quantum theory

1. 60

   Alice DeWonderposted 13 years ago

   To say I read all of Mr. Campbell's works would be inaccurate, but I have consumed multiple texts that bear his name; even one that includes Bill Moyer. Soon after I followed-up with DVDs and VCRs that demonstrated his teachings. They're very good. When it comes to U.S. Holy-wood, Campbell's professorship could only become greater with the right pictures and special effects. But what did Mr. Campbell do that hadn't been already done? He was merely re-telling old stories, and at times taking embellishment privileges....but that's where Holy-wood makes these new and improved stories even better, for it provided the artwork to underscore the scenario.
   Now take Campbell's words (which were in actuality words of some belief systems) and weave it into quantum theory that claims that there are infinite possibilities with infinite outcomes. According to quantum the outcome object focused on will be the one we net. - Stay with me now. If all of these cultures were basically conveying the same “place in the universe” teachings; i.e.; where man belongs as opposed to woman, the coming of puberty, the coming of manhood and womanhood, etc., then would it follow with quantum theory that we humans have been under a controlled influence for a minimum of 10 million years?
   I know it's a big thought, but somebody had to think it. Religions, traditions, etc. could very well be in place to control and limit what we are capable of becoming.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...and what might you consider this "controlled influence" to be?
      ...and what might this "controlled influences' purpose be?
      
      Qwark

      replyreport
   2. 59

      kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For all things to continue  to exist, they all must coexist harmoniously otherwise it cannot.....
      
      Thus all things are merely One......and every other thing originated from it....
      
      If you have not seen the ONE as a whole, then it is because you are looking at the ONE as in a state of division with its infinite possibilities and it would have the appearance of being unknowable thus it is ignorance.
      
      
      From the state of division, which actually is ignorance, proceed systems of learning. These system approaches one aspect of the divided whole, with the view of gaining knowledge.
      
      And depending on what angle each system  approaches it's learning ,that system defines itself. There we have each and every scientific and/or religious Studies, from which Quantum physic arises and Mr.Cambell writes.
      
      So we see that ignorance is actually the controlling influences, for by it comes all system of education, but since Ignorance it self is just that ..ignorance it is also controlled by the, Whole, which is the ONE and the the origin of  the all.
      
      Now to what purpose does the ultimate controlling influence operates....that question is answer in the first line...
      
      For the harmonious continuation of all......

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Spirit Whispererposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Beautifully put.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ...are you a pentacostal?

         replyreport
   3. 67

      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry, I am a Campbell associate and do get featured there and do talks about his work, but I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Bear with me momentarily.  Campbell and quantum mechanics. Are we exercising? Because that is a stretch.  Actually, the best evidence for us being watched or guided, is us. Our DNA has one single gene which is common only to mankind. Just one. Is it that one gene that makes us look for answers? Must be, because we are the only ones looking. This has more to do with Campbell, (Fine Scottish Name) that Quantum Theory. You first must find the rock, then you must move the rock, all the answers you ALL seek, are under the rock. Now that may, or maynot have anything to do with Campbell, but it sure puts a spin on quantum string/membrane theory.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in" -Robert De Niro, Godfather.
      
      Certainly. However, this controlling factor can only be the human perception. Quantify the human thought! It cannot be done. So, the infinite does not apply to the rationale of humans. They are infinite because we do not understand [their] origin or completion --think a ball of fishing twine a million miles long all wrapped into a six inch limitation. Then multiply that by the interchanging of fragments, then multiply that by internal and external condition. Now, quantify a single sphere of light from a star..
      
      Although I am naive to much of Campbell's work (and Cecilia Beltran is much more knowing of him), I will leave the details to her. But from my understanding, he is merely implying that belief systems themselves are (as I would call) white noise; static --and perhaps even Stoic. This turns us back to Duality (equation-sensation) versus Reality. Quantum Reality is one void of perception and consumed by interaction.
      
      James.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree, up to a point. Again, the only thing I can see that relates to Campbell in all of quantum physics is that in some other string branching off from this reality, he was eaten by a T. Rex (The band, not the dinosaur)

         replyreport
2. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   What controlled influence?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly and where did the number 10MM come from?

      replyreport
      1. 71

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Japanese spark plugs!

         replyreport
3. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   I assume this means that we are the controlling influence and our perception of reality creates the reality of the physical world. On all levels. I like it. It seems to fit into a lot of things we think we're finding out.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If there is the understanding of the ONE which is the all, then there is the understanding of the "we"....Then yes absolutely....

      replyreport
   2. 72

      maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are begging the question of free will...All behaviour is motivated, caused, by influences beyond our control.. As such, when Camus talks about the absurdity of life ( and death ) we are moved to consider our status as merely animated dirt...

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yet the distinction is not inconsiderable: animated dirt has produced Shakespeare's plays, Mozart's quartets, Newton's laws; inanimate dirt just lies there

         replyreport
         1. 72

            maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It has also produced some of the worst walking, talking dirt-bags on earth: Idi Amin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin, mass murderers all. Since you mentioned music, the gratingly juvenile music of the Beatles and most Rap would qualify as sadly originating from that same pile of animated dirt...
            Somehow that seems to pretty much even things out...Don't you think..?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes of course. Our animation, or more particularly our self awareness has resulted in all manner of extremes. Yet these are only extreme in our own eyes. In the grand scheme of things we're wholly inconsequential!

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I know. I laugh at all the enviros who think they can save the world, who say, "You are killing Earth."  Just LOLOLOL.
                  
                  We pose NO threat to Earth. At all. Nothing.
                  
                  We pose a threat to us. Sure. But who cares?  Us, sure, a few of us. Most don't. But it doesn't matter. What will be sad is if we, with all our promise, all our beauty, our art, our scientific hope, end up wiping out in the tiniest fraction of time that the big dumb idiot dinosaurs got to have. The Earth will be fine, quite fine, in our absence.
                  
                  We mean nothing. And we actually mean less than we like to think we mean on top of that first layer of inconsequentiality (is that a word? LOL).

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     With the possible exception of the Eurovision Song Contest of course. That's IMPORTANT

                     replyreport
               2. 72

                  maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Man’s greatest invention, society, was formed in self-defence against the chaos of nature. Men derive meaning from this fellowship, created to oppose nature, which they view as the force that seeks to undo them. The fact that nature shows no regard for them, that they are insignificant, they can still turn to one another. In creating society, Man has created an obligation to one another that they must honor to survive.  Although they are shut out of the realm of cosmic importance, Man, nevertheless constructs something that is meaningful to him.
                  
                  Nature's voice is incoherent, and the universe a cosmic void. There is nothing to interpret.

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You lost me on that. If reality was created by little more than our perception, how does that make me dirt? Or lacking free will?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            More to the point...we are not merely dirt, we are stardust... We are composed of the same carbonic substances as found throughout the Universe...Stardust...our particular collection of this dust happens to be animated...as there most certainly are other chunks of animated stardust in their mega-gadzillons spread throughout the cosmos...we are unique only on this planet...after our uniqueness wears off we once again return to stardust...
            So the real question should be: From whence the stardust..?

            replyreport
            1. 71

               earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Spot on! Right question!

               replyreport
            2. 74

               cheaptrickposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Even more to the point,Whence the Animation?

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Indeed...Whence the animation...Consider this...In a world of challenges why has the octopus not developed beyond its present capacity considering its brain to body weight ratio..? Probably because it reached an equilibrium with its environment and did not need to progress any further...Man, on the other hand, is the ultimate adaptive creature on this planet..our brains had to evolve in order to survive...survival, that most incessant drive that placed man above all else, and in the process, developing self-cognition and with it all the attached vanities humans express...
                  Please excuse my pontificating...I just don't know how else to express my understanding of why we have achieved this level of animation...

                  replyreport
            3. 0

               Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I get the distinct impression we aren't on the same page here. My understanding of the OP is that mankind, collectively, would be shaping reality; by our combined perception. Nothing about from dust to dust.
               
               I think you are referencing God?

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  My God would not be interested in the machinations of human beings...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Good to know.

                     replyreport
               2. 72

                  maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Mankind..? Are you saying that this minuscule speck and its minuscule animated dirt is somehow shaping reality..? How arrogant, how obtuse...surely you cannot mean that reality exists only on this planet... That this reality is the only reality because humans perceive it as such...
                  Lets look at reality in its simplest terms: Reality is individual...each of us has our own perception of reality...I contribute nothing to the communal groupthink of reality...it is within my being, a knowledge that life is absurd, death is consequential...I didn't ask to be born...free will did not exist for me at birth...I was thrust into this world and told to wing it...That is my reality...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You poor thing. I'm impressed though. Having winged it alone since birth.
                     
                     But, seriously. No, I don't think we are the only life in the universe. I was simply imagining along with the OP. But, I really hate being called animated dirt. Let's go back to stardust.
                     
                     You are separated, but part of a whole. I consider all of mankind to be one organism. I think our consciousness is connected. So, yes it is entirely possible, in my mind, that our perception contributes to the texture of the fabric of reality. Why not?

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I actually agree with your point that we are all connected...The premise of interconnectivity is a basic tenet in QT...The experiment where distant quarks seem to resonate , not simultaneously, but instantly, is a scary proof that there are things outside of our present knowledge that can account for such...

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes. We live in the most fascinating age possible. So many possibilities and we're finally developing the means to explore them.

                           replyreport
                           1. 72

                              maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I guess the next question would be: What do we do with this knowledge..?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 I don't suppose we can answer that question yet. How much knowledge do we have? I see it as the equivalent of one drop of water melted on the tip the ice in Antarctica.
                                 
                                 What do you think we should do with the knowledge?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Emile:
                                    
                                    What a wonderfully descriptive way to explain how much knowledge we have gained in our 35k yrs or so, of becoming Homo/sapiens.
                                    
                                    "I see it as the equivalent of one drop of water melted on the tip of the ice in Antarctica."
                                    
                                    2 thumbs up!   :
                                    
                                    Qwark

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 72

                                    maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Emile...that is a question for someone a hell of a lot smarter than me...My first impulse would be to use knowledge to insure a world free of hunger, a world where literacy is universal and life's choices are expanded...a world of free minds and free markets, where human perfidy does not exist...
                                    But of course knowledge is nothing unless taken to the next step: Action...

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, who wouldn't do all those things; if possible. I'm not sure the knowledge discussed on this thread is the type that is best used to accomplish such worthy goals.
                                       
                                       I tell you what. You come up with a good plan to start it, and I'm in.

                                       report
            4. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               From whence the stardust, and wither it goest. Maybe we're in stardust prison, and we can't leave till we've paid our debt to the cosmic all. Way beyond "Star Wars" which was way too biblical, the Force, and all.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  May the Force always be with you, my friend...

                  replyreport
4. 60

   wilmiers77posted 13 years ago

   Quantum mechanics is not really deterministic. This is why Einstein didn't fully accept quantum mechanics. He believed that each defined problem has unique answer. Although, QM does predict what is out of the realm of possibility and that the event can not ever happen.       
   
   I do agree with our forum leader that QM predicts an infinite number of outcomes, but also gives the most
   likely outcomes in numerical order; a statistical analysis.
   
   I only know about Mr. Campbell's works from what I have read from our forum leader and a few comment, but I have studied QM for two years at a top university in my quest for a B.S. in physics, specializing in nuclear physics, and I agree with our forum leader that it is ignorance of the whole, the ONE, that guide our search for understanding our world, and also improving our lives with hi tech research. Furthermore, schools of thought begin to depend on each other's contribution as we develop toward the ONE; "Theory of Everything".
   
   Since we are discovering what is already in existence and set (The One), than we have a "controlling force" that resist untruth and rewards truth. I agree with our forum lead in this sense. QM gives us the insight to what is mostlikely the truth.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      You appear to have achieved that B.S.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
5. 71

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   Here is the skinny on origins.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...that was excellent Earn..TY!
      
      It didn't cover much that I wasn't already aware of but it added confirmation to my "beliefs."
      
      Much appreciated.
      
      I would love to sit with him and have him consider questions I have about things he didn't have time to cover.
      
      Again thanks!  :
      
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 71

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Cool Qwark. there are dozens of his lectures at the BBC online. Krauss specialises in teaching science in layman's terms, and takes questions from his peers. I may try to assemble them if I find the time, they complete the picture from formation to evolution with all the I's dotted and T's crossed.
         
         Any religionist who is not familiar with science beliefs can now know what many of us already know about how we got here and how it all works.
         If they wanted to know and had the courage to challenge themselves of course they would be rushing off to read about it all, see the lectures before refuting it! I would respect that.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ...the operative words in your last paragraph are: "...If they wanted to know...." 
            
            you and I both know that the fundamentalist is focused on the bible resting on the end of his nose and he has no peripheral vision.
            
            To consider that anything exists beyond that which is printed on the thin "doobie" paper between the books binders, would be blasphemous!
            
            It isn't a matter of courage because for them there is no challenge!
            
            They have the "absolute" truth!
            
            I've read just about everything relating to physics and cosmology that is written for the layman to the point of gaining a feeling of "understanding" that satisfies me.
            
            What I/we don't have is what I had in college, and that's a professor who would end his class by saying: "ok, enuf for today. I'm heading for the campus cafe for a cuppa coffee. Anyone who'd like to meet me there and chat about todays lesson or any other subject of interest, c'mon over."
            
            I never missed that opportunity. I miss it now! That personal touch!
            
            Thanks again Earn!  :
            
            Qwark

            replyreport
6. 71

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   Nice qwark.....nice to have a mentor.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Nice to HAVE HAD mentors...:
      
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 71

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         An important distinction indeed!
         
         My mentor (worked alongside him for 11 years) died 15 years ago. A great personal loss I still feel today.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You were lucky to have had him Earn.
            I was never so lucky.
            One college professor took a liking to me and worked with me for the 3 yrs it took me to get my Masters Degrees.
            I had no mom no pop ... pretty much a loner all my life.
            I'm not bitchin'.
            But it was tough!
            Qwark

            replyreport
7. 71

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   I agree. If we annoy the planet it will simply shrug us off. If we don't annoy it, we may still get removed. It won't worry this little blue/green planet at all.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Chernobyl is actually doing perfectly fine without "us." Frankly, it thrives.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         True! Planet earth has a lot of life forms and processes.
         Far too many to be affected negatively by us tiny insignificant life forms. We are just like an ant colony with bigger ants.

         replyreport
8. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   I think society came bout to allow humans to best live in harmony with nature.  Which is best exploited by understanding the extremely orderly pattern of its species and seasons.  Just as other social animal live in groups to best enjoy the fruits of nature and evade its dangers.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      maven101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What you say is true, yet the fact remains: Nature could care less what humans aspire...We need the earth, Earth does not need us,,

      replyreport