Bohr vs Bohm (62)
Here's a link to a video on the subject...
Try looking at what it says, 48:18 minutes into it...
Holographic Universe part 2.
48:18
Try looking at what it says, 48:18 minutes into it...
Holographic Universe part 2.
48:18
------ This poll is Archived ------
Physicist Richard Feynman once said, nobody actually understands quantum mechanics.
It's easy to see why he said that...
"Quantum mechanics is notorious for tangling people's minds up. Part of the problem lies in the complicated mathematical formulation.
It's easy to overstate how complicated quantum mechanics is: after all, it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, something that wouldn't be possible without some level of comprehension. In many ways, though, the most difficult experiment to understand is one of the simplest: the so-called "double-slit" experiment, in which the experimenter shines a light on a barrier with two narrow openings in it, and study the interference pattern it produces on a screen.
Light famously has two natures: it is wave-like, interfering in the same way that water ripples cross each other; it is also particle-like, carrying its energy in discrete bundles known as photons. If the experiment is sufficiently sensitive, the interference pattern appears grainy, where an individual photon appears on the screen, as you can see in the simulated projection pattern shown. In other words, single photons travel as though they are interfering with other photons, but is itself indivisible. Matter also has this dual character; interference of electrons and atoms has been observed experimentally. All of this is backed up by years of work.
The major difficulty with quantum mechanics is its interpretation. The standard Copenhagen interpretation (named in honor of the home city of Niels Bohr, who first formulated it) takes a simple stance: the reason why photons sometimes seem like particles and sometimes like waves is that our experiments dictate what we see. In this view, photons are products of our experiments without independent reality, so if we're bothered by seemingly contradictory notions of wave and particle properties, it's because we're expecting something unreasonable of the universe."
So now we know....or maybe not...
It's easy to see why he said that...
"Quantum mechanics is notorious for tangling people's minds up. Part of the problem lies in the complicated mathematical formulation.
It's easy to overstate how complicated quantum mechanics is: after all, it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, something that wouldn't be possible without some level of comprehension. In many ways, though, the most difficult experiment to understand is one of the simplest: the so-called "double-slit" experiment, in which the experimenter shines a light on a barrier with two narrow openings in it, and study the interference pattern it produces on a screen.
Light famously has two natures: it is wave-like, interfering in the same way that water ripples cross each other; it is also particle-like, carrying its energy in discrete bundles known as photons. If the experiment is sufficiently sensitive, the interference pattern appears grainy, where an individual photon appears on the screen, as you can see in the simulated projection pattern shown. In other words, single photons travel as though they are interfering with other photons, but is itself indivisible. Matter also has this dual character; interference of electrons and atoms has been observed experimentally. All of this is backed up by years of work.
The major difficulty with quantum mechanics is its interpretation. The standard Copenhagen interpretation (named in honor of the home city of Niels Bohr, who first formulated it) takes a simple stance: the reason why photons sometimes seem like particles and sometimes like waves is that our experiments dictate what we see. In this view, photons are products of our experiments without independent reality, so if we're bothered by seemingly contradictory notions of wave and particle properties, it's because we're expecting something unreasonable of the universe."
So now we know....or maybe not...
------ This poll is Archived ------
bodleing2: Physicist Richard Feynman once said, nobody actually understands quantum mechanics.
It's easy to see why he said that...
"Quantum mechanics is notorious for tangling people's minds up. Part of the problem lies in the complicated mathematical formulation.
It's easy to overstate how complicated quantum mechanics is: after all, it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, something that wouldn't be possible without some level of comprehension. In many ways, though, the most difficult experiment to understand is one of the simplest: the so-called "double-slit" experiment, in which the experimenter shines a light on a barrier with two narrow openings in it, and study the interference pattern it produces on a screen.
Light famously has two natures: it is wave-like, interfering in the same way that water ripples cross each other; it is also particle-like, carrying its energy in discrete bundles known as photons. If the experiment is sufficiently sensitive, the interference pattern appears grainy, where an individual photon appears on the screen, as you can see in the simulated projection pattern shown. In other words, single photons travel as though they are interfering with other photons, but is itself indivisible. Matter also has this dual character; interference of electrons and atoms has been observed experimentally. All of this is backed up by years of work.
The major difficulty with quantum mechanics is its interpretation. The standard Copenhagen interpretation (named in honor of the home city of Niels Bohr, who first formulated it) takes a simple stance: the reason why photons sometimes seem like particles and sometimes like waves is that our experiments dictate what we see. In this view, photons are products of our experiments without independent reality, so if we're bothered by seemingly contradictory notions of wave and particle properties, it's because we're expecting something unreasonable of the universe."
So now we know....or maybe not...
Richard Feynman, Physics professor at California Institute of Technology: said-It's easy to see why he said that...
"Quantum mechanics is notorious for tangling people's minds up. Part of the problem lies in the complicated mathematical formulation.
It's easy to overstate how complicated quantum mechanics is: after all, it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, something that wouldn't be possible without some level of comprehension. In many ways, though, the most difficult experiment to understand is one of the simplest: the so-called "double-slit" experiment, in which the experimenter shines a light on a barrier with two narrow openings in it, and study the interference pattern it produces on a screen.
Light famously has two natures: it is wave-like, interfering in the same way that water ripples cross each other; it is also particle-like, carrying its energy in discrete bundles known as photons. If the experiment is sufficiently sensitive, the interference pattern appears grainy, where an individual photon appears on the screen, as you can see in the simulated projection pattern shown. In other words, single photons travel as though they are interfering with other photons, but is itself indivisible. Matter also has this dual character; interference of electrons and atoms has been observed experimentally. All of this is backed up by years of work.
The major difficulty with quantum mechanics is its interpretation. The standard Copenhagen interpretation (named in honor of the home city of Niels Bohr, who first formulated it) takes a simple stance: the reason why photons sometimes seem like particles and sometimes like waves is that our experiments dictate what we see. In this view, photons are products of our experiments without independent reality, so if we're bothered by seemingly contradictory notions of wave and particle properties, it's because we're expecting something unreasonable of the universe."
So now we know....or maybe not...
"If you really understand this double slit screen experiment, you can understand all of quantum physics."
Here's a link to The Holographic Universe part 1.
You can see, The Double Slit Experiment, 16:53 into the video...
The Holographic Universe (Part One) - YouTube.
16:53
According to the book, The Holographic Universe, the experiment even works on bowling balls!
I read, If you put talcum powder on the lane at a bowling ball, and roll a bowling ball down the lane...
When you observe the bowling ball it makes a straight line in the talcum powder's dust.
If nobody's observing the ball roll, it makes wavy lines.
------ This poll is Archived ------
bodleing2:
"Convergence of Physics with Buddhist Philosophy
One of the interesting aspects of quantum physics from the Buddhist point of view is that particles, which in classical physics were once regarded as little pieces of matter, are now regarded as processes consisting of continuously evolving and changing wavefunctions. These processes only give the appearance of discrete and localized particles at the moment they are observed.
So particles are forever changing, and lack any inherent existence independent of the act of observation. Consequently, everything composed of particles is also impermanent and continually changing, and no static, stable basis for its existence can be found.
Therefore, at a very generalized level, the scientific view of the world has converged with the Buddhist view. Buddhism is a 'process philosophy', holding that the underlying basis of reality is change, process and impermanence. Becoming is more basic than being, and existence is really just impermanence in slow-motion.
So how does quantum reality fit with Buddhist Philosophy?
The two aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are relevant to observations at the quantum level are The Four Seals of Dharma and the Three Modes of Existential Dependence. These teachings were established centuries ago, long before modern physics evolved, and were derived from careful philosophical and meditational analysis of the world. However their description of quantum reality is remarkably accurate, as they predicted that:
(1) Particles are not inherently existent. No particle is 'a thing in itself' with a self-contained identity. An inherently-existent particle would be indestructible, unitary and indivisible.
(2) Particles are not causeless.
(3) Particles are not partless, they do not exist as indivisible points.
(4) Particles are not 'permanent' in the sense of having a unchanging, static identity.
(5) Particles exist by interaction with the mind of an observer.
Conscious human thought, at least in some cases, perhaps in all cases, relies on principles which are beyond current physical understanding, though not in principle beyond any (e.g. some future) scientific physical understanding. (Via A1 - A4)"
Buddhism and Quantum Physics
Experiments in quantum physics seem to demonstrate the need for an observer to be present to make potentialities become real.
Quantum sunyata
Basically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind there is no meaning and no reality. This is a similar conclusion to the Mahayana Buddhist teachings on sunyata.
The ultimate manifestation of quantum sunyata is when quantum theory is applied to the entire universe. According to some cosmologists, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in the limitless Void (Hartle-Hawking hypothesis). The universe remained as a huge quantum superposition of all possible states until the first primordial mind observed it, causing it to collapse into one actuality. This fascinating theory is discussed in The Participatory Anthropic Principle.
Mahalo Bodleing,"Convergence of Physics with Buddhist Philosophy
One of the interesting aspects of quantum physics from the Buddhist point of view is that particles, which in classical physics were once regarded as little pieces of matter, are now regarded as processes consisting of continuously evolving and changing wavefunctions. These processes only give the appearance of discrete and localized particles at the moment they are observed.
So particles are forever changing, and lack any inherent existence independent of the act of observation. Consequently, everything composed of particles is also impermanent and continually changing, and no static, stable basis for its existence can be found.
Therefore, at a very generalized level, the scientific view of the world has converged with the Buddhist view. Buddhism is a 'process philosophy', holding that the underlying basis of reality is change, process and impermanence. Becoming is more basic than being, and existence is really just impermanence in slow-motion.
So how does quantum reality fit with Buddhist Philosophy?
The two aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are relevant to observations at the quantum level are The Four Seals of Dharma and the Three Modes of Existential Dependence. These teachings were established centuries ago, long before modern physics evolved, and were derived from careful philosophical and meditational analysis of the world. However their description of quantum reality is remarkably accurate, as they predicted that:
(1) Particles are not inherently existent. No particle is 'a thing in itself' with a self-contained identity. An inherently-existent particle would be indestructible, unitary and indivisible.
(2) Particles are not causeless.
(3) Particles are not partless, they do not exist as indivisible points.
(4) Particles are not 'permanent' in the sense of having a unchanging, static identity.
(5) Particles exist by interaction with the mind of an observer.
Conscious human thought, at least in some cases, perhaps in all cases, relies on principles which are beyond current physical understanding, though not in principle beyond any (e.g. some future) scientific physical understanding. (Via A1 - A4)"
Buddhism and Quantum Physics
Experiments in quantum physics seem to demonstrate the need for an observer to be present to make potentialities become real.
Quantum sunyata
Basically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind there is no meaning and no reality. This is a similar conclusion to the Mahayana Buddhist teachings on sunyata.
The ultimate manifestation of quantum sunyata is when quantum theory is applied to the entire universe. According to some cosmologists, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in the limitless Void (Hartle-Hawking hypothesis). The universe remained as a huge quantum superposition of all possible states until the first primordial mind observed it, causing it to collapse into one actuality. This fascinating theory is discussed in The Participatory Anthropic Principle.
I do find that interesting; and the book makes many references to ancient religious texts: but I disagree with your assertion that the Buddhist knowledge, predates the understanding of quantum physics.
All around the world, we can find evidence of advanced cultures, that existed long before us.
The Mahabharata, which predates Buddah by thousands of years, describes missles which were launched from "vimanas," (flying cars), that set elephants on fire.
Quantum physics was known long ago, was forgotten by earthings, and rediscovered.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Just read this (a few times over,) seems to be one of the best explanations I've come across, and I've read many over the years.
The two slit paradox
The two slit experiment contains a device (the emitter) which strips the electrons off atoms and fires them at a screen. The screen is covered with thousands of tiny dots of phosphor (like a TV screen) which glow when an electron hits them. If we wish to obtain a permanent record of the results of the experiment we can place a sheet of photographic paper on the back of the screen.
We place a sheet of foil, which stops the electrons, between the emitter and the screen. The sheet has a very thin slit in it just above the level of the emitter. Looking at the screen we see what we might expect - most of the screen is dark but there is a glowing band behind the slit where the electrons are getting through and hitting the phosphorescent dots. The glowing band, slit and emitter are all in direct line of sight.
There is nothing remarkable about this. The main area of the foil is casting an 'electron shadow' with a thin stream of electrons passing through the slit. As the effects of gravity are negligible and there are no strong magnetic or electric fields, we would expect the electrons to travel in a straight line, and this indeed appears to be what happens.
We replace the first sheet of foil with another sheet which has a very thin slit just below the level of the emitter. Looking at the screen we see what we might expect, which is almost the same as we saw for the first slit. Most of the screen is dark but there is a glowing band behind the slit where the electrons are getting through and hitting the phosphorescent dots. As the glowing band, slit and emitter are all in direct line of sight the band is at a slightly lower position than for the first slit.
We now replace the sheet of foil with one containing two slits, of exactly the same size and exactly the same positions as before. Common-sense tells us that we should see an additive effect of the two individual slits. There should be two glowing bands, one at each of the previous positions.
But common-sense is wrong - this doesn't happen!
Instead we see a number of glowing bands at different positions from those seen with either of the two individual slits. Regions which were dark in both previous experiments have become light, and vice versa. In fact the electrons are showing interference effects, which are typical of waves. Waves which converge after travelling two different paths show a pattern of high energies at places where troughs and peaks converge simultaneously, and zero energies where troughs coincide with and cancel peaks.
Stretching common-sense a little we conclude that introducing the second slit has somehow forced the electrons to behave as waves rather than particles.
One of the characteristics of waves is that they spread out. But if we observe the screen closely we notice that the glow isn't spread out. Individual dots are still momentarily glowing while their neighbours may remain dark. The electrons are arriving as particles. So we may conclude that the electrons are travelling as waves, and interfering with one another, but as soon as they meet a detector they immediately resume particle behavior.
Cont....
The two slit paradox
The two slit experiment contains a device (the emitter) which strips the electrons off atoms and fires them at a screen. The screen is covered with thousands of tiny dots of phosphor (like a TV screen) which glow when an electron hits them. If we wish to obtain a permanent record of the results of the experiment we can place a sheet of photographic paper on the back of the screen.
We place a sheet of foil, which stops the electrons, between the emitter and the screen. The sheet has a very thin slit in it just above the level of the emitter. Looking at the screen we see what we might expect - most of the screen is dark but there is a glowing band behind the slit where the electrons are getting through and hitting the phosphorescent dots. The glowing band, slit and emitter are all in direct line of sight.
There is nothing remarkable about this. The main area of the foil is casting an 'electron shadow' with a thin stream of electrons passing through the slit. As the effects of gravity are negligible and there are no strong magnetic or electric fields, we would expect the electrons to travel in a straight line, and this indeed appears to be what happens.
We replace the first sheet of foil with another sheet which has a very thin slit just below the level of the emitter. Looking at the screen we see what we might expect, which is almost the same as we saw for the first slit. Most of the screen is dark but there is a glowing band behind the slit where the electrons are getting through and hitting the phosphorescent dots. As the glowing band, slit and emitter are all in direct line of sight the band is at a slightly lower position than for the first slit.
We now replace the sheet of foil with one containing two slits, of exactly the same size and exactly the same positions as before. Common-sense tells us that we should see an additive effect of the two individual slits. There should be two glowing bands, one at each of the previous positions.
But common-sense is wrong - this doesn't happen!
Instead we see a number of glowing bands at different positions from those seen with either of the two individual slits. Regions which were dark in both previous experiments have become light, and vice versa. In fact the electrons are showing interference effects, which are typical of waves. Waves which converge after travelling two different paths show a pattern of high energies at places where troughs and peaks converge simultaneously, and zero energies where troughs coincide with and cancel peaks.
Stretching common-sense a little we conclude that introducing the second slit has somehow forced the electrons to behave as waves rather than particles.
One of the characteristics of waves is that they spread out. But if we observe the screen closely we notice that the glow isn't spread out. Individual dots are still momentarily glowing while their neighbours may remain dark. The electrons are arriving as particles. So we may conclude that the electrons are travelling as waves, and interfering with one another, but as soon as they meet a detector they immediately resume particle behavior.
Cont....
------ This poll is Archived ------
mykingdomforanam: Mahalo Bodleing,
I do find that interesting; and the book makes many references to ancient religious texts: but I disagree with your assertion that the Buddhist knowledge, predates the understanding of quantum physics.
All around the world, we can find evidence of advanced cultures, that existed long before us.
The Mahabharata, which predates Buddah by thousands of years, describes missles which were launched from "vimanas," (flying cars), that set elephants on fire.
Quantum physics was known long ago, was forgotten by earthings, and rediscovered.
Mahalo...I do find that interesting; and the book makes many references to ancient religious texts: but I disagree with your assertion that the Buddhist knowledge, predates the understanding of quantum physics.
All around the world, we can find evidence of advanced cultures, that existed long before us.
The Mahabharata, which predates Buddah by thousands of years, describes missles which were launched from "vimanas," (flying cars), that set elephants on fire.
Quantum physics was known long ago, was forgotten by earthings, and rediscovered.
------ This poll is Archived ------
I really enjoy comparing ancient texts, to modern science.
I hope you find this interesting Bodleing,
Here's something to compare Buddha's teachings on the subject, with what The Bible says about it...
Hebrews 11:3 ...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
They were made by the word of God: energy, not matter.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
I hope you find this interesting Bodleing,
Here's something to compare Buddha's teachings on the subject, with what The Bible says about it...
Hebrews 11:3 ...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
They were made by the word of God: energy, not matter.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
------ This poll is Archived ------
mykingdomforanam: I really enjoy comparing ancient texts, to modern science.
I hope you find this interesting Bodleing,
Here's something to compare Buddha's teachings on the subject, with what The Bible says about it...
Hebrews 11:3 ...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
They were made by the word of God: energy, not matter.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Certainly singing from the same hymn sheet.I hope you find this interesting Bodleing,
Here's something to compare Buddha's teachings on the subject, with what The Bible says about it...
Hebrews 11:3 ...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
They were made by the word of God: energy, not matter.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
"Once we appreciate that fundamental disparity between appearance and reality, we gain a certain insight into the way our emotions work, and how we react to events and objects. Underlying the strong emotional responses we have to situations, we see that there is an assumption that some kind of independently existing reality exists out there. In this way, we develop an insight into the various functions of the mind and the different levels of consciousness within us. We also grow to understand that although certain types of mental or emotional states seem so real, and although objects appear to be so vivid, in reality they are mere illusions. They do not really exist in the way we think they do."
The Dalai Lama
------ This poll is Archived ------
mykingdomforanam: The test also works with atoms, and molecules: but, bowling balls!?!?
There's an old bowling alley in town...
I'm looking forward to trying the experiment with a bowling ball.
Don't forget your talcum powder...and keep me informed.There's an old bowling alley in town...
I'm looking forward to trying the experiment with a bowling ball.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Hey Bodleing,
Too bad Michael Talbot died so young.
He referenced 93 books in the bibliography to his book,The Holographic Universe.
Besides the neurosurgeon and neurophycisist, Dr. Karl Pribram, who he quotes in great detail, and all the quantum physicists who contributed to his book and videos...
Here's a small portion of what his bibliography looks like...
75. John Blofeld, The Tantric Mysticism, of Tibet (New York: E. P. Dutton,
1970), p. 84; see also Alexandra David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet
(Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 293.
76. Henry Corbin, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, trans.
Ralph Manheim (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp.
221-36.
77. Hugh Lynn Cayce, The Edgar Cayce Reader. Vol. II (New York: Paper-
back Library, 1969), pp. 25-26; see also Noel Langley, Edgar Cayce on
Reincarnation (New York: Warner Books, 1967), p. 43.
78. Paramahansa Yogananda, Man's Eternal Quest (Los Angeles:
Self-Realization Fellowship, 1982), p. 238.
79. Thomas Byron, The Dhammapada: The Sayings of Buddha (New York:
Vintage Books, 1976), p. 13.
80. Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester, trans., The Upani-ahads
(Hollywood, Calif: Vedanta Press, 1975), p. 177.
81. Iamblichus, The Egyptian Mysteries, trans. Alexander Wilder (New York:
Metaphysical Publications, 1911), pp. 122, 175,259-60.
82. Matthew 7: 7, 17,20.
83. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, The Thirteen-Petaled Rose (New York: Basic Books,
1980). pp. 64-65.
Kinda ironic, The Holographic Universe book, and videos: were based so much on the work of, Dr. Karl Pribram, an esteemed biologist, neurosurgeon, and neurophycisist: and it fits in with the religious beliefs of so many people!
Too bad Michael Talbot died so young.
He referenced 93 books in the bibliography to his book,The Holographic Universe.
Besides the neurosurgeon and neurophycisist, Dr. Karl Pribram, who he quotes in great detail, and all the quantum physicists who contributed to his book and videos...
Here's a small portion of what his bibliography looks like...
75. John Blofeld, The Tantric Mysticism, of Tibet (New York: E. P. Dutton,
1970), p. 84; see also Alexandra David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet
(Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 293.
76. Henry Corbin, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, trans.
Ralph Manheim (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp.
221-36.
77. Hugh Lynn Cayce, The Edgar Cayce Reader. Vol. II (New York: Paper-
back Library, 1969), pp. 25-26; see also Noel Langley, Edgar Cayce on
Reincarnation (New York: Warner Books, 1967), p. 43.
78. Paramahansa Yogananda, Man's Eternal Quest (Los Angeles:
Self-Realization Fellowship, 1982), p. 238.
79. Thomas Byron, The Dhammapada: The Sayings of Buddha (New York:
Vintage Books, 1976), p. 13.
80. Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester, trans., The Upani-ahads
(Hollywood, Calif: Vedanta Press, 1975), p. 177.
81. Iamblichus, The Egyptian Mysteries, trans. Alexander Wilder (New York:
Metaphysical Publications, 1911), pp. 122, 175,259-60.
82. Matthew 7: 7, 17,20.
83. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, The Thirteen-Petaled Rose (New York: Basic Books,
1980). pp. 64-65.
Kinda ironic, The Holographic Universe book, and videos: were based so much on the work of, Dr. Karl Pribram, an esteemed biologist, neurosurgeon, and neurophycisist: and it fits in with the religious beliefs of so many people!
------ This poll is Archived ------
bodleing2: Don't forget your talcum powder...and keep me informed.
If I can try it, and it works, I'll try taking a picture of the dust, and posting it as my profile picture.------ This poll is Archived ------
When I tried to copy the whole bibliography for future reference, I noticed, I made a mistake...
It looks like he referenced 93 books, in just one chapter!
I can't post the whole thing here; but,
so you can see how I found my mistake, here's a larger chunk of his bibliography...
13. Paul Davies, Superforce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 48.
14 Lee Smolin, "What is Quantum Mechanics Really About?" New Scien
tist (October 24, 1985), p. 43.
15. Private communication with author, October 14, 1988.
16. Saybrook Publishing Company, The Reach of the Mind: Nobel Prize
Conversations (Dallas, Texas: Saybrook Publishing Co., 1985), p. 91.
17. Judith Hooper, "An Interview with Karl Pribram," Omni (October 1982), p.
135.
18. Private communication with author, February 8, 1989.
19. Renee Weber, "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with
David Bohm," in The Holographic Paradigm, ed. Ken Wilber (Boulder,
Colo.: New Science Library, 1982), pp. 83-84.
20. Ibid., p. 73.
3. THE HOLOGRAPHIC MODEL AND PSYCHOLOGY
1. Renee Weber, "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with
David Bohm," in The Holographic Paradigm, ed. Ken Wilber (Boulder,
Colo.: New Science Library, 1982), p. 72.
2. Robert M. Anderson, Jr., "A Holographic Model of Transpersonal Con-
sciousness," Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 9, no. 2 (1977), p. 126.
3. Jon Tolaas and Montague Ullman, "Extrasensory Communication and
Dreams," in Handbook of Dreams, ed. Benjamin B. Wolman (New York:
VanNostrand Reinhold, 1979), pp. 178-79.
4. Private communication with author, October 31, 1988.
5. Montague Ullman, "Wholeness and Dreaming," in Quantum Implications,
ed. Basil J. Hiley and F. David Peat (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1987), p. 393,
6. I. Matte-Bianco, "A Study of Schizophrenic Thinking: Its Expression in
Terms of Symbolic Logic and Its Representation in Terms of Multidimen-
sional Space," International Journal of Psychiatry 1, no. 1 (January 1965),
p. 93.
7. Montague Ullman, "Psi and Psychopathology," paper delivered at the
American Society for Psychical Research conference on Psychic Factors in
Psychotherapy, November 8, 1986.
8. See Stephen LaBerge, Lucid Dreaming (Los Angeles: Jeremy P-Tarcher,
1985).
9. Fred Alan Wolf, Star Wave (New York: Macmillan, 1984), p. 238.
10. Jayne Gackenbach, "Interview with Physicist Fred Alan Wolf on the
Physics of Lucid Dreaming," Lucidity Letter 6, no. 1 (June 1987), p. 52.
11. Fred Alan Wolf, "The Physics of Dream Consciousness: Is the Lucid
Dream a Parallel Universe?" Second Lucid Dreaming Symposium
Proceedings/Lucidity Letter 6, no. 2 (December 1987), p. 133.
12. Stanislav Grof, Realms of the Human Unconscious (New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1976), p. 20.
13. Ibid., p. 236.
14. Ibid., pp. 159-60.
15. Stanislav Grof, The Adventure of Self-Discovery (Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 108-9.
16. Stanislav Grof, Beyond the Brain (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New
York Press, 1985), p. 31,
17. rbid., p. 78.
18. Ibid., p. 89.
19. Edgar A. Levenson, "A Holographic Model of Psychoanalytic Change,"
Contemporary Psychoanalysis 12, no. 1 (1975), p. 13.
20. Ibid., p. 19.
21. David Shainberg, "Vortices of Thought in the Implicate Order," in
Quantum Implications, ed. Basil J. Hiley and F. David Peat (New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), p. 402.
22. Ibid., p. 411.
23. Frank Putnam, Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder
(New York: Guilford, 1988), p. 68.
24. "Science and Synchronicity: A Conversation with C. A. Meier," Psycho-
logical Perspectives 19, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1988), p. 324.
25. Paul Da vies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988),
p. 162
26. F. David Peat, Synckronicity: The Bridge between Mind and Matter (New
York: Bantam Books, 1987), p.
It looks like he referenced 93 books, in just one chapter!
I can't post the whole thing here; but,
so you can see how I found my mistake, here's a larger chunk of his bibliography...
13. Paul Davies, Superforce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 48.
14 Lee Smolin, "What is Quantum Mechanics Really About?" New Scien
tist (October 24, 1985), p. 43.
15. Private communication with author, October 14, 1988.
16. Saybrook Publishing Company, The Reach of the Mind: Nobel Prize
Conversations (Dallas, Texas: Saybrook Publishing Co., 1985), p. 91.
17. Judith Hooper, "An Interview with Karl Pribram," Omni (October 1982), p.
135.
18. Private communication with author, February 8, 1989.
19. Renee Weber, "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with
David Bohm," in The Holographic Paradigm, ed. Ken Wilber (Boulder,
Colo.: New Science Library, 1982), pp. 83-84.
20. Ibid., p. 73.
3. THE HOLOGRAPHIC MODEL AND PSYCHOLOGY
1. Renee Weber, "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with
David Bohm," in The Holographic Paradigm, ed. Ken Wilber (Boulder,
Colo.: New Science Library, 1982), p. 72.
2. Robert M. Anderson, Jr., "A Holographic Model of Transpersonal Con-
sciousness," Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 9, no. 2 (1977), p. 126.
3. Jon Tolaas and Montague Ullman, "Extrasensory Communication and
Dreams," in Handbook of Dreams, ed. Benjamin B. Wolman (New York:
VanNostrand Reinhold, 1979), pp. 178-79.
4. Private communication with author, October 31, 1988.
5. Montague Ullman, "Wholeness and Dreaming," in Quantum Implications,
ed. Basil J. Hiley and F. David Peat (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1987), p. 393,
6. I. Matte-Bianco, "A Study of Schizophrenic Thinking: Its Expression in
Terms of Symbolic Logic and Its Representation in Terms of Multidimen-
sional Space," International Journal of Psychiatry 1, no. 1 (January 1965),
p. 93.
7. Montague Ullman, "Psi and Psychopathology," paper delivered at the
American Society for Psychical Research conference on Psychic Factors in
Psychotherapy, November 8, 1986.
8. See Stephen LaBerge, Lucid Dreaming (Los Angeles: Jeremy P-Tarcher,
1985).
9. Fred Alan Wolf, Star Wave (New York: Macmillan, 1984), p. 238.
10. Jayne Gackenbach, "Interview with Physicist Fred Alan Wolf on the
Physics of Lucid Dreaming," Lucidity Letter 6, no. 1 (June 1987), p. 52.
11. Fred Alan Wolf, "The Physics of Dream Consciousness: Is the Lucid
Dream a Parallel Universe?" Second Lucid Dreaming Symposium
Proceedings/Lucidity Letter 6, no. 2 (December 1987), p. 133.
12. Stanislav Grof, Realms of the Human Unconscious (New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1976), p. 20.
13. Ibid., p. 236.
14. Ibid., pp. 159-60.
15. Stanislav Grof, The Adventure of Self-Discovery (Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 108-9.
16. Stanislav Grof, Beyond the Brain (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New
York Press, 1985), p. 31,
17. rbid., p. 78.
18. Ibid., p. 89.
19. Edgar A. Levenson, "A Holographic Model of Psychoanalytic Change,"
Contemporary Psychoanalysis 12, no. 1 (1975), p. 13.
20. Ibid., p. 19.
21. David Shainberg, "Vortices of Thought in the Implicate Order," in
Quantum Implications, ed. Basil J. Hiley and F. David Peat (New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), p. 402.
22. Ibid., p. 411.
23. Frank Putnam, Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder
(New York: Guilford, 1988), p. 68.
24. "Science and Synchronicity: A Conversation with C. A. Meier," Psycho-
logical Perspectives 19, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1988), p. 324.
25. Paul Da vies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988),
p. 162
26. F. David Peat, Synckronicity: The Bridge between Mind and Matter (New
York: Bantam Books, 1987), p.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Thanks, I'll have look later, just off out to my local climbing wall. Meeting two psychiatrists there, wonder if I can drive them up the wall.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Beat em up!
------ This poll is Archived ------
Just had a quick look through your post and noticed Stanislav Grof, Realms of the Human Unconscious: Observations from LSD Research.
That reminded me of a book I read in the late sixties..
LSD — The Problem-Solving Psychedelic
P.G. Stafford and B.H. Golightly.
So I did a quick search and was amazed to find it still available on amazon albeit "worn but still of value." A bit like me I guess
Just wondering, have you read any stuff by Joe Dispenza? I enjoyed his book, Evolve Your Brain and hopefully be able to get hold of a copy of, Becoming Supernatural.
Also, I noticed he's faculty member at Quantum University in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Anyway, going to have another look at the list on your post.
That reminded me of a book I read in the late sixties..
LSD — The Problem-Solving Psychedelic
P.G. Stafford and B.H. Golightly.
So I did a quick search and was amazed to find it still available on amazon albeit "worn but still of value." A bit like me I guess
Just wondering, have you read any stuff by Joe Dispenza? I enjoyed his book, Evolve Your Brain and hopefully be able to get hold of a copy of, Becoming Supernatural.
Also, I noticed he's faculty member at Quantum University in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Anyway, going to have another look at the list on your post.
------ This poll is Archived ------
"Bohm found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because, when combined with another of quantum physics's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible."
I agree with Bohm....there are certain things we know exist without having to lay eyes on them....they don't just exist because we see them...they exist at all times outside of our site....everything around me does not cease to exist just because I am not looking at it or haven't seen it yet....that just means I haven't laid eyes on it yet but it still exists whether I have seen it or not....
I agree with Bohm....there are certain things we know exist without having to lay eyes on them....they don't just exist because we see them...they exist at all times outside of our site....everything around me does not cease to exist just because I am not looking at it or haven't seen it yet....that just means I haven't laid eyes on it yet but it still exists whether I have seen it or not....
------ This poll is Archived ------
M4_Mischief: "Bohm found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because, when combined with another of quantum physics's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible."
I agree with Bohm....there are certain things we know exist without having to lay eyes on them....they don't just exist because we see them...they exist at all times outside of our site....everything around me does not cease to exist just because I am not looking at it or haven't seen it yet....that just means I haven't laid eyes on it yet but it still exists whether I have seen it or not....
Cool!I agree with Bohm....there are certain things we know exist without having to lay eyes on them....they don't just exist because we see them...they exist at all times outside of our site....everything around me does not cease to exist just because I am not looking at it or haven't seen it yet....that just means I haven't laid eyes on it yet but it still exists whether I have seen it or not....
I think that like an electron can appear as a wave, or as matter... they could both right.
I'm preparing my post on why...
Anyways, it was kind of a trick question: if you thought Bohr's theory sounded like the one that led to the belief in a Holographic Universe (that's where I thought the book was going)...
I thought you'd be interested in knowing: it was Bohm's (seemingly more logical) beliefs that led to the our understanding of a Holographic Universe.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Im not sure I buy into the holographic theory....if we were living in a holograph nothing would be solid....now if we're talking manifestation that's different and based on energy and intention....
------ This poll is Archived ------
M4_Mischief: Im not sure I buy into the holographic theory....if we were living in a holograph nothing would be solid....now if we're talking manifestation that's different and based on energy and intention....
The Holographic Universe part 233 seconds into this link, it's addressing your point.
37 seconds into it, It explains how you're wrong...
------ This poll is Archived ------
You can put your hand through an illusion and a holograph...you cant put it through something that is solid....im of the thinking maybe its the other dimensions that are holographic and an illusion....
------ This poll is Archived ------
M4_Mischief: You can put your hand through an illusion and a holograph...you cant put it through something that is solid....im of the thinking maybe its the other dimensions that are holographic and an illusion....
https://futurism.com/Futurism › why-you-can-never-actually-t...Why Physics Says You Can Never Touch Anything - Futurism
Jun 17, 2014 · Particles are, by their very nature, attracted to particles with an opposite charge, and they repel other similarly charged particles. This prevents electrons from ever coming in direct contact (in an atomic sense and literal sense). Their wave packets, on the other hand, can overlap, but never touch.
PEOPLE ALSO ASK
Do we ever really touch anything?
Are you ever technically touching anything?
What keeps atoms from touching?
What would happen if two atoms touched?
› factoids › things-can-act...
Things Can Actually Touch Each Other - Fact or Myth?
Claim: Objects can actually touch each other (they can come into direct contact with each other with no space in between).
Claimed by: The Internet
Fact check by Fact / Myth: Myth
PREVIEW
5:29
You Can't Touch Anything
Sep 3, 2011
favicon
YouTube · Veritasium
PREVIEW
8:25
Can We Really Touch Anything?
Jun 24, 2013
favicon
YouTube · Bun Bun 1
PREVIEW
0:47
Do Electrons Never Touch?
Oct 7, 2017
› Do-we-technically-not-touch-an...
Do we technically not touch anything? I once read that due to ...
Aug 5, 2017 · We really do not touch anything, it is only a beautiful a illusion, because we ... The electromagnetic force keeps the electrons from flying away from their orbits ...
------ This poll is Archived ------
M4_Mischief: You can put your hand through an illusion and a holograph...you cant put it through something that is solid....im of the thinking maybe its the other dimensions that are holographic and an illusion....
You've never touched anything solid in your life!The electrons you're made of, are repelled by the electrons in your floor; and you are levitating above your floor.
It's the same thing with your toothbrush, and your cup of tea...
YouTube › watch
Can We Really Touch Anything? - ...
------ This poll is Archived ------
mykingdomforanam: You've never touched anything solid in your life!
The electrons you're made of, are repelled by the electrons in your floor; and you are levitating above your floor.
I agree entirely.The electrons you're made of, are repelled by the electrons in your floor; and you are levitating above your floor.
------ This poll is Archived ------
bodleing2: I agree entirely.
Mahalo nui loa.If we fall towards the ground, before we can get close enough to touch it, the charge around millions of tiny electrons, spinning like tiny saw blades around atoms, cuts into our knees, hands, and elbows, and repels us above the ground.
------ This poll is Archived ------
YouTube · JamesJTraitz
3:23
Matter Does Not Exist
Dec 4, 2006
3:23
Matter Does Not Exist
Dec 4, 2006
------ This poll is Archived ------
Here's a short video with Michio Kaku, explaining how we never touch anything...
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
------ This poll is Archived ------
Here's a short video with Michio Kaku, explaining how we never touch anything...
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
------ This poll is Archived ------
Here's a short video with Michio Kaku (an eminent physicist), explaining how we never touch anything...
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
YouTube · Physics Club
2:17
We Can't Touch Anything
Nov 6, 2016
------ This poll is Archived ------
Not trying to be repetitive.
I tried for hours to post that; and it kept telling me I went offline... so I posted it again, without being able to see, until they already went through.
I tried for hours to post that; and it kept telling me I went offline... so I posted it again, without being able to see, until they already went through.
------ This poll is Archived ------
M4_Mischief: "Bohm found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because, when combined with another of quantum physics's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible."...
A very short extract from an article on emptiness. There are two truths in Buddhism, conventional and ultimate truth. This penetrating insight dates back to the original Buddha. Understanding the two truths and the relationship between them is vital in seeing through the illusion of inherent existence and realizing emptiness or Sunyata.
Conventional Truth
~
Conventional truth involves our everyday experience and understanding of the way the phenomenal world appears and functions. If our senses and cognition are in working order we recognize that fire burns, that dark clouds foreshadow rain and that birds and not elephants fly. Conventional truth is our agreed upon identification of things and how they work, and this understanding directs our worldly activities.
~
Conventional truth includes what is called valid cognition because it is able to distinguish conventional truth from conventional falsehood, an important difference. For example, there are consequences in distinguishing a snake from a rope and that sense of being right matters.1 If there was no reliability to our everyday assessments our activity would be senseless. There is a coherence, so that conventional truth cannot be constructed randomly or simply as we choose.
However, our conventional reality is also deceptive. Objects, both coarse as in a rock and subtle as in thought, appear as distinct entities when they are not. Phenomena are mistakenly perceived and conceptualized as self-established, each with their own core nature that makes them what they are. In Buddhism, this deception is called inherent existence and is identified as the root error responsible for suffering.
~
Through examination and analysis, the Middle Way school asserts that no independent phenomena exist whatsoever. While objects appear to exist as separate things, this sensory-cognitive appearance is illusory. Phenomena are neither self-created nor self-enduring, but arise in dependence upon conditions without a nature or essence of their own. The example of fire is classic in illustrating what it means to depend upon conditions, one of the key types of dependencies in emptiness teachings.
Fire, which is seen to fundamentally exist, depends upon oxygen, fuel, heat, friction, and other innumerable conditions to appear, and does not exist intrinsically, as a thing in itself. If the conditions for fire are removed, there will be no fire. Fire cannot ignite itself or burn itself. The characteristic of fire depends upon conditions that are not considered to be fire and that are also dependently arisen. For instance, air is not considered to be fire because fire is not found in air. Nor is fuel such as wood, that also depends upon sun, rain, soil, etc., considered to be fire either. Fire, like all phenomena, is unfindable because it has no separate nature. Because fire does not independently exist, it appears under certain conditions and no longer appears when conditions change.
~
The assumption that objects inherently exist does not hold up upon deeper examination. This does not mean that fire does not exist at all, but that there is no independent nature or essence that is fire. If things existed in and of themselves rather than dependently, everything would be isolated and unchanging and nothing would relate to anything. It is the illusion of the inherent existence of phenomena that Buddhist philosophy targets and its nonexistence is the meaning of the word emptiness.
https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/
------ This poll is Archived ------
This Poll is Archived
This Poll is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Poll get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
More Threads
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
Unions support Democrats!
Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
your favorite topic?
See It All The Time
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Kultur-multur
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Democrats destroyed America
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Stats for this Poll
7 Votes
2,323 Views
62 Comments
Created: Jan 2019
Last Viewed: 3 hrs ago
Last Commented: Oct 2020
Last Voted: Jul 2022
0 Likes
2 DisAgrees
Last DisAgreed: Oct 2020
Related Forums
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- Unions support Democrats!
- Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- your favorite topic?
- See It All The Time
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Kultur-multur
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Democrats destroyed America
Bohr vs Bohm(Vote Below)
Bohr and Bohm were two quantum physicists, who were inspired by Albert Einstein, and elaborated on his theories.
The following quotes are from a book titled, The Holographic Universe.
This book declares that we are holograms, living in a hologram...
Which one do you agree with?
"The assumption was made by one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. This was disturbing to many physicists, for much of science was based on discovering the properties of phenomena. But if the act of observation actually helped create such properties, what did that imply about the future of science?"
"Bohm found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because, when combined with another of quantum physics's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible."
Internet Archive › stream › holouni_djvu
Full text of "Holographic Model of The Universe" - Internet Archive