Quantum Mechanics Debunked

[Breakingthewall]

@Purple Man Interesting theory. the reality is that the matter of electromagnetic waves is very strange. and the impossibility of reaching that speed for something with mass as well. surely there is the key to the architecture of the universe

[Leo Gura]

22 hours ago, wildflower said:

Applying QM principals to large mass in this context isn't correct

I was speaking of things way beyond QM. Don't limit your understanding to strict QM or you will remain stupid.

Just contemplate What is an elephant when you're not looking at it? You'll realize it obviously collapses into Infinity. QM is irrelevant here.

[wildflower]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was speaking of things way beyond QM. Don't limit your understanding to strict QM or you will remain stupid.

Just contemplate What is an elephant when you're not looking at it? You'll realize it obviously collapses into Infinity. QM is irrelevant here.

Sure, this was just something I picked up on as I genuinely try to listen to what someone says, and take their arguments on their own merit. I agree with your thesis on QM, science, rationality etc, but essentially for me they all meet at the very end anyway and collapse, it's just how you arrive to the end

Can you please expand on the second line. Are you stating when you don't look at an elephant it's form changes? Or if you don't look at another human their form changes?  It's really hard to know how to interpret what your saying without the context

 

[Zeroguy]

Unified Field=Pure Love

All will point to Truth.

[Zeroguy]

Also field of pure potential well here we are too.If potential is actual infinity well we can do the math and look around.

Or maybe math itself and physics is so miniscule and so limited.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Zeroguy

[cetus]

 Nicely said.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, wildflower said:

Can you please expand on the second line. Are you stating when you don't look at an elephant it's form changes? Or if you don't look at another human their form changes?  It's really hard to know how to interpret what your saying without the context

No object has a stable objective form. Form is relative to your perception of it. When you're not perceiving an object is collapses back into Infinity. Every object is identical to every other object until you polarize/collapse/distinguish it with your perceptual system.

You can think of your perceptual system as a filter upon Infinity. You filter Infinity down into an elephant by distinguishing it from everything else. And if you stop filtering/distinguishing it, it returns back to Infinity because Infinity is what everything is when it is unfiltered and undistinguished.

What you're missing is a realization of total ontological relativity. All physical objects are relative. They only exist if you filter Infinity a certain way. You need to let go of the notion that physical objects have any sort of stable form or existence.

[Zeroguy]

5 minutes ago, cetus said:

 Nicely said.

Correct term will be Singularity which is beyond every possible Infinity.They really need experience of that so they will get from where all this talk comes from.

[cetus]

 And so we meet at that place where talk ends, Mu

[Zeroguy]

Just now, cetus said:

 And so we meet at that place where talk ends,

Love you.

Love you all guys .Trust me all human made theories and inventions are a just a joke .They really are.Compared with that.What that can create and make you concious off.No limits.For real.

 

[wildflower]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No object has a stable objective form. Form is relative to your perception of it. When you're not perceiving an object is collapses back into Infinity. Every object is identical to every other object until you polarize/collapse/distinguish it with your perceptual system.

You can think of your perceptual system as a filter upon Infinity. You filter Infinity down into an elephant by distinguishing it from everything else. And if you stop filtering/distinguishing it, it returns back to Infinity because Infinity is what everything is when it is unfiltered and undistinguished.

What you're missing is a realization of total ontological relativity. All physical objects are relative. They only exist if you filter Infinity a certain way.

Gotcha, this is one of those things were contexts need to be explicit else it becomes a bamboozle. 

Just so we are on the same page: essentially you are pointing out the fact that everything is essentially arbitrary boundaries and classifications (archetypal derivatives) we overlay on top of perception to (ego-self) subjectively and relatively make sense of it. Beneath this apriori metaphysical model is nothingness, or infinity, until we start to  arbitrarily create finite things from this infinitude via our archetypal metaphysical constructs. 

Like for example, there is no fixed absolute boundary to what we class as a human, you can't find one, same with colours, there is no absolute fixed boundary between 'yellow' and 'orange', etc etc

The way I interpreted it from your video was you were implying that reality itself changes completely when we don't percieve it, like something out of Dr Strange or another dimension

Edited August 10, 2021 by wildflower

[Zeroguy]

@wildflower You  don't really perceive anything.Hahaha

Hard to understand yet.

[wildflower]

Also just want to add @Leo Gura Im sure you have read alot of Jung (I have a discord on jungian psychology), but essentially a lot of his work and associated work goes into explaining the archetypal nature of mind, and the work is foundational to good epistemology. His work on synchronicity which was widely discounted by science is also  interesting, it's an acausal model. Jung wasn't enlightened but his work gives a good context to relative domain

Edited August 10, 2021 by wildflower

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, wildflower said:

Just so we are on the same page: essentially you are pointing out the fact that everything is essentially arbitrary boundaries and classifications (archetypal derivatives) we overlay on top of perception to (ego-self) subjectively and relatively make sense of it. Beneath this apriori metaphysical model is nothingness, or infinity, until we start to  arbitrarily create finite things from this infinitude via our archetypal metaphysical constructs.

No, that's not what I said.

What I said was, the physical object "an elephant" is a relative filtration down of Infinity into a finite form.

There is Infinity. When you look at Infinity from one angle, it looks like an elephant, when you look at it from another angle, it looks like a horse, from another angle, it looks like a pencil, and so on ad infinitum.

[Zeroguy]

2 hours ago, cetus said:

 And so we meet at that place where talk ends, Mu

I know .We never left. 

[Purple Man]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, that's not what I said.

What I said was, the physical object "an elephant" is a relative filtration down of Infinity into a finite form.

There is Infinity. When you look at Infinity from one angle, it looks like an elephant, when you look at it from another angle, it looks like a horse, from another angle, it looks like a pencil, and so on ad infinitum.

There is a particular word choice that I love when it comes to describe this process of creating a form from formless modelling clay: "Infinity cognizes everything into existence". For the Absolute "cognizing" is "creating". "Stop cognizing" is sending form back into formless.

[wildflower]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, that's not what I said.

What I said was, the physical object "an elephant" is a relative filtration down of Infinity into a finite form.

There is Infinity. When you look at Infinity from one angle, it looks like an elephant, when you look at it from another angle, it looks like a horse, from another angle, it looks like a pencil, and so on ad infinitum.

Yeah that's more radical. Lot's of questions come to my mind, like the consistency of reality, why everytime we look the object isn't a different one etc, maybe you explain all this in a video?

The only thing I could possibly have to relate to what your saying is just when have strong trips, and consciousness collapsing back down into finite form, but I couldn't make any absolute ontological claims from these experiences.

Here's a drawing I did after a trip to explain the experience of being abstract potentiality (the outer part) collapsing back down and crystalizing to a single point of perception, it may be somewhat related to what your saying, but these things are hard to convey with words, thats why I tried to draw it

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by wildflower

[Chris365]

16 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

They say that it could only be measured if the speed of light is the same in both directions and that is unprovable ... well, I don't understand. if you move the lasers 1 km away, you measure from one side, then from the other, it gives you the same values, and that's it 

Why not? It is a very counterintuitive theory but its validity has been proven many times 

But anyway, i asked why they said the light have not any speed, like it's instantaneous, or infinite speed. I read that some times in this forum, one time in a post of Leo, maybe this is any theory , I'd like to know the reason to affirm that

 

I only have a passing interest in quantum physics and astrophysics, I'm afraid I can't explain it any better than the video i linked above... they specialize in communicating science ideas to 'normies' , I don't ??

[Breakingthewall]

58 minutes ago, Chris365 said:

they specialize in communicating science ideas to 'normies' , I don't ??

I don't like that word, normies,  it makes me think of a group of snobs who think they are superior because of their supposed open-mindedness that later turns out not to be. I imagine them dressed in white linen and greeting each other saying "namaste" with a reverence, trying to look advanced all the time??

Edited August 11, 2021 by Breakingthewall

[Nahm]

19 hours ago, wildflower said:

essentially for me they all meet at the very end anyway and collapse, it's just how you arrive to the end

If it’s about how you arrive to an end, it’s a mental narrative, as there is neither. What you’re talking about isn’t scientific in actuality. It is the room, the body mind, etc, the whole or oneness of experience. What you’re referring to scientifically is literally you, “collapsing” (if you must), being experience. At it’s best, quantum mechanics serves as a pointer to a dreamboard, to realize and consciously play in, as, the actuality. 

A day, a hundred, a million years of scientific what answering, it doesn’t matter. ‘What’ is already a self referential thought.