Schrödinger's Cat Food

[Bill Ryan]

-------

From http://io9.com/if-this-theory-is-cor...alte-896376482

If this theory is correct, we may live in a web of alternate timelines

The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics has been around for nearly 60 years. It’s a highly controversial idea which suggests that our world — and everything in it — is constantly splitting into alternative timelines. If it's correct, here's what your true existence might actually be like.

Over a hundred years ago, the discovery of quantum physics ruined the party. Our comfortable, clockwork conception of universe was thrown into disarray with the realization that, at the micro-scale, there’s some crazy funky stuff going on.

Thanks to quantum mechanics, we now know that matter takes on the properties of both particles and waves. What’s more, thanks to Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, we can never be certain about a particle’s momentum and position, nor can we be certain about an object’s state when it’s not being observed. In other words, the universe — at least at a certain scale — appears to be completely fuzzy and nebulous. Possibly even random.

Quantum physics has royally messed up classical — and seemingly intuitive — principles of space and time, causality, and the conservation of energy. This means that Newtonian, and even Einsteinian, interpretations of the universe are insufficient. Indeed, if we’re to develop a unified and comprehensible theory of everything, we’re going to have to reconcile all of this somehow.

But some physicists, upset by the implications of quantum mechanics on our ultimate understanding of the universe and our place within it, still choose to ignore or dismiss it as a kind of messy inconvenience. And it’s hard to blame them. Quantum physics doesn’t just upset conventional physics. It also perturbs our sense of our place in the universe; it’s Copernican in scale — a paradigm changer the carries deep metaphysical and existential baggage.

Denial, however, won't help the situation — nor will it further science. Physicists have no choice but to posit theories that try to explain the things they see in the lab, no matter how strange. And in the world of quantum mechanics, this has given rise to a number of different interpretations, including the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Ensemble Interpretation, the de Broglie-Bohm theory, and many, many others.

And of course, there’s the infamous Many Worlds Interpretation.

The “Relative State” Formulation

Back in the 1950s, a Princeton undergraduate by the name of Hugh Everett III embroiled himself in the wonderful and wacky world of quantum physics. He became familiar with the ideas of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger, and studied under Robert Dickie and Eugene Wigner. Then, in 1955, he began to write his Ph.D. thesis under the tutelage of John Archibald Wheeler.

In 1957, he published his paper under the name, "Quantum Mechanics by the Method of the Universal Wave Function.” Eventually, after further edits and trimming, it was re-published under the name, “Wave Mechanics Without Probability.” And though he referred to his theory as the “relative state formulation,” it was rebranded as the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) by Bryce Seligman in the 60s and 70s.

But like so many seminal theories in science, Everett’s idea was scorned. So scorned, in fact, that he gave up physics and went to work as a defense analyst and consultant.

Now, some 60 years later, his radical idea lives on among a small — but growing — subset of physicists. In a recent poll of quantum physicists, some 18% of respondents said they subscribe to the MWI (as compared to the 42% who buy into the dominant Copenhagen Interpretation).

The Everett Postulate

Essentially, Everett’s big idea was the suggestion that the entire universe is quantum mechanical in nature — and not just the spooky phenomenon found at the indeterministic microscopic scale. By bringing macroscale events into the picture, he upset the half-century’s worth of work that preceded him. The two different worlds, argued Everett, can and must be linked.

No doubt, the problem that quantum mechanics presents is the realization that we appear to live in a deterministic world (i.e. a rational, comprehensible world) that contains some non-deterministic elements. Everett worked to reconcile the micro with the macro by making the case that no arbitrary division needs to be invoked to delineate the two realms.

He considered the universal wavefunction — a mathematical list of every single configuration of a quantum object, like a hydrogen atom. It’s a description of every possible configuration of every single elementary particle in the universe (that’s a big list). What Everett did was apply Schrodinger’s wavefunction equation to the entire universe — which is now known as the Everett Postulate:

All isolated systems evolve according to the Schrodinger equation.

Everett also argued that the measurement of a quantum object doesn’t force it into one comprehensible state or another. Instead, it causes the universe to split, or branch off, for each possible outcome of the measurement; the universe literally splits into distinct worlds to accommodate every single possible outcome. And interestingly, Everett’s idea allows for randomness to be removed from quantum theory, and by consequence, all of physics (thus making physicists very happy).

It’s worth noting that the MWI stands in sharp contrast to the popular Copenhagen Interpretation, a branch of physics which says quantum mechanics cannot produce a coherent description of objective reality. Instead, we can only deal with probabilities of observing or measuring various aspects of energy quanta — entities that don’t conform to classical ideas of particles and waves. It’s proponents talk about the wavefunction collapse — which happens when a measurement is made, and which causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values.

So Many Worlds

According to Everett, a “world” is a complex, causally connected sub-system that doesn’t significantly interfere with other elements of the grander superposition. These “worlds” can be called “universes,” but "universe" tends to describe the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

Needless to say, it's a metaphysical theory that dramatically alters our understanding of the universe and our place in it. If true, the universe is comprised of an ever-evolving series of timelines that branch off to accommodate all possibilities. Subsequently, it means that a version of you — or what you think is you — is constantly branching off into other alternate histories.

For example, in the case of Schrödinger's cat, it’s not both alive and dead when not observed. Instead, a version of it ceases to exist, while another lives on in an alternative timeline. As another example, one version of you will stop reading my article at this exact point, while another version will continue to the very end. There may even be an evil version of you somewhere. So long as it’s probable — and that it doesn’t violate physical laws at the macro-scale — a new version of the universe, and all that’s within it — will be created. In turn, those will continue to branch off based on the new contingencies contained therein. But Everett-worlds in which probability breaks down can never be realized, and by consequence, never observed.

So what appears to be a single individual living from moment to moment is actually a perpetually multiplying flow of experiences; there is not just one timeline. Instead, there are many, many worlds. This means that all possible alternative histories and futures are real.

This also means that there could be an infinite number of universes — and that everything that could have possibly happened in our past has in fact happened in the past of some other worlds.

Weird and Untestable

Not surprisingly, there are a number of objections to the MWI. As noted, 82% of quantum physicists don’t buy it.

One of the most common complaints is that MWI grossly violates conservation of energy (i.e. where the hell is all the energy coming from to fuel all these new universes?). Others argue that it violates Occam’s Razor, that it doesn't account for non-local events (like an alien making an observation far, far away), or that its parameters and definitions, like “measurement,” are far too liberal or vague.

And of course, it leads to a host of strange conclusions. For example, a version of you will win the lottery every time you play it. Sure, it's highly improbable, but not impossible. In the space of all probable worlds, a version of you will have to experience it.

Perhaps even more bizarre is the scenario in which a person — someone who cannot play a musical instrument — sits in front of a piano and plays Debussy's Claire de Lune to perfection strictly by chance. Sure, the odds of correctly hitting each successive note gets astronomical in scale as the piece progresses — but this is the weirdness that arises when we have to consider (1) probabilities and not impossibilities, and (2) the near-infinite number of expressions of all possible worlds.

But something about this scenario just feels...wrong.

Another interesting and related perspective comes from the Rational Skepticism website:

For now, the MWI is physically dependent. That is, the likelihood of an outcome is assessed from physical potential. However, we all know that the likelihood of events isn't contingent upon physical potentials. I know, for instance, given the evolution of my own life/mind, that the likelihood of me becoming a materialist tomorrow, is zero. I have no doubt about that, given that I've already been there and seen the flaws thereof (not to mention everything else I've 'seen'). Likewise, you all may be sure of some thing or other. Further, for example, though the physical potential exists, the likelihood of tomorrow's papers headlining The Pope as a murderous gay atheist, seems bleak, to say the least. Therefore, are these many worlds constrained by what is physically possible, or by what is sensibly possible? That is, do mental/emotive concerns dictate what worlds are possible, or simply physical potentials? On the face of it, it would seem that the MWI doesn't have any recourse towards mental potential/agency.

Which is a great point. At what point does probability — even within the confines of classical physics — enter into the realm of sheer improbability? In the previous example, that of our insanely lucky piano player, such a thing might never play out because the person hasn't developed the proper finger musculature, or they may suddenly stop mid-performance, aghast at their freakish achievement.

And there’s also the issue of testability. Regrettably, we can’t communicate with our splitting selves. Each version of us can only observe one instance of the universe at any given time. Subsequently, the MWI is considered untestable — leading many to dismiss it as being unscientific or just plain bonkers.

Actually, there may be a way to test it. MWI implies the quantum immortality hypothesis — the argument that a version of us will always observe the universe — even in the most improbable of circumstances. To test the MWI, all one needs to do is attempt suicide based on a 50/50 probability schema. According to the theory, a version of you will survive 50 successive 50/50 suicide attempts — but it's a one in quadrillion chance. The trick, of course, is to live the life of that particular version of you. Good luck.

Hugh Everett, despite his belief in quantum immortality, died in 1982. But his idea lives on — a kind of immortality unto itself.

[ulli]

To me a time line shift happens each time a person's consciousness level changes.
Lower consciousness persons live under the "law of accident" according to Gurdjieff,
and he says that consciousness training lifts one above that law.

I have studied astrology, which can be used to approach the quantum debates, as well.
There is no doubt that astrological twins, people who have neither genetics nor environmental factors in common, but are born on the same day, same time, have major life changes occurring at the same time in their lives.
Yet these life changes can happen in different areas of their lives, depending their physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual development. And those moments are measurable and can be predicted, although the accuracy of the prediction depends on whether a person is an intellectual type, in which the event might be a battle with administration of a school, or physical, which means the body is not well coordinated and hence they get injured in an accident.
Only the timing of the event seems fixed. The rest is guesswork.
The whole thing ultimately rests on geometric energy patterns running parallel at the micro subatomic levels and the astro physics level.
Neither one causing the other, but both receiving their prompts from a more mysterious source, whether that is the collective unconscious, a higher ET civilization, or a creator god, I don't know.

[TraineeHuman]

In the world of philosophical logic, one of the most major topics over a number of decades has been to move towards some kind of rigorous exploration of the entire notion of "possible" or "possibility". One of the most useful ways of doing this has proved to be to use "possible worlds". Each possible world will contain some different members or phenomena, which won't appear in some of the other possible worlds. One feature of such worlds is that their members are tied together by certain fixed relationships that are necessary for that possible world to be the particular possibility it embodies. So, if you are one of the members of a particular possible world, it's not just "you" but "you-in-such-and-such-a-situation, playing such such and such a role", and so on. The "you" in each possible world will be a different "you". It won't just be you-winning-the-lottery in some possible world but you doing so while being tied into a whole number of circumstances and conditions that you have to fulfil just to exist in that particular possible world.

There are also many problems in finding a coherent conceptual analysis of what the concept of "possible" means. For instance, W.V.Quine, who was one of the most influential twentieth century philosophers, asks: "How many possible fat men are potentially standing in that doorway right now?" The point is, if you can't accurately answer that question -- and no-one can -- then the concept of "all possible fat men" doesn't have a coherent or unique meaning, and in fact in many ways it's meaningless. Even more so the notion of "all possible worlds", or "all possible subatomic worlds/configurations".

There are even more conceptual problems I could list. These will all undercut any version of the "many worlds" interpretation.

[Justintime]

Interesting read and something I have thought about often. A few years back, a friend of mine was suicidal and contemplating committing suicide via pills and alcohol. We discussed his problems and past attempts and I brought up this same phenomena and asked him what if you did die in one timeline but in another(this timeline) you won't die no matter what you do to yourself. All possibilities must be exhausted in our lifetimes/timelines in order for maximal learning to take place. Can you imagine meeting up with your Self in its entirety and having a life review that encompasses all possible life choices. Wow, we could learn and evolve so much spiritually from living just one life. And if the universe is essentially infinite, than why not? I love this way of thinking as it eliminates dualism, maximizes our learning experience in just one life and it just rocks my world in general!

This reminds me of the book/video What the Bleep do we know? Here's the YouTube video in case anyone's interested. You have to watch it in parts on YouTube, otherwise its blocked, here's part 1.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TteIutmRPCs

[deridan]

perhaps cause this is a view related to observations, it has been improperly applied to scales it should not be applied too, like those of individual decisions.
So the 82% hold out for a more coherent 'unified' view of all {requisite to this, a physics area {a runway} that can lead to a new overall theory}, perhaps the 18% get mired in interpretations applying to the wrong scale. Essentially the 82% see phenomena as a probability of manifesting, with a fuzziness based on entertaining its many potentialities, whereas the 18% views the phenomena with indifference, seeing one outcome as HERE, and the rest as elsewhere (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allowing for uncertainty of position and magnitude). Perhaps for that 18%, instead of becoming mired(in implication), they should know that they potentially have a doorway, not to alternate dimensions apparently superimposed on another, but perhaps a scratch at the door of space travel and manifestation(in a different physical area)

I have a feeling a different physics may apply in the socio - to - individual sphere. Perhaps bigger streams negate the smaller individual things,
and we are in some sort of regulatory dynamics which set things in motion [& keep them, with principles we can scarcely violate, through 'not knowing'], and have in mind, observing our result. ..the world has much isolation, and we can essentially live past each other, without having anothers pre/post-suppositions affecting us

(..as a joke, my post got cut by a bad internet connection, ..the many alternate expressions of it properly living on some other avalonic forum)

[Limor Wolf]

"For example, in the case of Schrödinger's cat, it’s not both alive and dead when not observed. Instead, a version of it ceases to exist, while another lives on in an alternative timeline"

Can someone brave enough please explain if there's at all any difference between timelines and parallel universes?

Such an endless splitting is quite hard to imagine, that there's actually a representation of every single possible outcome. If that is true, however, then it proves that energy is indeed infinite, since every world/ time line created from such a splitting contains the infinite energy, How is it possible then that this vast existence is not collapsing into itself?

And next question - What is the nature of 'Existence'? (Let's not even try)

It is funny actually, It must be fascinating for our Physicists and scientists to speculate and throw hypotheses on parralel worlds/universes/timelines etc. based on theories and experiments which led to the understanding of Quantom physics, when at the same time the enigmas of the fourth dimension that lies almost within us is not yet cracked. How can we humans hypotise on ourselves in the context of endless timelines, when we don't officially know that there is actually a vast array of life out there, some of it is characterized by the ability to create. And another thought comes to mind - By the simple fact that another parallel reality is created with every split decision we make, isn't it a proof enough that we are indeed creators? and maybe this passiveness in creating can actually turn out with more time and understanding to something a lot more organized and well planned by us.


Final thought, Can't help but wonder, are the beings in the higher dimensions (nine, ten and above) also struggle with this question:

What is 'Existence'?

p.s

I would like to send this to someone but it seems that the link to the original article is not working

[william r sanford72]

a book i have and read years ago that is a easy read and a foot in the door is JOHN GRIBBINS..In Search of Schrodingers Cat. it was published in 84 and is a bit outdated now but a cool book to read all the same.if ya all didnt know about it already.great thread.since iv been pondering portals.and dimensional doors and such.

[Limor Wolf]

If the MWI theory which 18% physicists subscribe to is correct then we can quit what we are doing here right now, put the keys on the table and go home. Our efforts to advance a world characterised by harmony, integrity and justice will always be paralleled by another one (or more) versions of chaos, fraudulent and injustice. In this case, I would rather vote for the mainstream majority

[Fred Steeves]

Being a simple man, I like to try and break things like this down to their simplest every day terms. So, let's take an every day occurrence like say, driving to the store to buy some groceries. It may seem like it's the same every time, but upon closer examination it's not the same at all.

Listening to a rockin song on the way may cause you to drive a little faster than normal, thus the you listening to that song walks through the store door a little earlier. Some days that stop light is green, other days it's red. Perhaps you spontaneously decide to take a different route along the way, or pull over to chat briefly with a neighbor. The variables are pretty much endless, and would not ordinarily even be noticed, but with each one, the actual store experience is going to be just a LITTLE bit different. You'll encounter different people at different times (thus affecting THEIR time line), take a different route shopping through the store, think different thoughts, be in a different mood, etc..

This is also going to affect your drive home, which will affect events back at the house, which will affect who you talk to or not, which will have rippling affects out into infinity. The further these tiny changes are extrapolated outward, the more vast the change in one's life experience. Like a 1 degree angle is nothing, but the further out it goes, the more the gap between it and a straight becomes.

What happens to the energy and intent that resides in every action or non action? Is the person who hits the red light on the way to the store, really the same person who decided to speed up and breeze through the yellow light? Or did that person make a split right then and there, one doing each? Each going their separate ways, ad infinitum...

Think of how many drastically different directions your life could have taken since early childhood. We tend to remember only our big, life changing decisions, but those big decisions were/are the result of a dizzying number of teeny tiny decisions. And after all of that, you are now the result of only ONE of those possibilities. Again, what happened to the rest of them, the yous that chose differently at every step along the way? Do they ever ponder this as well?

And finally this: Think you can't create a different time line? Just blow through that red light next store trip! (LOL)

[Justintime]

Interesting and complex thoughts for such a simple man, Fred. I often have thoughts too about what happens to my thoughts and intentions. Especially my darkest thoughts and fantasies that come with them. Did I really win the battle so to speak because I don't act on my darkest thoughts and fantasies or are they just displaced?

On a side note, I do believe anything that can happen will and does happen and one of our purposes in this realm is to exhaust all possibilities and to return home and decide if heaven is really heaven, or maybe we have found something better in the perfect version of our life. Maybe the point of everything is simply to create our own heaven or return home and thank God for being well God.

[Flash]

A guts feeling:

it seems to me that there is a lot of confusion between probabilities, dimensions and timelines. Even for the scientists.

To me, timelines are potential probabilities, all are possible and inscribed into the future as such until they become realities. They will become real timelines, consolidated ones, solid truth, when they have been observed and acted on, not before, before they are only probabilities. And there won't be so many then.

Dimensions are something else altogether, within the consolidated timeline.

I think it is like in research, where the observers and scientists have an impact on the results, modifyng the results following their expectations for one and by their mere observators presence on the other hand. Once the influence on the outcome is done, you cannot go back.

The same with timelines, it is our creative imagination that decides what potential probability will be the chosen one and it becomes glued in cement of reality once we observe the happenings and act on/in it. Until then, they are only probabilities.

Therefore, the strongest human/ETs ones in imagination, centration and will power will be the one who will pursue what is to happen, following their desires, for a chosen probability and make sure, through influencing of the masses, that we observe and act on/in it, therefore consolidating it into reality and truth.

And what we, the sheeple actually do? Concentrate on horror stories and fear, and soap operas while they, the PTB's geniuses workers, concentrate on the desired outcome, for them of course.

This is why I think we have to actively WILL what WE WANT to happen, we have to WILL LOVE, to WILL THE CUTTING OFF OF ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES, imagine it, see it, put our centration on it, pursue it, and then observe and act on it.

Collectively and individually.

We have to be the strongest ones, all this without most of the training THEY have received to do this and that we have not. Also through the inimaginable tools they have to influence us.

Good luck to us, but it is possible. They are less numerous than we are, take our best ones and make it happen. A few years of centration may change a probable timeline track i bet, for one's private life as well as for the planet.

[TraineeHuman]

This whole supposed distinction between the macroscopic world on the one hand and the subatomic world, or level, on the other could do with some unpacking.

One point to be aware of is that mystics in many cultures and ages have cultivated the art of accurate observation of reality. Despite all the vast separation over time and geography and culture and so on, there is an undeniable consensus in what they have concluded macroscopic reality is (like) when observed with true accuracy and full awareness. That picture of macroscopic reality, even at a physical level only, is identical with the quantum theory description of microscopic reality. So, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena certainly wasn’t drawn out of some hat by some process of statistical randomness.

Maybe the Copenhagen interpretation was influenced by the writings of some of the founders and developers of quantum physics and atomic physics, most notably those of de Broglie, Bohr, and Bohm, but also of many others. These physicists were captivated by the discovery that their research work in physics incessantly brought them face to face with principles that came from macroscopic-level mysticism.

Another point is that the scientific method presupposes that the only way to understand reality is to reduce it conceptually, by continually asking “What is that made out of?” and re-applying the same question to whatever answer you get to go one level deeper, and then repeating the process again and again. So, quantum phenomena are the bottom-most, the deepest answer to the scientific method’s question of what macroscopic reality ultimately is. To decide that one doesn’t like the answer once one knows what the answer is, is the height of inconsistency and hypocrisy. The most inviolable and basic principle of all in science is the law of consistency. To create a total division – a cleaving of the entire physical universe into two -- between quantum phenomena and macroscopic phenomena when, according to the whole basis of the scientific method quantum phenomena is what the macrosocopic phenomena most truly are, is as total a violation of the law of consistency as you could ever get.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Limor (here)
I would like to send this to someone but it seems that the link to the original article is not working

Thanks for noticing; I fixed the link (the first link in Bill's post).

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by George Dvorsky
Thanks to quantum mechanics, we now know that matter takes on the properties of both particles and waves.

My sense is that thanks to relativity and quantum mechanics, we know less, not more ... that these two pillars of modern physics have been a grand detour lasting a century now, serving to hide from public view far more profound understandings of a more esoteric physics.

Though it would be off-topic for this thread, those so inclined may wish to consider The Cosmic Ether: Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics (pdf), by Paul A. LaViolette, February 6, 2011. The key concept is that cosmic ether, "a subquantum medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system".

[Flash]

Posted by Flash (here)
A guts feeling:

it seems to me that there is a lot of confusion between probabilities, dimensions and timelines. Even for the scientists.

To me, timelines are potential probabilities, all are possible and inscribed into the future as such until they become realities. They will become real timelines, consolidated ones, solid truth, when they have been observed and acted on, not before, before they are only probabilities. And there won't be so many then.

Dimensions are something else altogether, within the consolidated timeline.

I think it is like in research, where the observers and scientists have an impact on the results, modifyng the results following their expectations for one and by their mere observators presence on the other hand. Once the influence on the outcome is done, you cannot go back.

The same with timelines, it is our creative imagination that decides what potential probability will be the chosen one and it becomes glued in cement of reality once we observe the happenings and act on/in it. Until then, they are only probabilities.

Therefore, the strongest human/ETs ones in imagination, centration and will power will be the one who will pursue what is to happen, following their desires, for a chosen probability and make sure, through influencing of the masses, that we observe and act on/in it, therefore consolidating it into reality and truth.

And what we, the sheeple actually do? Concentrate on horror stories and fear, and soap operas while they, the PTB's geniuses workers, concentrate on the desired outcome, for them of course.

This is why I think we have to actively WILL what WE WANT to happen, we have to WILL LOVE, to WILL THE CUTTING OFF OF ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES, imagine it, see it, put our centration on it, pursue it, and then observe and act on it.

Collectively and individually.

We have to be the strongest ones, all this without most of the training THEY have received to do this and that we have not. Also through the inimaginable tools they have to influence us.

Good luck to us, but it is possible. They are less numerous than we are, take our best ones and make it happen. A few years of centration may change a probable timeline track i bet, for one's private life as well as for the planet.

To finish my thinking in my post above, once a timeline is fixed, and the other probabilities rejected, those other probabilities still exist in terms of information that we may consult and learn from (they are mathematical probabilities after all, and can always be reproduced or studied), but they are not determinant anylonger for the evolution of the individual or of the specie or even of the part of the universe they are in. Nothing is loss for learning purpose, but definitely it is for evolution/reality /soul experiencing purpose. Freedom and Choices of the creators are respected throughout. This is my opinion based on no scientific studies , just on common sense.

[T Smith]

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
The variables are pretty much endless, and would not ordinarily even be noticed, but with each one, the actual store experience is going to be just a LITTLE bit different. You'll encounter different people at different times (thus affecting THEIR time line), take a different route shopping through the store, think different thoughts, be in a different mood, etc..

This is also going to affect your drive home, which will affect events back at the house, which will affect who you talk to or not, which will have rippling affects out into infinity. The further these tiny changes are extrapolated outward, the more vast the change in one's life experience. Like a 1 degree angle is nothing, but the further out it goes, the more the gap between it and a straight becomes.

What happens to the energy and intent that resides in every action or non action? Is the person who hits the red light on the way to the store, really the same person who decided to speed up and breeze through the yellow light? Or did that person make a split right then and there, one doing each? Each going their separate ways, ad infinitum...

The ol' butterfly effect. A butterfly flaps its wings in New York, which sets off a chain of events that causes a hurricane to form in the Pacific Ocean two weeks later.... Ed Lorenz demonstrated this mathematically. Our every action, no matter how small, co-creates reality itself.

[johnf]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by George Dvorsky
Thanks to quantum mechanics, we now know that matter takes on the properties of both particles and waves.

My sense is that thanks to relativity and quantum mechanics, we know less, not more ... that these two pillars of modern physics have been a grand detour lasting a century now, serving to hide from public view far more profound understandings of a more esoteric physics.

Though it would be off-topic for this thread, those so inclined may wish to consider The Cosmic Ether: Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics (pdf), by Paul A. LaViolette, February 6, 2011. The key concept is that cosmic ether, "a subquantum medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system".

Dern, link comes up 404, I would really like to read that paper. (or at least try to.)

Edit from Bill: I fixed Paul's link, and it should now work.

[Limor Wolf]

Posted by Flash (here)
To me, timelines are potential probabilities, all are possible and inscribed into the future as such until they become realities. They will become real timelines, consolidated ones, solid truth, when they have been observed and acted on, not before, before they are only probabilities. And there won't be so many then

Posted by Paul (here)
My sense is that thanks to relativity and quantum mechanics, we know less, not more ... that these two pillars of modern physics have been a grand detour lasting a century now, serving to hide from public view far more profound understandings of a more esoteric physics.

I suscribe to what Flash wrote above, although, even that might not be true.
We tend to think about timelines as something that we are creating now for the sake of the future (whether investing our intention in it or not). Paul is saying that he senses that we now know less then we used to and he is probably right if contemplating the many new implications and understanding of our reality which has been 'activated' (that in itself changes our reality) and so a lot more is unknown to us as quantom physics is still in it's diapers, certainly when it comes to implementation.

Matter may 'take on the properties of both particles and wave' quoting from George Dvorsky, but it is our understanding of the nature of those two that changes everything, it was not what we thought it was.

But all this advancment of understanding by our scientists may 'fall', and such theories and hypotheses by scientists or conversations as we are doing here will change dramatically (yet once again) if a true notion on what is TIME will ever enter into the equation. If matter consists (not a good word, please excuse my poor English) from particles and waves, what is time consists of ?

If our timelines and parallel universes hypotheses rely on time as we know it (i.e linear, fixed and sistematic) and in actual it reacts totally different than what we may know, then everything changes once again.

It is not scientifically proven, but from what is gatherd from the Ufology field, time reacts differently outside of our atmosphere dependet on gravity and acceleration, more than that, esoterically speaking, if time is a flexible concept and time travel does exist (see Philadelpia experiment, Montauk project) then it may not be true that we are creating a specific timeline right now for the future sake, if indeed past, present and future exists all at once.

Complicated and fascinating from our tiny ant like perspective. I bet that if only a few black project scientists would have agreed to take part in such a conversation then everything would have turn a lot more interesting!! (but then they may have to kill us in this distorted world climate we live in, so this is not an open invitation )

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Limor (here)
I suscribe to what Flash wrote above, although, even that might not be true.
We tend to think about timelines as something that we are creating now for the sake of the future (whether investing our intention in it or not). Paul is saying that he senses that we now know less then we used to and he is probably right if contemplating the many new implications and understanding of our reality which has been 'activated' (that in itself changes our reality) and so a lot more is unknown to us as quantom physics is still in it's diapers, certainly when it comes to implementation.

Agreed ... if I understand . And I agreed with Flash as well ... again if I understood.

I was speaking at one level of reality ... the lowest physical level for which we have so much as a theory.

I read Flash as speaking at a higher level of reality ... a level where human efforts to understand are involved.

[Limor Wolf]

Posted by Paul (here)

I was speaking at one level of reality ... the lowest physical level for which we have so much as a theory.

Yes, I understand. It seems that some alternative scientists today or people with scientific education relate to science as a sort of a helpful springboard of our society with sincere attempts to understand where we live, but at the same time treat it like a system with partial or total failure due to the restrictive laws of exact science wich results in fixation.

When I personally think about it (as we all do: ), I tend to see it as a toolbox where the important part of the tools are missing, now how is it possible to build a building with only a hammer and a nail? and there are those who want to leave us (humanity) with this limited pile of tools. And some percentage of scientists will even resist themselves the desire to test new tools.

One person who is a researcher wrote to me recently: " I've seen too much and experienced too much personally to know that Lamestream Science is a dead end..."