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

[The0Self]

Scientists know more about science.

But there is no knowing anywhere -- and nobody and no scientist knows that either.

Sense is nonsense -- yet it's all there is. Which is not even a knowable true statement -- there is no true statement, which is also not a true statement, and so on...

Knowing nothing and knowing everything/anything are not two, and utterly empty of knowing itself or knowing something separate... There's no thing/object/subject/time/place/circumstance, and no one, to be separate in the first place.

There's simply no knowing.

Edited October 6, 2021 by The0Self

[caelanb]

On 2021-10-06 at 10:13 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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.

@Carl-Richard I guess that's understandable, if something does not seem to follow common sense at a subatomic level, then it would be challenging to reconcile how it affects large object that we think follow common sense. So, have we not been making progress in the connection of classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics without using mysticism? Maybe we have been, it's just very technical and mathematically complex.

On 2021-10-06 at 10:13 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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.

@Carl-Richard I am only partially denying that they were fans of mysticism, because there's a disconnect between what is said in the quotes and what modern physicists would say. If they were fans of mysticism then modern scientists would also be fans, because as long as the thought process behind them being fans makes sense according to what was understood and what is still understood about Quantum mechanics, there shouldn't be anything prevent a parallel. I also don't know much about the theory of relativity but from them small amount of reading I have done, that things can only be thought of as in relation to one another.

On 2021-10-06 at 10:13 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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?

@Carl-Richard I was saying that the average person does not a have proper education in physics, therefore, at a glance the average person would think of quantum mechanics as magical, because it makes no sense. Are you saying that even one who has a PhD in quantum theory/physics may not have the bigger picture understanding that the fathers of quantum mechanics actually had? Therefore, they are not able to see these relationships that are actually true between mysticism and Quantum mechanics, which I highly doubt, after all they have a PhDs, it means you have a great understanding of the subject. The equations and laws from the fathers should point them towards the same understanding/way of thinking that the fathers had. Or, it could be the case that what was known back in those days that seemed mystical, is no longer thought of as mystical, because we understand the mathematics/whatever was not well understood.

[Inliytened1]

@caelanbJust because you have an understanding of a thing does not mean you have a grasp/vision or are open minded to the epistemological and metaphysical ramifications of QM....that is a whole other thing.   The ramifications are extremely radical and most modern scientists do not want to go there.   It's too much and it would shatter their paradigm.   It would also alienate them from their peers and make them an outcast of academia..just for being ahead of their time.

[OneHandClap]

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@caelanbJust because you have an understanding of a thing does not mean you have a grasp/vision or are open minded to the epistemological and metaphysical ramifications of QM....that is a whole other thing.   The ramifications are extremely radical and most modern scientists do not want to go there.   It's too much and it would shatter their paradigm.   It would also alienate them from their peers and make them an outcast of academia..just for being ahead of their time.

I'm not sure on that part. I think most people can agree that QM messes with the standard models we had before, but it also doesn't seem to affect the large-scale structures of our other models (i.e. cellular reproduction still works, gravitational equations still work, etc). Philosophically it has tremendous implications, but I don't think it really encroaches much on our other models of reality. As long as an equation still "checks out" in practice, it has value for mundane matters like building bridges or curing diseases. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

If they were fans of mysticism then modern scientists would also be fans, because as long as the thought process behind them being fans makes sense according to what was understood and what is still understood about Quantum mechanics, there shouldn't be anything prevent a parallel.

This is your main assumption. Here is a couple of points:

There is a difference between revolutionizing science and practicing "normal science" (intraparadigmatic science), between creating the formulas and using the formulas, between being an innovator and a technician. Your focus and vision is completely different.

There is a trade-off in both attention and ability. For example, you're less likely to be a brilliant science communicator when you're a brilliant holistic scientist. It boils down to personality traits and focus. It's the difference between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Albert Einstein. 

The Cartesian-Newtonian worldview is sticky, because it is reinforced by common sense analytical thinking, and unless you deliberately spend time questioning those assumptions (which only some philosophers, mystics and revolutionary scientists do), your mind will not pierce that veil. The collective manifestation of this is the neopositivist spectre that has been haunting science for a century.

Epistemology does not need to be questioned for it to be programmed into your mind, and if you don't do the work, you will soak up the average cultural backdrop, which is non-holistic. It's perfectly possible for an analytical thinker to manipulate the formulas in QM, work on specializing himself as a technician in his little niche, and not ask too many questions about the bigger picture (in fact, he won't have time to do anything else).

At the end of the day, being a scientist is a profession. Everybody needs to work to survive, and survival is extremely streamlined: it takes shortcuts and minimizes information processing to save resources. Survival does not breed construct-awareness, and surviving as a career scientist does not make you construct-aware.

[caelanb]

On 2021-10-06 at 3:20 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Precisely.

 

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.

@JuliusCaesar What about the claims written in the bibles of different religions? Such as the claim that Jesus exists however long ago it was, and that he was the son of God. Most scientists or laymen would accept that as fact or fiction depending on their religion or lack there of. That claim would be impossible to verify, unless you were alive when Jesus was supposedly alive, and even if your were alive back then, how would you know he was the son of God. This and other similar claims from Christianity and other religions would be impossible to verify, because if you just go out in the world and try to look for evidence of Jesus having been alive you would most likely not find any. And so, would this fact be good enough evidence to disprove the previous claim? Or is a there an alternative woo woo way of verifying it? Meanwhile, going out and testing a scientific claim such as chlorophyll makes plants green, would be possible to validate, and thus a true statement.

 

On 2021-10-06 at 3:35 PM, The0Self said:

Scientists know more about science.

But there is no knowing anywhere -- and nobody and no scientist knows that either.

Sense is nonsense -- yet it's all there is. Which is not even a knowable true statement -- there is no true statement, which is also not a true statement, and so on...

Knowing nothing and knowing everything/anything are not two, and utterly empty of knowing itself or knowing something separate... There's no thing/object/subject/time/place/circumstance, and no one, to be separate in the first place.

There's simply no knowing.

@The0Self That doesn't make any sense. Scientists know science, and if they know science, then by definition, there is someone knowing science, which is not the same as no one knowing science. But, if you throw away logic, then sure, whatever you said works, precisely because it doesn't work. But that is circular thinking, and that's not how this world actually works, because if it were, then weird sh*t would be happening in our day to day life that don't follow laws.

[The0Self]

52 minutes ago, caelanb said:

@The0Self That doesn't make any sense. Scientists know science, and if they know science, then by definition, there is someone knowing science, which is not the same as no one knowing science. But, if you throw away logic, then sure, whatever you said works, precisely because it doesn't work. But that is circular thinking, and that's not how this world actually works, because if it were, then weird sh*t would be happening in our day to day life that don't follow laws.

That's fine. It's a paradox so of course it makes no sense. We're talking on two different levels, but you were talking about quantum physics, which precisely doesn't need to follow causality. Scientists are running into what's being pointed to, but are unwilling to go beyond the story, as they can't do so. You can't make sense of infinity -- only apparently so. There is no knowing though, in the sense that it's only an appearance.

[JuliusCaesar]

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

Such as the claim that Jesus exists however long ago it was, and that he was the son of God.

You're assuming it's impossible to travel back in time to meet Jesus. If you became omnipotent this would be easy for you. Furthermore, you're assuming there aren't indirect ways of verifying/falsifying these kinds of claims. Relative to the latter, I suggest you read the works of Ivan Panin and verify the math(I've done so personally). There are also other ways of testing these notions(like remote viewing/omniscience) but of course, you would have to reach a level of competency(in remote viewing for instance) where you know that your intuitions are correct and not merely egoically generated noise. Which you would determine by well, using it to predict the future for example. You'd probably have difficulty infallibly knowing things at first(especially if you just up and tried to remote view without any training). But there are ways for you to improve(and of course, you would need to verify that you've actually improved).

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

Or is a there an alternative woo woo way of verifying it?

There isn't anything woo woo or even unscientific to magick. And naturally I'm referring to real magick not the stage magic of illusionists, or the pretend magick of phony or even just incompetent sorcerers. Furthermore it's also possible to test the veracity of biblical texts through statistical analysis of the relations it's gematria has to natural law for example(I'm referring back to the work of Ivan Panin here).

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

Meanwhile, going out and testing a scientific claim such as chlorophyll makes plants green, would be possible to validate, and thus a true statement.

Obviously in some sense it's easier to measure things in the present than in the past.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

That doesn't make any sense.

He's trying to articulate a certain existential truth about reality that you're likely not prepared for(the only way to do that would be to become the thing in question). Namely, the paradoxical nature of reality. Even logic will wind up contradicting itself if you take it far enough. An example Leo loves to cite is the following. "This statement is false". In order for the statement to be false, it must be true that the statement is false. However, if it's true that the statement is false, then the statement must be true as it's our only source here(from which the truth of the statement's falseness can be derived). And the statement obviously can't be true because it proclaims itself to be a false(so in that instance it would be true and false simultaneously as well). So the only alternative is that it's actually in fact true. And in that case, all falsehood is true(because in order to exist it has to be true, as truth is all there is).

 

Now of course, we all use logic to understand reality, and if we didn't we don't know how we would be. As it would likely undermine our capacity to survive, we might even cease to be(as a species). So we use logic for the same reason that Newtonian Mechanics are still used in physics. Not because there's some kind of absolute truth to Newton's laws(QM and GR are both better substantiated but contradict Newton), but because they work where we use them, in the same way logic applies to our experiences(that even includes things which seem to be completely illogical to us).

[caelanb]

@JuliusCaesar @The0Self @Carl-RichardI'm going to ask a question more related to the thread. What do you think about the video (one with Prof Dave in it)? Great, okay, bad, or terrible? I will be honest and say that I have not seen the video yet (only the first minute). There are two reasons for this. First, it's kinda long. Second and main reason, is that I am worried that if I watch the whole thing, I will be convinced/shown/revealed why I have been a fool for listening to Leo (or anyone that is not a real academic) about anything (that requires deep understanding) such as to the complexities of Quantum mechanics (or anything of the like) and how if it relates to mysticism. After all, there are a lot of accusation on the internet of Leo being a cult leader/brainwashing people, by using psychological techniques in order to achieve these means. And I don't want to be one who falls into what one of these outsiders/critics might call a "Leo trap". And, I am aware that I can't really know if it is the case or not, which makes it tricky and annoying (but it is the nature of this work as Leo says).

We already spoke about the nuances of Quantum mechanics in this thread, but that does not mean I know to trust those who I conversed with, I feel like trusting an academic (which I think I have said before), is the best way to go, or at least is what I have been told is the best way to go. And I also see that all those that I conversed with are more or less saying the same thing that Leo says, which comes from what he calls direct experience and the like, so as Danioover9000 said near the beginning of the thread, asking questions about actualized critiques and warning against him creates an echo chamber where it is asked. Either way, I will still ask the questions assuming/hopping that you will be honest and hopping that you have watched the video (though you obviously don't need to).

Thank you.

[JuliusCaesar]

6 hours ago, caelanb said:

@JuliusCaesar @The0Self @Carl-RichardI'm going to ask a question more related to the thread. What do you think about the video (one with Prof Dave in it)? Great, okay, bad, or terrible? I will be honest and say that I have not seen the video yet (only the first minute). There are two reasons for this. First, it's kinda long. Second and main reason, is that I am worried that if I watch the whole thing, I will be convinced/shown/revealed why I have been a fool for listening to Leo (or anyone that is not a real academic) about anything (that requires deep understanding) such as to the complexities of Quantum mechanics (or anything of the like) and how if it relates to mysticism. After all, there are a lot of accusation on the internet of Leo being a cult leader/brainwashing people, by using psychological techniques in order to achieve these means. And I don't want to be one who falls into what one of these outsiders/critics might call a "Leo trap". And, I am aware that I can't really know if it is the case or not, which makes it tricky and annoying (but it is the nature of this work as Leo says).

We already spoke about the nuances of Quantum mechanics in this thread, but that does not mean I know to trust those who I conversed with, I feel like trusting an academic (which I think I have said before), is the best way to go, or at least is what I have been told is the best way to go. And I also see that all those that I conversed with are more or less saying the same thing that Leo says, which comes from what he calls direct experience and the like, so as Danioover9000 said near the beginning of the thread, asking questions about actualized critiques and warning against him creates an echo chamber where it is asked. Either way, I will still ask the questions assuming/hopping that you will be honest and hopping that you have watched the video (though you obviously don't need to).

Thank you.

Okay, I'm just 2 minutes in and already he's made so many false statements(that is things that are contrary my first hand experiences of sober reality) that I'm having a difficult time believing anyone could genuinely think such nonsense. I'll try to keep in mind his level of development, and to restrain myself from using ad hominem as much as possible(though some will slip through anyway).

 

At 44 secs in, he demonstrates his ignorance of the arguments being presented(as well as more importantly the true nature of the universe). So, let me just be clearly in saying that there is nothing confusing about Quantum Physics(perhaps it appears so to knuckle dragging mortals, but not to us). So his number 1 statement is probably a caricature of the actual arguments(and perhaps some people oversimplify them into something similar to what Professor Dave appeared to be strawmanning). Furthermore, there isn't anything "magical" about magick/supernatural phenomena. Things like precognition, telekinesis etc all operate by natural laws just as the planets in your solar system move in accordance with universal gravitation.

 

Dave also says that one must know the math to truly comprehend QM, and the power lies exclusively in it. This is illogical however, as any physicist who actually knows the math will tell it's impossible to understand QM. For example, Richard Feynman once stated in a interview, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". And to paraphrase Niels Bohr "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." If you listen to the real experts on this matter, they will all tell you that QM is essentially inherently magical and humanly incomprehensible. There is a nugget a truth in this notion, as QM blatantly exposes the paradoxical nature of reality. And paradoxical logic is something elusive to the human mind, because it appears to be self-contradictory. And if it contradicts itself surely it can't be true humans think. But overwhelming experimental data shows clearly that reality doesn't operate under the same limitations as with which the human mind is comfortable.

 

Now referring back to his original two statements. There's some delicious irony in his number 2. "If magic can be framed using the terminology of quantum mechanics, that magic is real." First of all, it isn't just framed using the terminology of QM, but literally using correct understanding of the principles of QM's laws that leads to the notion that magic is real. Secondly, Professor Dave has got it backwards. Because it's vastly easier to test magickal phenomena yourself than to test QM. Unless you've got a particle accelerator in your backyard, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of verifying the validity of the experiments which substantiate QM. With magick however, you could read books on magickal subjects taken off the internet. Let's say in the field of Conjuration Magick(manipulating reality by appealing to non corporeal beings from higher dimensions to do your bidding) for example. You could just within 40 hours of study gain a rather wide perspective on the topic(that is relative to rituals and how they are purportedly done correctly). And then test a dozen different rituals/ways of doing conjuration and measure the results. If you've found a genuine ritual and assuming you've done it correctly, then you'd know you did real magick due to the unbelievable results that arose. Now mind you, I've never done any conjuring myself, I've only used this as an example because I'm going to discuss one of my own experiences in the next paragraph.

 

Now you may be wondering, "But Caesar, why do you believe in QM at all if you haven't directly verified the experiments done at the subatomic level?" Because it's laws comport with my direct experience of reality(that is of things you would call supernatural/paranormal). And they explain what I've experienced better than any other model of physics(Newtonian Cartesian dynamics for example totally fails to account for these things). One such example, is one day a few months ago I had chanted HAM(the a sounds like the a in father but other than that it's the same as the English word for the upper leg meat of a pig) for 90 minutes. I was in my parents house at the time, and they had lost the remote to the television. There was tremendous commotion around that, and we seemed to search every logical place it could be. Then my dad decided to buy a new remote, and I had a most unusual response to this. Feeling some kind of energy that I can only describe as being like pure power or even emptiness, I made a decree "You will buy a new remote, and before it arrives you will find the old one". Sure enough, the next day he comes into the house from outside and sees a vision of the remote lying on top of the couch(a place we had searched very thoroughly) and then he goes straight to it and finds the remote in one of it's crevasses(which is one of the areas he had searched the day prior). When he told me what had happened to him, he felt distraught saying that I wouldn't believe him. And I laughed within myself having realized that I had essentially performed mind control on him via sooth saying.

 

How is the above relevant to QM? To understand this, you must know that my dad had tried in a rather unsuccessful way(probably because he lacked the serious desire to work) to gain psychic abilities for many months prior. On the one hand there's a chain of causality involved there(my command might have been fulfilled differently had he not attempted to become psychic). On the other however, is the fact that his magickal workings no matter how impotent, and mine were intertwined. Such that my magick can't be referred to independently of his. This is precisely the same kind of entanglement which occurs on the quantum level. Which is called Quantum Entanglement. Now you might accuse me of making a leap in logic. And to some extent you might be correct, I don't truly know that the microscopic universe behaves the same way magick does on the level of the macroscopic. Because I simply don't have direct knowledge of how exactly Quantum Entanglement occurs in the lab, if it does at all. But my intuition tells me that the similarity of phenomena cannot be reasonably ignored. So I accept Quantum Entanglement because I assume it's the same entanglement I've experienced doing magick.

 

As always, I must now cite a third person experience of the same phenomena. This message is getting long, and I feel it would be better to make a separate thread to make my citation. As the phenomenon is 1. Publicly verifiable and 2. Too detailed to cover here.

 

Quantum Entanglement points to the law of oneness. Which is essentially that the multiplicity of beings/objects in the universe is an illusion. Objectively it's all the same thing in an absolute sense. Or at least, the magickal form of entanglement I've experienced does this. Referring back to my first person experience example. If I were somehow truly separate from a, my dad and b, the future occurrence in which he fulfilled my command. Then it should be impossible that my command be fulfilled, or at least it would need to occur in a way which is irrelative of me(which is unlikely given the nature of my experiences). The only way such phenomena is logically possible is if I'm in fact the same thing as my dad, and the event that transpired, as well him trying fruitlessly to gain certain psychic abilities. In the same way that I am my body, and I am the same as my body, therefore I can command it's nerves to move at will, simply by thinking about it.

 

In conclusion, I don't believe I can watch the whole video without writing a book about why Professor Dave is wrong, which I believe would be reminiscent of Galileo's book where he insulted the Pope's intelligence for not buying into Heliocentric Theory. As I've written all of this and also started an entirely separate thread just in response to the first two minutes.

Edited October 13, 2021 by JuliusCaesar
Spelling correction

[Carl-Richard]

On 13.10.2021 at 4:03 PM, caelanb said:

I'm going to ask a question more related to the thread. What do you think about the video (one with Prof Dave in it)? Great, okay, bad, or terrible? I will be honest and say that I have not seen the video yet (only the first minute). There are two reasons for this. First, it's kinda long. Second and main reason, is that I am worried that if I watch the whole thing, I will be convinced/shown/revealed why I have been a fool for listening to Leo (or anyone that is not a real academic) about anything (that requires deep understanding) such as to the complexities of Quantum mechanics (or anything of the like) and how if it relates to mysticism.

I've watched the entire thing before and it perfectly summarizes my point: a career in science is not synonymous with construct awareness. This is nothing new (there are countless examples, not just QM). Don't be afraid to watch it anymore than you're afraid to watch Richard Dawkins debating Deepak Chopra. It's the same level of worldview disconnect.

 

On 13.10.2021 at 4:03 PM, caelanb said:

After all, there are a lot of accusation on the internet of Leo being a cult leader/brainwashing people, by using psychological techniques in order to achieve these means. And I don't want to be one who falls into what one of these outsiders/critics might call a "Leo trap". And, I am aware that I can't really know if it is the case or not, which makes it tricky and annoying (but it is the nature of this work as Leo says).

If you have doubts about the legitimacy of this work, then you're free to focus on something else. That is also one reason why it's not a cult. A cult robs you of your personal autonomy. Actualized.org is about strengthening your personal autonomy. If you think that this is me gaslighting you, then sure, don't listen to anything I'm telling you.

 

On 13.10.2021 at 4:03 PM, caelanb said:

We already spoke about the nuances of Quantum mechanics in this thread, but that does not mean I know to trust those who I conversed with, I feel like trusting an academic (which I think I have said before), is the best way to go, or at least is what I have been told is the best way to go.

If you've formulated your own thoughts on the subject and you're able to understand the arguments that people are making, then it's no longer about "trusting someone". It's about what resonates with you. However, if your idea of sensemaking is to blindly appeal to an arbitrary standard of authority, then do that, but then there is no reason to argue in the first place. This is what we're doing here: we're providing arguments, and it's up to you if it resonates or not. The authority question is anyway irrelevant, because that clearly goes both ways (there are academics on both sides).

[Nercohype]

What Leo has burned in my "brain" is this: Do the work and experience it yourself! Don't just believe what other say..

If you don't know if Leo is right or wrong then why don't you go and experience it yourself? ?

In my perspective I don't care what other say all I have to do is experience it (what ever it is) myself. Ofc there is value in hearing other perspectives as well. ?

[caelanb]

@JuliusCaesar

Thank you for watching part of the video. I didn’t expect you to micro analyze everything, but that was my fault for not being clearer. Overall, what I understand is that there are assumptions that Dave makes about what Leo’s quantum mechanics and mysticism video tries to make, which are not correct. Essentially, you are saying that there are things that he does not understand about what Leo is trying to point out in his video?

About the psychic thing with you and your dad, I am very skeptical about the anecdotes you give/gave. I mainly attribute them to luck, not psychic abilities, but I do understand what you’re trying to say. I guess what you would consider psychic abilities is what I and people in general would consider luck.I feel like I am looking at these psychic phenomena from an objective sense due to me disregarding it because it has not been consistently shown to be true in many high quality studies. However, I would most likely think that there was something going on if I had those experiences myself. All in all, magic, physic abilities and the like are not something I would just believe were true with an anecdote or two, but I’m not completely closed to it.

The materialist paradigm (as Leo calls it), which I am skeptical of as well to a minute degree, makes me lean towards the side of all psychic abilities being BS unless a set of criteria are met to prove them. But, I will admit that I would prefer them being real, it would make life a lot cooler, more mysterious, and make me feel like/confirm that I am not wasting my time when I listen to someone who talks about them. The stuff that Leo talks about is also more interesting because it feels less hard nosed than the atoms bouncing around in the universe governed by laws. I would also allow myself to arrogantly judge to myself that an academic scientist knows less than I do about what is actually going on in this universe, in an abstract metaphysical and conceptual sense that is. The latter could be my ego deluding itself a bit, but it’s something I think about if all this non-duality stuff is true.

 

@Carl-Richard

Construct awareness is an abstract concept that I have a vague understanding of, but I think I see your point. If the main problem is that Prof Dave is not construct aware. This could mean that Leo neglected mentioning and explaining the importance of construction awareness in the video. Mentioning construct-awareness based on my understanding of what you are saying would have likely helped Prof Dave to understand a little bit more about what Leo is talking about. Mind you, Leo may have spoken about it in the video, however, I don’t remember, I think I watched the video a few years ago, but I can’t recall Leo saying anything about construct awareness, he just quotes a bunch of scientists. Also, nice job if you were able to deconstruct the video without even watching it, basing your deconstruction on what I said from watching 2 minutes of it, lol.

Honestly, I am split between the work being BS, and being legitimate. The radicality of what Leo speaks about makes it seem a little bit too out there for me. But on the other hand, a lot of the stuff he speaks about does seem to have a basis in science (from my limited understanding of quantum mechanics and mysticism). If what Leo is saying is true, I would just expect that what he speaks about would be more commonly accepted by society at large if it were true, but it is not, making it seem like there is some manipulation/deception in what he is saying, arising from the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of scientific discoveries, as I have said before..

I can usually wrap my mind around what he is saying after he explains it. But, I don't really know how to know if it resonates with me. If resonating with me means that I understand logically how reality is an illogical paradox, then sure, it does resonate with me to a certain extent. Some of the things that he talks about are just him explaining some concept/topic that most people would think of in a certain way (or see something being a certain way), and flipping it on its head. This creates a lot of confusion for me, but I usually understand it eventually. Leo just offers me a different way of looking at the world (e.g. everything being god itself, instead of physical matter). Which I guess I would have to verify for myself through the relativity esoteric methods

 

@Nercohype

The thing is that experiencing sounds relatively simple (not easy) but when he talks about the traps that one can fall into, then it makes it seem way more complicated. This is because you may feel like you’re going in the right direction because your life seems to be changing in a positive way (e.g. thinking positive thoughts), but in reality, you’re just deluding yourself and not going anywhere.

 

Thank you for responding! I hope all that made sense:D

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

Construct awareness is an abstract concept that I have a vague understanding of, but I think I see your point. If the main problem is that Prof Dave is not construct aware. This could mean that Leo neglected mentioning and explaining the importance of construction awareness in the video. Mentioning construct-awareness based on my understanding of what you are saying would have likely helped Prof Dave to understand a little bit more about what Leo is talking about. Mind you, Leo may have spoken about it in the video, however, I don’t remember, I think I watched the video a few years ago, but I can’t recall Leo saying anything about construct awareness, he just quotes a bunch of scientists. Also, nice job if you were able to deconstruct the video without even watching it, basing your deconstruction on what I said from watching 2 minutes of it, lol.

Just a correction: I did watch the video of Professor Dave in its entirety. You might've misread what I wrote.

I recently made a thread about a model that is useful for understanding construct awareness. I used this exact topic as a way to demonstrate the different levels of the model, so I highly recommend reading it (that and the video underneath about Lagrangian mechanics)  

 

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

Honestly, I am split between the work being BS, and being legitimate. The radicality of what Leo speaks about makes it seem a little bit too out there for me. But on the other hand, a lot of the stuff he speaks about does seem to have a basis in science (from my limited understanding of quantum mechanics and mysticism). If what Leo is saying is true, I would just expect that what he speaks about would be more commonly accepted by society at large if it were true, but it is not, making it seem like there is some manipulation/deception in what he is saying, arising from the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of scientific discoveries, as I have said before..

What is accepted by society is to eat carcinogenic foods, drink toxic chemicals (alcohol), and watch the same news channel every day. It's obvious that this work is not going to resonate with that. This goes back to how to approach sensemaking: do you intend to think your own thoughts or not? Of course you're always going to rely on other people's thoughts, but intention is key. The intention is that you want to understand; you.

 

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

I can usually wrap my mind around what he is saying after he explains it. But, I don't really know how to know if it resonates with me. If resonating with me means that I understand logically how reality is an illogical paradox, then sure, it does resonate with me to a certain extent. Some of the things that he talks about are just him explaining some concept/topic that most people would think of in a certain way (or see something being a certain way), and flipping it on its head. This creates a lot of confusion for me, but I usually understand it eventually. Leo just offers me a different way of looking at the world (e.g. everything being god itself, instead of physical matter). Which I guess I would have to verify for myself through the relativity esoteric methods

When something resonates, there is a feeling of understanding rather than confusion. It happens when you have an internal framework that is able to accommodate what is being presented. That framework can be based on things like logic (rationality), or it can be based on thing like experience (personal empiricism). You've accurately pinpointed the problem, which is that the teachings have a lot more to do with experience rather than logic (although they might overlap from time to time), so the correct solution is to grab that experience. That might not be possible from someone like Professor Dave who is stuck on rationality, but there the solution is development.

[JuliusCaesar]

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

Thank you for watching part of the video. I didn’t expect you to micro analyze everything, but that was my fault for not being clearer.

It's quite alright, I just had difficulty listening to it without creating a ridiculously in depth response.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

Overall, what I understand is that there are assumptions that Dave makes about what Leo’s quantum mechanics and mysticism video tries to make, which are not correct. Essentially, you are saying that there are things that he does not understand about what Leo is trying to point out in his video?

Exactly. Dave I'm sure is fairly intelligent, it's just that his capacity to think clearly about the paranormal is curtailed by the limitations of his worldview. Years ago I was much like him.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

About the psychic thing with you and your dad, I am very skeptical about the anecdotes you give/gave. I mainly attribute them to luck, not psychic abilities

I once was as skeptical as you, but when enough highly improbably or in some cases downright impossible things happen(that is given the usual cause and effect logic of Newtonian physics). Eventually you realize that your understanding of the world attributes limitations to reality that it doesn't in fact have. Think about it like this, imagine you're someone who is a strong skeptic of the concept of universal gravitation. You think it couldn't be part of reality, for matter to be attracted to other matter because let's assume you don't have any understanding of what causes such a thing to be so. This is a common level of understanding among the public(they believe in gravity, but if you ask them why it's so they can't really tell you since they don't have know GR). From this skeptical point of view, you could write off all the successful laboratory experiments in this field as having occurred due to pure dumb luck. The logical problem with taking such a position, is that if you bothered to analyze all the available evidence, and calculate the possibility of randomness creating the outcomes, it would be so improbable that you'd like a damn fool for believing that gravity was an illusion created by coincidence. In the same way,  paranormal things have in my own life occurred so often that I would be foolish to believe that they occurred purely by chance. And when you consider the wealth of third person accounts of the same phenomena I've gathered(which I believe in only because I've had the same/very similar experiences) it becomes effectively a scientific impossibility that psychic abilities aren't real.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

All in all, magic, physic abilities and the like are not something I would just believe were true with an anecdote or two, but I’m not completely closed to it.

There are far more instances of this than an anecdote or two. So it's good that you're open minded, it's an indication of intelligence.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

The materialist paradigm (as Leo calls it), which I am skeptical of as well to a minute degree, makes me lean towards the side of all psychic abilities being BS unless a set of criteria are met to prove them.

It's funny you say that, because I often employ beyond rational skepticism(that normally arises naturally in the minds of materialists) to my own magical practices. It's a double edged sword, because on the one hand I'm creating excuses for procrastinating on doing certain things(because I want to isolate all the potential variables as much as possible). But on the other hand, it benefits me because it permits me to double blind test occult things and therefore distinguish between magickal workings that were effective independently of my own willpower/personal occult capability, and those that were successful simply because I manifested a certain outcome purely by faith.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

But, I will admit that I would prefer them being real, it would make life a lot cooler, more mysterious, and make me feel like/confirm that I am not wasting my time when I listen to someone who talks about them.

I know I've stated this before but it bears repeating. The only way to ascertain the validity of 3rd person accounts is to attempt to directly experience the same phenomena firsthand. When your own findings corroborate 3rd person accounts, you don't know for certain that they're true, but at least you know that it's reasonable to assert that they are or are likely to be.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

the stuff that Leo talks about is also more interesting because it feels less hard nosed than the atoms bouncing around in the universe governed by laws.

It is mysterious, but not entirely incomprehensible. In spite of what Leo or anyone might tell you, it's actually humanly possible to logically understand nearly anything, even things that are fully paradoxical and self contradictory(and ironically Leo himself is actually proof of that). Now with that being said, to humans the paranormal does feel more magical and mysterious than natural phenomena. And just a little detail, you do know that atoms aren't actually literally as balls bouncing around right? They're observed as being something much more uncertain and non concrete than that. The more you zoom in on reality the more loosey goosey things become. Meaning an electron is more difficult to nail down than an atom, a quark is more difficult to nail down than an electron etc etc.

 

4 hours ago, caelanb said:

I would also allow myself to arrogantly judge to myself that an academic scientist knows less than I do about what is actually going on in this universe, in an abstract metaphysical and conceptual sense that is.

Ha, I appear to be rubbing off on you.

[caelanb]

@Carl-Richard

On 2021-10-26 at 3:47 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Just a correction: I did watch the video of Professor Dave in its entirety. You might've misread what I wrote.

Yeah, I know. I was just referring to what you said after I asked a few questions based on the two minutes of the video that I saw. Do you think leaving a comment on the video, trying to clear some things to the professor Dave audience would be a good idea? I feel like it could be beneficial, however it could also backfire due to what I would call (based on listening to Leo) an ego defence mechanism.

On 2021-10-26 at 3:47 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I recently made a thread about a model that is useful for understanding construct awareness. I used this exact topic as a way to demonstrate the different levels of the model, so I highly recommend reading it (that and the video underneath about Lagrangian mechanics) 

Have you used this model a lot? Is it really useful or more of a hit or miss kind of thing?

On 2021-10-26 at 3:47 PM, Carl-Richard said:

What is accepted by society is to eat carcinogenic foods, drink toxic chemicals (alcohol), and watch the same news channel every day. It's obvious that this work is not going to resonate with that. This goes back to how to approach sensemaking: do you intend to think your own thoughts or not? Of course you're always going to rely on other people's thoughts, but intention is key. The intention is that you want to understand; you.

What kind of carcinogenic foods are you referring to? You wouldn't live very long if you ate carcinogenic foods everyday. I think that alcohol is only toxic if you drink it in excess. In moderation, based on my knowledge it can actually be beneficial. But there may be truth to it being toxic even in low amounts, this is because from my understanding your body digests it before all other forms of energy that you can digest. If the news is properly regulated to ensure what is being said is actually true, then there isn’t really much of an issue. However, it is good to get news from different places, as long as they are regulated. Well, I rely on science for example when it comes to my everyday life (vaccines, eating healthy, exercising), however, I do question deeper things in the domain of epistemology and metaphysics every once in a while. The latter being something that science would either deny as being useful, or something that it is not focused on. The difficulty for me when speaking about understanding, based on what Leo says, is that it seems almost impossible to truly understand, due to all the traps and deceptions that you find in this work.

On 2021-10-26 at 3:47 PM, Carl-Richard said:

When something resonates, there is a feeling of understanding rather than confusion. It happens when you have an internal framework that is able to accommodate what is being presented. That framework can be based on things like logic (rationality), or it can be based on thing like experience (personal empiricism). You've accurately pinpointed the problem, which is that the teachings have a lot more to do with experience rather than logic (although they might overlap from time to time), so the correct solution is to grab that experience. That might not be possible from someone like Professor Dave who is stuck on rationality, but there the solution is development.

I guess it does resonate with me, because I understand certain things (not everything, some topics are a little too far out there for me) what he says to a certain extent in a logical way. I understand what he says about Quantum mechanics and mysticism. I don’t have a way to verify because I don’t have a lab or anything that I can do experiments which will validate what Leo is saying. And even if it was possible to validate it empirically without a lab, I’m not sure how to go about doing so. What do you mean by development? Being a decent human being that is able to provide for oneself and one's family, along with the resources that can be used to enjoy life apart from work?

 

@JuliusCaesar

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It's quite alright, I just had difficulty listening to it without creating a ridiculously in depth response.

You could always try to leave a comment on the video trying to clear up some misunderstandings.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Exactly. Dave I'm sure is fairly intelligent, it's just that his capacity to think clearly about the paranormal is curtailed by the limitations of his worldview. Years ago I was much like him.

I am very much like him right now, however, I guess I am more minded (due to my lack of interest in learning about the technicalities of quantum mechanics as well as my lack of understanding), but still skeptical due to lack of evidence of a lot of these paranormal stuff. Especially when it comes to alternative healing modalities (may or may not be paranormal) of medicine for example. I think that they would be used in medicine if there was good evidence of their effectiveness, but from my knowledge there isn’t. Therefore in my mind I think of it as pseudoscience. If good evidence was found, then they would be adopted into medicine. I guess this method would be called evidence/fact based medicine. Which is why I am skeptical of the idea that new age doctors are more effective at healing people than a well respected evidence based doctor.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

I once was as skeptical as you, but when enough highly improbably or in some cases downright impossible things happen(that is given the usual cause and effect logic of Newtonian physics). Eventually you realize that your understanding of the world attributes limitations to reality that it doesn't in fact have. Think about it like this, imagine you're someone who is a strong skeptic of the concept of universal gravitation. You think it couldn't be part of reality, for matter to be attracted to other matter because let's assume you don't have any understanding of what causes such a thing to be so. This is a common level of understanding among the public(they believe in gravity, but if you ask them why it's so they can't really tell you since they don't have know GR). From this skeptical point of view, you could write off all the successful laboratory experiments in this field as having occurred due to pure dumb luck. The logical problem with taking such a position, is that if you bothered to analyze all the available evidence, and calculate the possibility of randomness creating the outcomes, it would be so improbable that you'd like a damn fool for believing that gravity was an illusion created by coincidence. In the same way,  paranormal things have in my own life occurred so often that I would be foolish to believe that they occurred purely by chance. And when you consider the wealth of third person accounts of the same phenomena I've gathered(which I believe in only because I've had the same/very similar experiences) it becomes effectively a scientific impossibility that psychic abilities aren't real.

A quick note about gravity, I watched a video a while ago saying that gravity was not actually a force (I didn’t know this). It only seems like one due to General Relativity. I see what you mean, but the epistemic issue with thinking that something that happens so is in fact true from a certain perspective is that you have to assume that the criteria by which you are measuring it is not biased in any way. This is the big problem with all judgments and interpretations that the human mind can, how the f*ck do you know to trust your direct experiment or any interpretations you make within it? It could be that you are actually wrong for thinking that gravity is real, but consciousness has made it nearly impossible to discover that. I can see that this leads me to saying that every interpretation and understanding could be false. For example, all these so-called enlightenment people could be deluding themselves by thinking that God they have personally experienced God is nothing or whatever they want to call it. When in reality, the world may actually be physical and material. Or Catholicism, Islam or Judaism is the ultimate religion. Essentially you can turn any statement you want on it’s head and make it true. How the f*ck do you know? That was long, I hope that made sense.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

There are far more instances of this than an anecdote or two. So it's good that you're open minded, it's an indication of intelligence

Do you know of any way I could go about trying to experience these for myself? It could actually be an indication of me being a fool, and not intelligent, because there is no consistently good evidence that I have heard of, so being open minded to what is generally accepted as nonsense is actually a very sensible thing to do. I may actually be going into delusion and self deception in someone like Dr Fauci’s eyes and others as well for example.

[JuliusCaesar]

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

That was long, I hope that made sense.

It did, this is basically the same logic as Descartes' Evil Demon Doubt. And it's true that on some level you're just taking your experiences on faith. Transcending reality by becoming Omniscient/Omnipresent is the best solution. Because as everything you know everything, and since you know everything you know all there is to know about deception and can therefore objectively determine things to be or not be so. Until then, you'll just have to assume that your experiences are valid.

 

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

You could always try to leave a comment on the video trying to clear up some misunderstandings.

The problem with that is we're presented with a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. I can state all of the most profound truths about the universe and what it actually is. But if I communicated those things to Dave(or most any human for that matter) the things I'd be describing would be completely out of their direct experience and very alien to them. So they'd either take my statements on blind faith(which obviously isn't ideal), or they have to assume that I've lost my marbles(which is also unfavorable because then they're just rejecting the truth). 

 

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

but still skeptical due to lack of evidence of a lot of these paranormal stuff.

Only empirically is there a lack of evidence. And this is because mainstream science isn't interested in doing the necessary experiments to verify/falsify these things.

 

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

Do you know of any way I could go about trying to experience these for myself?

Well, the method Leo prescribes is to do 30mg of 5 Meo DMT ten times. However, I advise against this, not because it's ineffective. In fact, given the response most humans have to the substance(it produces an Omniscient state of consciousness), empirically this would work. The main reason I would suggest an alternative is simply that if you do this, it will dissolve your ego so rapidly that you'll have something like a psychotic breakdown(at least in the first trip anyway). It turns out that dying is a terrifying experience who would have known? 

 

I have an alternate method, but which won't work as swiftly but also isn't nearly as terrifying. For the next 30 days, think to yourself mentally "I remember my dreams" over and over as often as you can, taking breaks from that when you find you need to think about things in order to function then return to the exercise. When you're watching a video think this, when you're falling asleep at night think it etc etc. The reason for my suggesting this, is that you're effectively asking yourself how you can know the things Leo says to be true. Or in other words, you want to know firsthand the true nature of the universe. Your nighttime self has the knowledge you seek(or at least is more capable of obtaining it than your daytime self).

 

You can transcribe your dream memories in a journal if you want. This will assist you, but is not entirely vital as you'll become competent enough at recalling dreams in your own mind that it should be ultimately unnecessary.

 

If and when you've done what I've suggested, I'll want to hear what you've learned in that month. Based on what you tell me, I'll give further instructions. But for now, you should read Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self by Robert Waggoner. As it contains incredibly valuable knowledge about this topic. Including accounts of experiences that are effectively impossible under the materialist paradigm(which you can recreate yourself).

[Verdesbird]

the more you buy into these schools of ideais the more you wil have to work to clear your mind

[Carl-Richard]

17 hours ago, caelanb said:

Yeah, I know. I was just referring to what you said after I asked a few questions based on the two minutes of the video that I saw. Do you think leaving a comment on the video, trying to clear some things to the professor Dave audience would be a good idea? I feel like it could be beneficial, however it could also backfire due to what I would call (based on listening to Leo) an ego defence mechanism.

As a matter of fact, I did leave a comment the first time I watched it: "You say QM is shrouded in confusion because you need some experience in the field in order to understand it. What if the same applies to mysticism? How can I know you're not misunderstanding mysticism? Where is your "PhD" in mysticism?" Let's just say he didn't take it seriously at all ("mysticism is garbage" "mystics are hacks").

 

17 hours ago, caelanb said:

Have you used this model a lot? Is it really useful or more of a hit or miss kind of thing?

In fact, I have used it before I even read about it specifically, because Ken Wilber incorporates it into the cognitive line of his AQAL framework (which is what makes SDi (Spiral Dynamics Integral) an elaboration of SD). I intuited some of the concepts from there, but it made the relationship much more clear when I read about it directly.

It's very useful for understanding exactly how the mind operates at different stages of SD development. To put it in the language of MHC, Dave refuses to see the potential cross-paradigmatic operations that exist between the paradigms of QM and mysticism. It's mainly because he has no incentive to investigate the mystical paradigm or the mechanics of how the two paradigms relate. It's not even certain that he is aware that paradigms are constructs and that QM is only one system/paradigm out of many (which places him at sub-metasystematic cognition; low construct&context awareness).

 

17 hours ago, caelanb said:

What kind of carcinogenic foods are you referring to? You wouldn't live very long if you ate carcinogenic foods everyday. I think that alcohol is only toxic if you drink it in excess. In moderation, based on my knowledge it can actually be beneficial. But there may be truth to it being toxic even in low amounts, this is because from my understanding your body digests it before all other forms of energy that you can digest.

Greasy foods, fried foods, processed foods, red meat, sugary drinks (diabetes). Let's not forget heart disease as well.

Alcohol is metabolized to acetaldehyde in the body. Whatever you've read about the supposed health benefits of alcoholic drinks, it's never the alcohol. It's going around that some chemicals in red wine are good for the heart, and somehow that is interpreted as it's the alcohol that is good for you. Not at all. Then the article would be about vodka and not wine.

Quote

The molecular and cellular sequelae of the toxic mediators of alcoholic injury take many forms. Acetaldehyde and oxidants are highly reactive molecules that can damage DNA, proteins and lipids. Changes in hepatic respiration and lipid metabolism lead to tissue hypoxia and impairment in the mitochondrial function. Secondary effects include disruption of signaling pathways and ion channel function, unfolded-protein response and oxidative stress, as well as activation of adaptive immune response largely triggered by acetaldehyde-protein adducts. Cell death triggers additional innate immune response, activation of fibrogenesis, and tissue repair. In addition to pro-inflammatory mediators, other signaling molecules, such as neurotransmitters, are affected by alcohol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959903/

 

17 hours ago, caelanb said:

I guess it does resonate with me, because I understand certain things (not everything, some topics are a little too far out there for me) what he says to a certain extent in a logical way. I understand what he says about Quantum mechanics and mysticism. I don’t have a way to verify because I don’t have a lab or anything that I can do experiments which will validate what Leo is saying. And even if it was possible to validate it empirically without a lab, I’m not sure how to go about doing so.

Seeing the relationship between QM and mysticism is a matter of comparing frameworks, not a matter of verifying hypotheses. Again, MHC is useful for understanding the difference:

The hypothetico-deductive method (the scientific method) happens at the formal operational level (level 10). It deals with simple one-dimensional, monofactorial logical propositions. Comparing mysticism and QM happens at the level of cross-paradigmatic complexity (level 15-16). It deals with large, multivariate collections of systems and how they interrelate.

Trying to validate the relationship between QM and mysticism using scientific verification is like trying to do science by grammar correction.

[caelanb]

@JuliusCaesar

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It's funny you say that, because I often employ beyond rational skepticism(that normally arises naturally in the minds of materialists) to my own magical practices. It's a double edged sword, because on the one hand I'm creating excuses for procrastinating on doing certain things(because I want to isolate all the potential variables as much as possible). But on the other hand, it benefits me because it permits me to double blind test occult things and therefore distinguish between magickal workings that were effective independently of my own willpower/personal occult capability, and those that were successful simply because I manifested a certain outcome purely by faith.

I’m not quite sure how you would go about isolating all the possible variables when doing psychic stuff. This is because magical abilities and the like are not as tangible as physically, therefore it makes it more challenging to design a hard nosed objective approach with controls and placebos. I’m not sure what you mean in the last part, willpower/personal occult abilities, and faith.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

I know I've stated this before but it bears repeating. The only way to ascertain the validity of 3rd person accounts is to attempt to directly experience the same phenomena firsthand. When your own findings corroborate 3rd person accounts, you don't know for certain that they're true, but at least you know that it's reasonable to assert that they are or are likely to be.

I see. Makes sense, I guess the problem with what most people do in order to prove or disprove this is that they do not even try to have a direct experience of the 3rd person account that is described partly because you said it is very difficult do it, and also because they may be too close-mind and see it as airy-fairy.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

It is mysterious, but not entirely incomprehensible. In spite of what Leo or anyone might tell you, it's actually humanly possible to logically understand nearly anything, even things that are fully paradoxical and self contradictory(and ironically Leo himself is actually proof of that). Now with that being said, to humans the paranormal does feel more magical and mysterious than natural phenomena. And just a little detail, you do know that atoms aren't actually literally as balls bouncing around right? They're observed as being something much more uncertain and non concrete than that. The more you zoom in on reality the more loosey goosey things become. Meaning an electron is more difficult to nail down than an atom, a quark is more difficult to nail down than an electron etc etc.

When you logically understand, do you mean be conscious of (as Leo says a lot) or just able to create a mental framework about what is being spoken about? Because from my understanding you can logically understand something, however that does not mean you are conscious of it. For example, I can explain what is god according to Leo to some person, because it logically makes sense to me. However, I have not had any awakening as one might say or consciousness of this being the case, I’m just telling someone else what I have heard many times and understanding from Leo. And also, from my understanding, it is impossible to grasp god with language or any mental framework, as Leo (and many other mystics and spiritual teachers) have said many times, which seems contradictory to what you said about grasping anything logically. Yes, I understand that they are not just balls bouncing around in a box, I just oversimplified it a lot. It’s so strange how stuff seems so logical and linear on a macro-scale and is actually quite fuzzy on a quantum scale. However, I used to think that was how atoms worked back in HS/before I heard about quantum physics.

On 2021-10-26 at 6:14 PM, JuliusCaesar said:

Ha, I appear to be rubbing off on you.

How so?

PS: I don’t respond to all of the responses a lot of the time because it takes me a long time to read, comprehend and then to write up a response, so I split my responses into multiple days.