Leo's Quantum Physics video is wrong (as well as others)

[GreenWoods]

50 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

But does God need to understand how reality works? 

God is Reality. God has perfect Self-understanding. 

[WelcometoReality]

45 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

God is Reality. God has perfect Self-understanding. 

What knows that? ?

[JuliusCaesar]

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

 

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

@JuliusCaesar Well, dreams are way less vivid then real life.

Your dreams are, and most of mine are. Though some of my dreams are as vivid as the dream you call real life. If you practice lucid dreaming to any serious degree, you would experience that yourself. In fact, sleeping dreams can be even more vivid then the waking dream. Does that make them the real world and the one you think is real merely a fantasy?

 

There's a further issue with your assumption, and that's that it isn't in fact rational to assume that reality should be vivid. Because your memories of the waking world are as cloudy and disconnected as your memories of the dream world(and that's assuming you remember the dream at all). So, by your own logic you shouldn't be able to trust your memories of the "real world" either as they aren't as vivid as the present moment. If you can't trust your memories, then you also can't trust your present experience either as it will turn into a memory in the future. Furthermore, you wouldn't be able to trust your understanding of causality, science, physics etc etc.

 

I'm able to anticipate that you'll rebut by arguing that dreams can't be real because they don't always conform to the expectations of a Newtonian Clockwork universe. The problem is that you're effectively assuming that the laws of physics can only be one way(that is to say, there can only be one specific physics that's correct). For example, you have the fact that General Relativity, and QM very obviously contradict Newtonian Mechanics. And yet QM is the most successful theory in scientific history.

 

Another issue with your logic, is that I've personally experienced precognitive dreams. That accurately foretold things which should have been humanly impossible to know. There are also many others like myself, and in fact psychic phenomena itself has been studied and verified rather thoroughly. But the issue here with any of what I have said is that at your level of development, you're likely not to be open minded enough to even accept the possibility that the supernatural might be real. And you also assume that if it is real, it should be easily demonstrable because you imagine then a human which is Omnipotent, or practically so. But what you fail to realize, is that the level of proficiency in occult arts you're expecting is so difficult to attain that virtually no one is there. So what you have are a wide variety of individuals at an insignificant level of competency who as such are capable of doing very little. They might be able to predict the toss of a coin to 55% accuracy in a trial of 10,000 tosses for instance. But you'd probably want a study where only correct predictions were made. Which is like expecting a child to build a 40 story skyscraper all by himself from scratch.

 

 

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

@JuliusCaesarI think I see what you're saying. We just have assume that the colour we see are the same.

This applies not only to colours, but literally every aspect of the human experience. For example, if what you call a human is what I call a dog. Then everytime we've pointed at a dog and agreed it was a dog, we'd actually being experiencing completely different lifeforms. So the notion that we all live in the same reality is taken purely on blind faith. But it must be believed or at least taken for granted, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to function properly in the dream of consensus reality.

 

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

 The light spectrum of physics has certainly worked however, because we all can only see the same colours within a certain wavelength range. And not the ones from outside that wavelength range, which we would no know about without physics.

Think back to the last time you remembered a dream upon waking. Did you see things in that dream? That means there was EM radiation, otherwise your visual capacity would have been inoperable. You could just as easily do physics on the light in your sleeping dream as scientists do in the waking dream.

 

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

@JuliusCaesar Yeah, I get a little lost here. Thus just sounds like semantics to me.

Well naturally, I'm attempting to articulate things to you that are from outside the human experience when all you have had are human experiences. Consider this, if I turned you into a single celled amoeba with your human memories intact. How effective do you think you would be in explaining to the other amoebae what it's like to be human?

 

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

Because as I've learned, if you want to know if something is true or not, you test it in the world world with repeatability in a high quality study.

This is essentially at the heart of the dogma of materialism. This unreasonable bias toward the empirical and away from the anecdotal. The idea is that if something is real(that means it holds true in consensus reality) it should be replicated a large quantity of times, by a large quantity of different observers. Take for example, the fact that every human since the dawn of time has observed what appears to be a flat earth(because it's really a very large sphere). How empirical is that observation(of a flat horizon/water level in great bodies of water)? Well, there's something like 7.85 billion humans currently inhabiting the Earth, and reasonably speaking they've all observed this apparently flat surface. You might say, well what about the images from space or what about eyewitness testimony from astronauts. Mind you, eyewitness testimony is highly valid in the court of law but in the court of science it's held in the lowest esteem. And really, most humans have no direct access to the technology required to enter low earth orbit so they have no first hand experience that such a thing is real or even possible. So clearly, a flat earth is more empirically substantiated than a round earth. And yet you know that in reality the earth isn't flat. Now of course, there are less direct ways of determining the shape of the earth then simply going into space(some of which I myself have used). But that is beside the point as I'm addressing the issue of empirical vs anecdotal.

 

The solution to this problem is to blend the anecdotal with the empirical in a coherent way. This is to say that, if certain phenomena which are empirical are also corroborated by the anecdotal, it should be assumed that observation is of a higher level of validity then it would otherwise be. This of course goes both ways, but I don't need to tell you that because you believe the empirical is somehow superior to the anecdotal. Anyhow, this integration also must occur at the level of 1st person vs 3rd person experience. That is to say for example, that if you hear of an apparently empirically substantiated fact(like the notion that QM is the most successful scientific theory to date). Because the experimental evidence was acquired by individuals other than yourself, it would be irrational to simply assume that the notion is true. For instance, how do you know that Quantum Entanglement is part of reality? If that question is asked of me, I can answer it. It's because I've become Omniscient to the point of realizing my Omnipresent nature. And consequently, I know firsthand that reality is one. So obviously, Quantum Entanglement is a phenomena that, while it seems outside of everyday experience and from that standpoint ridiculous and impossible(because everyday experience is on the level of the macroscopic illusion) I know it to be not only possibly correct, but inevitably so from firsthand experience. You see how I have first person and third person experiences blended into the same thing?

 

There's another dimension of this I feel I haven't properly elucidated. And that's that the integration of soft and hard sciences must also come with some sense of logical consistency on some level. Because we're dealing with truths of the relative domain, non contradiction usually holds to be true. Or another way of putting it, is that the fundamental nature of reality is so highly paradoxical and contradictory that it can manage to be fully logically consistent whilst contradicting itself. Take the example of a flat earth for instance. I know that yes on the one hand, the water in my bathtub appears to be flat. But on the other hand, I also have seen ships disappear over the horizon. And furthermore, I've seen them zoomed in on and the portion lost never recovers in spite of what flat earthers will say about it just being perspective. Also, once in Florida for my Cousin's wedding about 4 years ago. I was on a beach and went up and down stairs and looked upon a city in the distance. I noticed that, when I went up the stairs the buildings rose with me, and when I descended they fell. Such that at the top of the stairs I could see more of them and at the bottom as some of the portion I saw at the top had fallen below the horizon. You probably know that just as a 4 year old could tell you, on a round earth going higher allows you to see further around it. Consequently, the only way to explain this in a flat earth paradigm would be to assume it was some kind of optical illusion. Like, maybe atmospherically induced refraction of the light created the illusion that the buildings were under the ground. The problem is that if you run the numbers on that. You'll find the index of refraction of the atmosphere is far too low to produce such distortions. I can believe this because I know firsthand this is indeed the case. You see how the empirical evidence(many different instances of partially disappeared objects on youtube) and my personal experience(what happened to me in Florida) allows me to believe that the footage on youtube isn't doctored or something, and the fact that many other humans are uploading phenomena validating the same demonstrates that I  don't have to worry that I might alone be dreaming up a spherical earth whereas the rest of the species is imagining a flat earth(or to adopt the phraseology of your worldview, that I might be a schizophrenic for experiencing a curved earth because the real thing is flat due to the fact that everyone else experiences a flat earth).

 

I know I've used excessive space explaining how I know the Earth isn't flat. But I've still got another dimension of integration to explain which fits perfectly into the overall narrative of the previous paragraph. And that's on the level of overall validity. You see, thus far I've demonstrated the Earth can't reasonably be flat because it must have some degree of curvature. But what if it isn't spherical? What if it were shaped like an egg for example. How do I know the distribution of curvature is even enough for the Earth's shape to be mostly consistent with a sphere? Consider this, if the earth were flat, then from all points on earth the sun would be travelling at the same degree. Imagine you're a cosmic being looking down on earth. It's shaped like a pizza and you can see the sun circling it at an of arc 90 degrees to it's surface(so like how the sun appears in real life from earth's equator). Now imagine you become a human standing in the middle of the pizza(what would be the north pole). Observe the sun and notice that the path it travels through the sky is at a right angle to the horizon. Now imagine you teleport to Ecuador, you do the same experiment and you would see the sun's diurnal arc has shifted but is still at a right angle to the horizon. How would it appear if the Earth were spherical? Well, let's do the same thought experiment. Let the sun run 90 degrees to the horizon from the equator. Now become a human on the equator, and notice that the diurnal arc of the sun is 90 degrees to the horizon. Now, teleport yourself to the North pole. You can see the sun because it's directly overhead at the tropic of cancer. You see the diurnal arc of the sun is not perpendicular to the horizon as it was from the equator. But is now parallel at an angle of 0 degrees relative to the horizon. Now, imagine you teleport yourself halfway between the equator and north pole and repeat the experiment. Now the sun appears to have vertical and horizontal movement. Because it's travelling straight up and down but not at a right angle as it was from the equator, but instead at a declination of 45 degrees. Or another way of putting it. Is that the sun now appears to be horizontally zigging back and forth(as it was from the north pole) but with a 45 degree tilt from the horizontal. Obviously, this means that if you went even 1 degree north or south(that is up or down relative to the equator). The celestial sphere(that is, the apparent object in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are) would shift a degree in the opposite direction. Which means, that if I'm living on a sphere my experience of the sun's diurnal arc would be affected by the curvature of the earth. Such that if I watched the sun for a day and traced out it's motion in the sky comparing it's angle against the horizon. And then went, say 70 miles north and repeated the same experiment. That I'd see a difference in angle proportional to whatever degree the earth's curvature would be over the 70 mile change in latitude(which according to mainstream science is just over 1 degree). I live in Pueblo Colorado, USA. And according to Google, my latitude is 38.2544° N. I've observed the sun travelling at an angle of approximately 38.25 degrees to the horizon. Which is perfectly consistent with everything mainstream science has to say about the shape of earth. Furthermore, I've seen timelapse videos of the sun from the Equator in which the sun's diurnal arc was perfectly at a right angle to the horizon. I accept that these were not faked footage for many reasons. One, it's rather empirical because there are many examples of this and as far as I know no one has ever even attempted to refute this fact(that includes the many flat earthers on the internet). Furthermore, I already know from direct experience that the Earth has some kind of curvature(refer to what I observed in Florida). So to sum up, I know that I'm tilted approximately 38.25 degrees north of the people on Equator because I've seen this deviation in the sun's diurnal arc. Which is inevitably something that should only occur if the Earth were Spherical. As I also have footage of observers from Alaska showing the sun travelling at an arc of around 25 degrees(depending on where exactly in Alaska the timelapse was taken, there's some variation). Which ironically is also used by flat earthers to argue that the earth couldn't possibly be moving. Because they think for the sun to travel vertically around you and your camera to see it the whole time the earth must be stationary. Of course, what they fail to realize is that the earth being stationary and the sun moving, or the sun moving and the earth being stationary both produce the same effects on the celestial sphere. And consequently there is no way to determine whether or not the earth is in motion from simply doing naked eye astronomy. Anyhow, the point is that given all the observations I've cited, the Earth would necessarily be a perfect sphere(or incredibly close to it). Because there is no other shape that would be consistent with the "wonky" behavior of the sun(that is wonky from the point of view of an intellectually honest flat earther). The curvature clearly both exists and is far too consistently distrusted in 3 dimensions to produce any other shape.

 

Okay, so the point of the tangent I just went on was to show you the fastidious and exhaustive deliberation with which I handled the issue of adjudicating between the possibility of a flat vs spherical earth. And notice that I almost appear skeptical of basic mainstream scientific facts at times(which in general one maybe shouldn't be). I did that to demonstrate how the empirical and anecdotal require integration, as well 1st person and 3rd person experience. And furthermore, that skepticism needs no upper boundary as long as your skepticism is proportional to the extent that you're skeptical of your skepticism. Or articulated another way, open mindedness needs no limit as long you're equally open to the possibility that everything you've heard/believed could be wrong. Of course, it's more likely that there were bits of the truth amidst the falsehood. 

 

If I am correct in assuming that you understand and hopefully accept the things I've said. You would realize that you don't actually know if supernatural things are unreal. Because naturally, you would have to investigate the subject with an open mind. And you would also need to be patient realizing that attaining certain powers may be more difficult than you want it to be, or have been told that it is. So for example, you would probably start with studying sorcery or psychics or something along those lines. And if you did, you might hear someone saying they did something you think is impossible. But keep in mind that you as a human have no control over possibility and impossibility, and as such it's entirely possible that they were telling the truth. And the only way for you to discover for yourself whether or not this is the case is to attempt to recreate the same.

 

I'll give you an example of something I've done that I never have shared with anyone here on this forum or anywhere else. But I think might be valuable to you. I was listening to this specialized guided meditation track once in the morning. It was designed to produce a lucky day, where everything fortuitously falls into place and I reach my goals easily and effortlessly. The first day of this, I simply listened to the track once in the morning then did nothing with it. I went to sleep, and woke up the next day from a most troubling dream. I was pushing my dad in a wheelchair through a nursing home(he's not old or injured in the waking dream) and I go past a boy who was running from a drug deal he did or something shady like that, and he dropped a foreign currency note on the ground. I believe it was a 5 euro note, but then again it may have been from a country not even in consensus reality as I don't recall exactly what the note looked like.

 

Anyway, I remembered more of the dream but that was the only relevant part of it. So it's the next morning and I do my meditation again.  I went for a walk that morning after finishing my meditation. And decided I wanted to test it by manifesting a $100 bill laying on the path I would find and take for myself. Well, at first it seemed to be going well because my emotions were much more positive than they usually are. And I engaged in what essentially is like a daydreaming fantasy akin to what you might do ordinarily in the sexual domain. But, when I had finished the walk the experience hadn't happened. And I felt somewhat upset for having apparently failed.

 

Later in the day, my dad called me and asked if I wanted to eat at Carl's Jr with him. I said yes, and he picked me up and we drove to Carl's. When we arrived I found 2 one dollar bills laying on the ground of the sidewalk. I then proceeded forward with a sense of vindication and the utmost joy, and put that money in my pocket. And my dad said something about the money beforehand, and I said it's mine now.  Keep in mind, it may not have been the $100 I originally asked for, and it may not have materialized at exactly the time I wanted it to. But that's the only time in my 22 years as a human I've ever found money randomly on the ground other than one other time I was in Washington DC, I got lucky by accident on that occasion, and it was years ago. Furthermore, I had a dream predicting(roughly, not in the highest quality possible, I've had precognitive dreams with much greater clarity and precision than this one) what would happen in advance. In it, I was with my dad carrying him around in a wheelchair which represented me trying not to anger him because we disagreed about something and I was tiptoeing around the issue(at the time we were driving to Carl's), and some kid lost his money on the ground and I saw it in the dream(which corresponds with whoever I made lose that two dollars in consensus reality). So to sum up, the fact that this is a rare occurrence lends to the possibility that my will materialized in sort of a lose way. And the fact that I had a dream predicting the scenario ahead of time should be the final nail in the coffin of doubt that my mind created the experience.

 

If you desire to learn more about reality's mechanics with respect to the above account, then read Liquid Luck: The Good Fortune Handbook by Joe Gallenberger. Also, I recommend you watch the following video. As it refers to an example of another person doing something similar to what I did, only to a much higher degree of competence(which she did without liquid luck but solely with her mind, though it required more effort. And I probably got more bang for my buck so to speak, just by virtue of how little I did to affect consensus reality.) Please do what I have asked, it shouldn't take too much of your time. And if you're a true scientist you will see it through.

 

[GreenWoods]

2 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

What knows that? ?

God

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, GreenWoods said:

God

No that's not it.

[caelanb]

On 2021-09-24 at 10:44 PM, Leo Gura said:

No, it's just a factual description of the situation.

@Leo Gura What do you mean by factual. I'm a little confused, in your science video you said that facts are just imaginary. So, then the above quote is imaginary? What is the difference between a statement you say is factual vs a statement you say is not factual? Sounds like you are contradicting yourself with different statements that you make; 'so and so is factually true', and other times you say ' so and so is a belief'. I don't really understand.

On 2021-09-25 at 1:38 AM, Leo Gura said:

Because the materialist's game is to pretend as though quantum mysticism is some stupid New Age idea invented by Deepak Chopra. When in fact it was developed by the most serious intellectuals who invented QM.

The materialists aren't playing a fair fight. Because their ideology is false. So they have to resort to smear tactics and ridicule. It's ignorant as hell.

The first natural philosophers were way more intelligent and had a deeper understanding of reality than any modern scientist.

It is not an accident that the majority of philosophers were idealists and Platonists. Because idealism is true.

Modern day materialists have distorted the history of science and philosophy to make it seems that science was always materialist and atheist, when in fact it never was. Materialism is a stupidity that was developed in the last few centuries. And soon it will die a cringe-worthy death, similar to phrenology.

Pretty soon humans will laugh at materialism the way they laugh at phrenology. And people like Professor Dave will go down in the history books as an embarrassment to science.

@Leo Gura Are you also saying that the 'Scientific Method, Data Presentation, Scientific Writing' Workshop I'm reading is full of philosophical assumptions that the scientists who wrote it take for granted?

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

 

@Leo Gura Are you also saying that the 'Scientific Method, Data Presentation, Scientific Writing' Workshop I'm reading is full of philosophical assumptions that the scientists who wrote it take for granted?

Of-fucking-course!

Science cannot be done without it. It's just all implicit and unconscious. Most assumptions you hold you are not conscious of. It takes years of serious contemplating to unearth them.

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Blackhawk These quotes are like to say: game, set, match or check mate. I would add photon's perspective according to the principal of equivelance - the most profound discovery of general relativity theory. But, to read these stuff is one thing. Understanding these all implications requires some meta - level of consciousness.

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, caelanb said:

Are you also saying that the 'Scientific Method, Data Presentation, Scientific Writing' Workshop I'm reading is full of philosophical assumptions that the scientists who wrote it take for granted?

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that they're fronting a positivist framework.

[caelanb]

On 2021-09-30 at 8:49 PM, Leo Gura said:

Of-fucking-course!

Science cannot be done without it. It's just all implicit and unconscious. Most assumptions you hold you are not conscious of. It takes years of serious contemplating to unearth them.

@Leo Gura Oh, well I would partially disagree with you, but since I have not done serious contemplation, my disagreements would probably be naive based on where you're coming from.

@BlackhawkHave you ever wondered whether or not the fathers of Quantum mechanics actually meant their quotes to mean that the world is not physical? You may just be interpreting the quotes in that way. The fathers may not actually have thought the world was not really physical, the quote may just make it seem that way. Plus, if they were actually saying that the world was not physical, most physicist would have already accepted as common knowledge. Thus, it is most likely a miss interpretation of what the fathers were actually trying to say.

On 2021-09-30 at 11:35 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that they're fronting a positivist framework.

@Carl-Richard I'm not exactly sure what that means. But from a search it said that all factual information can only be derived from ones sensory experience. Is that correct?

@JuliusCaesar First of all,holy sh*t that's long, and second, I very much appreciate the thought.

On 2021-09-28 at 2:19 AM, JuliusCaesar said:

Okay, so the point of the tangent I just went on was to show you the fastidious and exhaustive deliberation with which I handled the issue of adjudicating between the possibility of a flat vs spherical earth. And notice that I almost appear skeptical of basic mainstream scientific facts at times(which in general one maybe shouldn't be). I did that to demonstrate how the empirical and anecdotal require integration, as well 1st person and 3rd person experience. And furthermore, that skepticism needs no upper boundary as long as your skepticism is proportional to the extent that you're skeptical of your skepticism. Or articulated another way, open mindedness needs no limit as long you're equally open to the possibility that everything you've heard/believed could be wrong. Of course, it's more likely that there were bits of the truth amidst the falsehood. 

Another issue with your logic, is that I've personally experienced precognitive dreams. That accurately foretold things which should have been humanly impossible to know. There are also many others like myself, and in fact psychic phenomena itself has been studied and verified rather thoroughly. But the issue here with any of what I have said is that at your level of development, you're likely not to be open minded enough to even accept the possibility that the supernatural might be real. And you also assume that if it is real, it should be easily demonstrable because you imagine then a human which is Omnipotent, or practically so. But what you fail to realize, is that the level of proficiency in occult arts you're expecting is so difficult to attain that virtually no one is there. So what you have are a wide variety of individuals at an insignificant level of competency who as such are capable of doing very little. They might be able to predict the toss of a coin to 55% accuracy in a trial of 10,000 tosses for instance. But you'd probably want a study where only correct predictions were made. Which is like expecting a child to build a 40 story skyscraper all by himself from scratch.

I understand what you're getting at with the Earth thing, but unfortunately I do not understand a lot of the terminology that you used to get there. I find it a little challenging to incorporate science and personal experience in order to discover what's true. Because in your case you said that you had to change location in order to test the theory, which is not always a simple thing to do.

Which would mean to be the ultimate scientist you would have to go out and test every single scientific claim made. Which would be impossible to do. But hypothetically if you did, and you proved everything true for yourself (assuming you did every experiment correct and accurately), you would therefore be able to say that you do not believe every scientific claim is true, but know they are all true.

I used to be completely closed minded to psychic powers and the like, but after watching enough of Leo I realize that cannot deny psychic powers to be true or false because I have not seen them, but it seems fairly unlikely. Most people would say it is not true, due to the fact that it is hard to test as well as the studies are not rigorous enough, and thus cannot be reliably shown to be true.

On 2021-09-28 at 2:19 AM, JuliusCaesar said:

It was designed to produce a lucky day, where everything fortuitously falls into place and I reach my goals easily and effortlessly

In my point of view, the track did not have anything to do with the money you received, but I may be wrong. This because in order for something to be true it has to be consistently reproducible, as well as clear enough to be significant.

[Blackhawk]

12 minutes ago, caelanb said:

 

@BlackhawkHave you ever wondered whether or not the fathers of Quantum mechanics actually meant their quotes to mean that the world is not physical? You may just be interpreting the quotes in that way. The fathers may not actually have thought the world was not really physical, the quote may just make it seem that way. Plus, if they were actually saying that the world was not physical, most physicist would have already accepted as common knowledge. Thus, it is most likely a miss interpretation of what the fathers were actually trying to say.

Seriously? I know it's difficult to digest what they said but come on.. Try to not so desperately explain it away.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Carl-Richard]

50 minutes ago, caelanb said:

@Carl-Richard I'm not exactly sure what that means. But from a search it said that all factual information can only be derived from ones sensory experience. Is that correct?

That is a rough description of one aspect of it (the empirical aspect). Positivism is generally the idea that we can explain the world by formulating consistent natural laws, and that the only valid methods to do so are analytical reasoning and empirical observation.

Post-positivistic thought emphasizes things like the limits and inconsistencies of such laws (which became rather apparent in QM btw), the relationship between the subject and the object in determining reasoning and observation (also QM related), the relation between the part and the whole (component-system), and the utility of other methods like introspection and transrational cognition.

Posivitivism is analytic, linear, reductionistic, and virtually always mechanistic and atomistic, focused on parts/components/essence. Post-positivist thought is systemic, constructivistic, relational, non-linear, focused on complexity and holism.

[JuliusCaesar]

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

Most people would say it is not true, due to the fact that it is hard to test as well as the studies are not rigorous enough

This is precisely the basis upon which the scientific community rejected heliocentric theory for so many centuries. Stellar parallax had never demonstrated to exist because it's so subtle that no one had the means to discover it until the advent of powerful telescopes. Think about it like this, if we sent you back 500 years in time and tried to explain the wonders of the modern world(modern technology) to people. They would think you're some kind of dystopian dreamer and likely label you a warlock and burn you at the stake. So appealing to popular opinion is far from rational, and appealing to empiricism is also irrational(see my first post). At the end of the day, you'll need to verify things firsthand to truly know their validity.

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

I used to be completely closed minded to psychic powers and the like, but after watching enough of Leo I realize that cannot deny psychic powers to be true or false because I have not seen them

This is reasonable, though you have to keep in mind that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

This because in order for something to be true it has to be consistently reproducible, as well as clear enough to be significant.

In my direct experience this is so. I would have to mention more of my experiences with it. And I don't believe it would be beneficial to you to hear them as you'd still need firsthand experience of these things in order to determine their validity anyway. And me telling you accounts of my experiences is no different to you than listening for example to the experience of Dr. Dispenza's daughter, or anyone else for that matter.

 

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

In my point of view, the track did not have anything to do with the money you received, but I may be wrong.

At the time I probably would have drawn the same conclusion had I not had a dream beforehand which predicted the event in advance(albeit in a highly cryptic way, which at the time of waking up I didn't fully comprehend). It's good that you're open minded enough to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.  

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

I find it a little challenging to incorporate science and personal experience in order to discover what's true. Because in your case you said that you had to change location in order to test the theory, which is not always a simple thing to do.

In ancient times this was more difficult. But because we have access to modern transportation, this doesn't really hold for us. If you want to know how the Sun travels through the sky from the Equator, you just buy a plane ticket to Ecuador or a country which is similarly proximate. And if you want to know how it appears from Alaska in December, you just fly to Alaska etc etc. If you did this experiment, you'd find angular deviation in the Sun's diurnal arc between the two locations. Which should be impossible on a flat earth(you'd see the objects in the sky travelling at the same angle from every point on the Earth, as there's no curvature to tilt one point away from the other). I hope I've sort of simplified my argument a bit, though there was more to it than just what I have articulated here.

Edited October 2, 2021 by JuliusCaesar

[caelanb]

On 2021-10-02 at 1:44 PM, Blackhawk said:

Seriously? I know it's difficult to digest what they said but come on.. Try to not so desperately explain it away.

@Blackhawk I understand that what is being said is obvious but what I'm trying to say is that if all those quotes are true, and to be taken metaphorically and literately as they are described, then the physics and scientists of today would not be saying that the world is made up of atoms. quarks, strings, and whatever else they discover, they would/should instead be saying that nothing exists without your perception of it (which may or may not mean that we are imagining a reality that we are experiencing, and may or may not come with some philosophical implications), if they don't, they are essentially being stupid and ignorant of the nature of the fundamental particles that make up the universe. And the fact that physicists and scientists (such as Dave here) say that connecting quantum physics to quantum mysticism, is BS, then gives you a clue that he/the rest of scientists are interpreting quantum mechanics in a way that may be being misinterpreted from the quotes themselves, but is actually what quantum mechanics is saying (because they understand it). For example, "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.", doesn't mean that particles don't exist, it just means that they are probabilities, and saying they don't exist is just an assumption/misinterpretation that quantum mystics make to try to say that reality is not real or whatever they want to say, but isn't what is being said.

I hope that makes sense.

[Carl-Richard]

On 4.10.2021 at 8:44 PM, caelanb said:

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.", doesn't mean that particles don't exist, it just means that they are probabilities, and saying they don't exist is just an assumption/misinterpretation that quantum mystics make to try to say that reality is not real or whatever they want to say, but isn't what is being said.

The concept of a particle is a remnant of the outdated Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of determinism, causality and locality. The discovery of the quantum realms obviously shattered these notions, and this lead to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (Bohr and Heisenberg), which views what was previously thought of as particles as "probabilities of interconnections", where the "interconnection" is the relationship between "the observer" and "the observed". In other words, it's the probabilities of a scientist measuring something.

However, Einstein was not satisfied with such a view and instead argued that this interpretation was only evidence that the models were incomplete and that they would sooner or later be replaced by deterministic/particle-friendly models in the future (which lead to the Bohr-Einstein debates), but as far as we've seen, this is not the case. The Copenhagen interpretation remains as the most parsimonious and comprehensive interpretation of QM. The concept of a "particle" only remains as a metaphysical artefact that pays homage to the fathers of classical mechanics and serves to satisfisfy our common sense conceptions of everyday phenomena.

In fact, it's the Copenhagen interpretation that historically lead to the drawing of parallels between mysticism and QM, because both emphasize the relational nature of reality (how reality consists of relationships between things; interconnections). Bohr and Heisenberg were both interested in actual mysticism, and Fritjof Capra wrote "the Tao of Physics" based on the Copenhagen interpretation and his correspondence with Heisenberg. The Taoist "Yin-Yang" symbol is of course the symbol that displays the interconnection between two parts (a "duality") and how two parts make up a whole ("non-duality"). So the relationship between "the observer" and "the observed" in QM and "Yin" and "Yang" in Taoism is the perfect encapsulation of how QM and mysticism are indeed interconnected.

[caelanb]

On 2021-10-02 at 3:44 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

At the end of the day, you'll need to verify things firsthand to truly know their validity.

@JuliusCaesar Does this mean that to be able to say anything is true, you would have to validate it for yourself. And only after you confirm the results then you can say something is true. This would be in fact be doing science; taking scientific claim (what an authority figure says) and testing it for yourself (empirically validating it). Just believing it is true would be blind faith, which that is sufficient for most people, however different from religious faith, because you could go and test whatever claim is being made if you chose to.

On 2021-10-04 at 5:45 PM, Carl-Richard said:

In fact, it's the Copenhagen interpretation that historically lead to the drawing of parallels between mysticism and QM, because both emphasize the relational nature of reality (how reality consists of relationships between things; interconnections). Bohr and Heisenberg were both interested in actual mysticism, and Fritjof Capra wrote "the Tao of Physics" based on the Copenhagen interpretation and his correspondence with Heisenberg. The Taoist "Yin-Yang" symbol is of course the symbol that displays the interconnection between two parts (a "duality") and how two parts make up a whole ("non-duality"). So the relationship between "the observer" and "the observed" in QM and "Yin" and "Yang" in Taoism is the perfect encapsulation of how QM and mysticism are indeed interconnected

@Carl-Richard Makes sense, thank you for the explanation. But this does not mean that nothing is real. It just means everything is interconnected. Just because Quantum mechanic is confusing and hard to understand, does not make it mystical (which mysticism itself is hard to understand; magical). Because in reality, the actual mathematics behind make sense (but are complicated), or I'm assuming that they do I've never looked at them myself, because if they didn't, physicists would call it mystical as well, which they don't. It just seems magical from the laymen perspective because they do not have the proper education in physics to understand whats going in. Which those quotes themselves (maybe/maybe not including the one you just explained) very much make Quantum mechanics seem magical, and thus leading to pseudoscientific claims about Quantum mechanics and mysticism being in parallel, with one another.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, caelanb said:

But this does not mean that nothing is real. It just means everything is interconnected.

"Real" and "unreal" is connected and ultimately one and the same. There is no difference really from an absolute perspective. The reason why non-dualists tend to say "nothing is real" is because people tend to claim the opposite, and the non-dualist is trying to point you towards dissolving the duality between "real" and "unreal". If you can hold "real" and "unreal" both at the same time, then the job is done.

 

1 hour ago, caelanb said:

Just because Quantum mechanic is confusing and hard to understand, does not make it mystical (which mysticism itself is hard to understand; magical). 

QM is not inherently confusing and hard to understand. It only becomes so when you try to reconcile the insights of QM with the old paradigms of classical mechanics and common sense everyday phenomena. QM and mysticism are similar because they go against analytical thinking and point towards holistic thinking (systems thinking), and most people are not used to thinking holistically.

 

1 hour ago, caelanb said:

Because in reality, the actual mathematics behind make sense (but are complicated), or I'm assuming that they do I've never looked at them myself, because if they didn't, physicists would call it mystical as well, which they don't.

You keep denying that the fathers of QM were fans of mysticism. Even Einstein, who mostly disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, was into god damn Spinozism, which is as non-dual as it gets. Not coincidentally, he invented the "theory of relativity", which again parallels the relational aspects uncovered by QM and mysticism.

 

1 hour ago, caelanb said:

It just seems magical from the laymen perspective because they do not have the proper education in physics to understand whats going in. Which those quotes themselves (maybe/maybe not including the one you just explained) very much make Quantum mechanics seem magical, and thus leading to pseudoscientific claims about Quantum mechanics and mysticism being in parallel, with one another.

Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg all had proper education in physics. They made fucking physics. Besides, who are you going to trust: the monkeys that type out the calculations or the people who invented the formulas?

[Zeroguy]

@Carl-Richard

I trust God realized people. All science is your own imagination. You created science. 

[Carl-Richard]

49 minutes ago, Zeroguy said:

@Carl-Richard

I trust God realized people. All science is your own imagination. You created science. 

You trust yourself

[JuliusCaesar]

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

Does this mean that to be able to say anything is true, you would have to validate it for yourself.

Precisely.

 

5 hours ago, caelanb said:

however different from religious faith, because you could go and test whatever claim is being made if you chose to.

Well, it is different from religious faith in a sense. But not because theology/religion is necessarily outside the realm of all possible science. Religious/theological claims can be tested scientifically. It's just the kind of testing necessary would likely be considered balderdash by most of today's scientists and thus religions are unlikely to actually to see any observational scrutiny(at least, from the majority of mainstream researchers). Instead what usually occurs is either the researchers take things on blind faith(because they belong to that specific religion) or they write it all off as nonsense without bothering to even conceive of ways to verify/falsify the claims being made.