In the past few years I have spent time philosophizing on the meaning within the findings of the double-slit experiment; The act of observing the electrons to determine which slit they pass through, changes their behavior from dualistic wave/particles to simple particles. Your observation of reality changes reality.
This has particular meaning to me as after some 'ET' encounters years ago, I was gifted with a few precognitive visions - some data that most humans don't have, and an increasing awareness of synchronicities. I was a volunteer, I "signed on", and have been given some access to information that ultimately led me down this path to fully accepting that our "soul" is not tethered or unique to this 3-Dimensional construct. The true nature of this construct eludes me; but every time I begin to doubt, I am given another prescient vision to set my mind at ease that while I don't know much, at least I'm not crazy.
My ultimate conclusion is that the only "morality" we have is tied to the exercise of our will over others. The net effect of our actions is purely how much of our will did we exercise, and how much did we impede on the will of others. I have developed this into a belief that lying and deception are indeed an act of destroying another's will - because it is destroying their ability to comprehend the truth of the reality we live in.
The most recent example of a synchronicity, while not really a "prescient vision" - was the other night when I wrote this:
https://voat.co/v/politics/1338955
A few hours later I decided to watch a movie. I scanned for good streams, and found the movie "Captain Fantastic". This very movie, which I knew absolutely nothing about - happened to be exactly relevant to my current moral struggle about mans animal nature and the ills of society. But what blew me away, within the first 20 minutes, was their mention of living like "Philosopher Kings". Something I had just written about a few hours before and a concept which I had not considered in conscious memory.
Some things are just coincidences, but I find that coincidences occur more and more often, ever since 2012, and definitely to the tune of that old song that goes: "You can't always get what you want.. But you get what you need."
view the rest of the comments →
KoKansei ago
I think it's important to point out here that the statement "observing the electrons to determine which slit they pass through, changes their behavior from dualistic wave/particles to simple particles" is only one possible interpretation of the dual-slit experiment's results. You are neglecting to mention the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that there is no collapse of the wave-function.
batterist ago
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr"
Scary quote if you think of your double slit example. Probabilistic, fuzzy, unknowable particles make up everything. And to add to that, we're 99.99999% "empty" space.
xeemee ago
yeah, you try to make sense out all this and you can't ... unless we really are 1's and 0's in the matrix, then some of the very important out of place pieces seem to find a home in the big puzzle
KoKansei ago
The quote above really only applies to the Copenhagen interpretation, which was of course first formulated by Bohr. The problem with this interpretation is that it forces us to consider wavefunctions as some kind of non-physical (non-real) entity which somehow "collapses" to create something physical (real). The many-worlds interpretation is far more elegant on this point since it allows for wavefunctions to exist as actual physical objects. That is, you are not just the product of your collapsed wavefunction, but rather you are in fact the wavefunction itself, moving through a matrix of infinitely branching universes along the arrow of time.
xeemee ago
i'm trying to translate what you've said into something i can understand...
so you're saying that a wave function (which i interpret as energy - non-physical) can become physical? or is not physical, but can be perceived as physical ('physical' being a 'solid' object)?
from what i've managed to grab from quantum science, it seems there is no such thing as a solid, except by the human definition
also, what do you think about the work of Nassim Haramein? one of his basic theories seems to be that there are no 'particles' and that building these accelerators to find the next smaller thing is only going to result in the discovery of ... the next smaller thing - he thinks we should be looking at patterns instead, as in the Mandelbrot thingy, the golden number, geometry, etc.