experiment to which I'm referring?

either something exists or doesn't

"We don't know anything about 'being' and 'non-being'" -RAW

and i would say 99 percent of all claims made by the mystical have NO evidence to support them

See above comment about statistics.

by using mystical you automatically imply (at least to a large segment) something supernatural - and supernatural doesnt really exist if you think of it.. either something exists and is natural or it doesn't
its kind of like involking god in a sentence when you dont mean what the flying superman who created us from clay
oh I hate sermantics
now if you talking about the world of imagination and self-exploration then I kind of agree with you

Imply to you.  As I understand it, Mysticism is a very useful word.

Another easy Wiki: Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός – mystikos- 'seeing with the eyes closed, an initiate of the Eleusinian Mysteries; μυστήρια – mysteria meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion, identity with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God[head] through direct experience, intuition, or insight.

I like to think of it as subjective science.   Oh shit!  Every experiment yields results affected by the observer.

The line between science and mysticism can be thin.  Currently reading: Aldous Huxley and The Mysticism of Science.   Mm mm good.

Nothing pisses me off more than mushy-headed bullshit and pseudoscience.
Well, almost nothing.  There was that time I got my tongue stuck in the printer.  That was worse.

Mm hm.  You sound like Freud talking to Jung.

Atm, at least, scientists use the word 'decoherence' to explain the relationship between quantum and classical phsyics (your macroverse and microverse). Basically, it means you dont see the 'strange' quantum effects outside of sub-atomic particles. It was what Schrodinger was trying to point out with his 'cat in a box' thought experiment, before some spags decided the cat would really be half-alive and half-dead. That lead to all kinds of inanity about things not existing until they are 'observed', btw.

I don't think you have Schrodinger anymore than Schrodinger had it himself.
You need to get up to date.  Who was quoting Feynman, btw?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/This_quantum_world/Feynman_route

Quantum and Classical Physics and our models of macroworlds and microworlds are just models.   Subatomic events affect the macroworld all the time.  This is well-accepted.  What ISN'T well-accepted, is the ability for our current models to accurately EXPLAIN the effects.

But yeah, quantum seems to have become a byword for quirky or bullshit 'science', joining such classics as 'magnetic' and 'tachyon'. Of course, the purveyors of such crap are usually trying to sell you something. For instance, magnetic water! http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/magneticwater.htm

Alert: Limpballs tactic in use.  Please steer clear of the lasers.

very quickly they agreed we should teach people Newtonian physics is all there's at, NOTHING TO SEE HERE PEOPLE MOVE ALONG, "that quantum stuff? hah! you actually BELIEVED that? c'mon for serious? particles popping in and out of existence randomly? hah, joke's on YOU!"

well, I guess it's my turn now.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG! 

1)   Actually, I think I've finally gotten to the point where I treat anyone who uses "quantum" to explain anything other than events occuring at a sub-particle level as the kind of person who thinks Discworld is real.

Yes, I've heard this before.  No explanations allowed.  QM = math.  Mm hm.

But the great thing about Fort was that he never tried to explain it using extended metaphors, or science.

See above.

I'm not saying it DOES, but it might eventually if people don't automatically shut off their minds at the very mention of the notion.

Seems to me they shut off their minds at the very mention of QM.

Sadly, from what we currently know about QM, it doesn't, for a variety of reasons.  If you think about it, while the premise, "incredibly weird things happen when they get very, very small" is true, it is only true when things are very, very small, by definition.

Incredibly weird things are perfectly natural, and happen all the time, all over the place.  What "we" currently know about QM, has nothing to do with your beliefs. 

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is."

elementary particles are probabilistic but as they make larger atoms probabilities converge on either 0 or a 100 percent and becomes deterministic and Einstein's realitivity takes over

No, we have algorithms for that.    See:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

All this being said, my understanding of Quantum Mechanics is as limited as the next guy.  I'm just offering up alternate models to the declarations about REAL and UNREAL made here. 

Sorry for the long post, but you guys post so FAST! 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

(Also, quit eating the fucking Menu, Spag.)

Tasty.

But the cold, hard truth is that magic is bullshit, no matter how much you roll around in it.

Magic as Superpowerz... yes, I agree... Magic as a model, a system of self-pyshcotherapy etc... then I think you're wrong.

Well, if you just run around making up definitions for words to sound like a mystic, then who am I to stop you?

I didn't make up that definition, Crowley considered it psychological, Regardie, in The Middle Pillar, makes a very clear statement that magic is a form of psychotherapy, Austin Osman Spare, Peter Carroll, Phil Hine, Lon Milo Duquette and even Starhawk (about as fluffy as I've read) all discuss magic in terms of modifying consciousness, psychotherapy and mental programming. There's some pretty strong evidence that the Kabbalists and Alchemists of the Middle Ages also saw it as something other than superpowerz... but found the metaphors a safe way of discussing their ideas and experiences.

You can base your view of magic on the Wanna Blessed-be's, or on Disney... and I will admit that in metaphor, menu, meme, model and myth, Magic does appear as Nonsense. However, the metaphors, the menu, the memes, the models and they myths aren't the point of magic... or at least not magic as discussed by the individuals listed above.

So, you can think want you wish, and in some sense you'll be right... if you look over the menu, it probably won't look like something useful to eat. If you never try the food that's on the menu though, I can't really think much of your meal review.

[LMNO]

Durk, The problem here is that you're using the concept of "maybe" as attached to a concept to cover far more territory than the concept currently allows.

Saying "maybe quantum effects occur in the macro world" has approximately the same amount of information as saying, "maybe God did it."

You can back both statements up with a whole lot of gobbledygook, but in the end they both rapidly approach meaninglessness.



You want to impress me?  Cite an example of an event that defies our current state of understanding of macro events, and then explain it thoroughly using quantum theory.  And don't use "maybe".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Durk, The problem here is that you're using the concept of "maybe" as attached to a concept to cover far more territory than the concept currently allows.

Saying "maybe quantum effects occur in the macro world" has approximately the same amount of information as saying, "maybe God did it."

You can back both statements up with a whole lot of gobbledygook, but in the end they both rapidly approach meaninglessness.



You want to impress me?  Cite an example of an event that defies our current state of understanding of macro events, and then explain it thoroughly using quantum theory.  And don't use "maybe".

This seems like the correct motorcycle to me.

I find QM/QP/etc useful to philosophy, in that comparing Newtonian Physics and QM provide us with an example of multiple models... QM particularly, seems like a great example of how interpretations of 'reality' are truly interpretations of models, based on observations... not reality.

Light can be modeled as a wave or a particle... that doesn't mean it IS a wave or particle, only that we can make models, based on observations... which may contradict each other. The same can be said for our model of the atom, which went from a bubble, to a little solar system thingy, to a central nucleus with electrons popping in and out around the central nucleus.

We don't KNOW that's what's happening, we just made a bunch of observations, did some math and said "Look we can model it like this". Not only does it not mean that electrons Really Really disappear and reappear in some mystical fashion, but it certainly doesn't mean that such a model is also TRUE for things in the really real macro-reality which we hang out in most of the time.

QM is math and physics, not philosophy... but it can be a useful philosophical tool.

[hooplala]

No, I trust you... you know much more about it than I ever will.

Maybe its better we don't know why the weird shit happens.

Think for yourself, Schmuck!

You're RIGHT!  I SHOULD pretend I know more than I do, and talk a lot of shit, rather than admit that someone else knows more about a subject than I do!

I forgot all about what thinking for myself meant!

THANKS DARUKO!
            \

[Golden Applesauce]

Proper use of the Kermit emote, ITT.

[Daruko]

No, I trust you... you know much more about it than I ever will.

Maybe its better we don't know why the weird shit happens.

Think for yourself, Schmuck!

You're RIGHT!  I SHOULD pretend I know more than I do, and talk a lot of shit, rather than admit that someone else knows more about a subject than I do!

I forgot all about what thinking for myself meant!

THANKS DARUKO!
            \

Just like the "powers that be" KNOW more than we do, and we should TRUST them to always know best.  Uh huh.   What I'm suggesting is that you don't KNOW they're right, and you don't KNOW they're wrong, so just STOP KNOWING and START THINKING.

[hooplala]

OK.

If anyone has any question about Quantum Physics, please ask me, I KNOW EVERYTHING!

[Cain]

Part of critical thinking also involving the assesment of how reliable a source is in transmitting accurate data.  If a source appears to have the data to back up their knowledge (as LMNO has shown before) why not trust them on the subject in question?  Unless you can present data showing his interpretation of events is incorrect....?

OMG I WENT TO A DOCTOR WHEN I WAS ILL ONCE, I MUST BE A MINDLESS SHEEP!

[Thurnez Isa]

“First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.”

no thats just one of your drugged out hazes
srsly lay off the pot