I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
rather than a physical one.
You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them
to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We
look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing
there. But that is a trick of the mind.
The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum.
There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is
the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes
as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But
it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence
begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not
there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is
there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous,
reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of
Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced
by Quantum Theory.
Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a
vacuum. There must be something to wave.
There is a Zen mondo that goes:
Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag
that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came
along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH
wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever
is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not
appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
> to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
> rather than a physical one.
> You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them
> to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We
> look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing
> there. But that is a trick of the mind.
> The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum.
> There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is
> the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes
> as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But
> it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence
> begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not
> there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
> The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is
> there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous,
> reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of
> Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced
> by Quantum Theory.
> Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a
> vacuum. There must be something to wave.
> There is a Zen mondo that goes:
> Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag
> that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came
> along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH
> wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
> The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever
> is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not
> appear until the Observer shows up! :D
Science did away with the "ether" idea a long time ago, I understand, though I don't know much about the specifics of either what is was supposed to be or what it was that "science" did away with. All I know is that it was an idea that was floated around during the 19th and early 20th centuries that is not much talked about today even in metaphysical circles among those who understand the subject best.
However, scientists do a good job at misunderstanding what Metaphysicists are saying, and go about "disproving" what the metphysicians are NOT saying! ;D
> I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point > rather than a physical one.
> You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them > to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We > look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing > there. But that is a trick of the mind.
> The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum. > There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is > the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes > as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But > it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence > begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not > there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
> The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is > there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous, > reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of > Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced > by Quantum Theory.
> Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a > vacuum. There must be something to wave.
> There is a Zen mondo that goes:
> Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag > that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came > along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH > wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
> The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever > is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> Namaste
> Pottsie
"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
> I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
> to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
> rather than a physical one.
> You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them
> to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We
> look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing
> there. But that is a trick of the mind.
> The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum.
> There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is
> the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes
> as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But
> it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence
> begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not
> there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
> The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is
> there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous,
> reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of
> Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced
> by Quantum Theory.
> Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a
> vacuum. There must be something to wave.
> There is a Zen mondo that goes:
> Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag
> that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came
> along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH
> wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
> The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever
> is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not
> appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> Namaste
> Pottsie
Have you not heard of the Zero-Point Field? If not, grab a copy
of Lynne McTaggart's book "The Field". It describes the fabric of
space time AS a medium through which energy moves. The ZPF is the YIN
to the active YANG of energy. While also a field of energy, per se,
it is passive energy. That is, it (the ZPF) is a single singularity
that stretches throughout space-time and forms the Planck-length
pointed gridiron through which energy acts. It is, as Molly says, the
up-to-date scientific version of 'ether'. As to how it applies in a
string theory paradigm, have a look at this link:
http://www.superstringtheory.fanspace.com/guest_book.html Note: although his theory is not the same as mine, the ZPF aspect of
it is compatible with mine.
You can also look at wikipedia for the ZPF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_field and its corresponding, Einstein-proposed zero-point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy.
In McTaggart's book, she describes many experiments which rely on
the ZPF. The most important one being that, if you assume a ZPF, you
can derive F=MA and no longer have it as an axiom but as a proven
fact. Newton, of course, had to assume it. But, the ZPF also lays
the foundation for homeopathy and mind-over-matter effects. It's a
great book, Potts; one well worth getting.
What? Do you think I'm a physicist or something? I'm just a wandering pilgrim looking for a bit of shade! ;)
Is McTaggart's book written in lay terms? I seem to have misplaced my handy dandy physics lingo dictionary, and my math is limited to sophomore algebra. Trig was the class in which I wrote letters to my girlfriend, and my Calculus prof was straight off the boat from Taiwan, and couldn't even be understood when he said "Herrow!" :D
> I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point > rather than a physical one. ><snip> > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> Namaste
> Pottsie
Have you not heard of the Zero-Point Field? If not, grab a copy of Lynne McTaggart's book "The Field". It describes the fabric of space time AS a medium through which energy moves. The ZPF is the YIN to the active YANG of energy. While also a field of energy, per se, it is passive energy. That is, it (the ZPF) is a single singularity that stretches throughout space-time and forms the Planck-length pointed gridiron through which energy acts. It is, as Molly says, the up-to-date scientific version of 'ether'. As to how it applies in a string theory paradigm, have a look at this link: http://www.superstringtheory.fanspace.com/guest_book.html Note: although his theory is not the same as mine, the ZPF aspect of it is compatible with mine. You can also look at wikipedia for the ZPF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_field and its corresponding, Einstein-proposed zero-point energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy.
In McTaggart's book, she describes many experiments which rely on the ZPF. The most important one being that, if you assume a ZPF, you can derive F=MA and no longer have it as an axiom but as a proven fact. Newton, of course, had to assume it. But, the ZPF also lays the foundation for homeopathy and mind-over-matter effects. It's a great book, Potts; one well worth getting.
"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
On Jul 23, 5:57 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What? Do you think I'm a physicist or something? I'm just a wandering pilgrim looking for a bit of shade! ;)
> Is McTaggart's book written in lay terms?
Absolutely. If it weren't, I wouldn't have mentioned it. In
fact, that's one of it's big selling points.
>I seem to have misplaced my handy dandy physics lingo dictionary, >and my math is limited to sophomore algebra. Trig was the class >in which I wrote letters to my girlfriend, and my Calculus prof >was straight off the boat from Taiwan, and couldn't even be >understood when he said "Herrow!" :D
The ideas behind calculus are really quite simple. For example,
integral calculus takes countless n-dimensional (4-D, for example)
objects and integrates them into one n+1-dimensional (5-D, in this
example) object. Differential calculus does the opposite and takes a
n-dimensional object and cuts it up into 'n-1 dimensional' objects.
The rest is the 'how-to' bit. Conceptually, you use integral calculus
to get a loaf out of slices and differential calculus to get slices
from a loaf. Easy as pie...well, maybe easy as bread. ;-)
You'd have absolutely no problems with "The Field". I only
remember one bit of math coming out of it and that was the reference
to F=MA (Force=Mass*Acceleration). Have a quick look at her website:
http://www.livingthefield.com/
> > I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
> > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
> > rather than a physical one.
> ><snip>
> > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> > Namaste
> > Pottsie
> Have you not heard of the Zero-Point Field? If not, grab a copy
> of Lynne McTaggart's book "The Field". It describes the fabric of
> space time AS a medium through which energy moves. The ZPF is the YIN
> to the active YANG of energy. While also a field of energy, per se,
> it is passive energy. That is, it (the ZPF) is a single singularity
> that stretches throughout space-time and forms the Planck-length
> pointed gridiron through which energy acts. It is, as Molly says, the
> up-to-date scientific version of 'ether'. As to how it applies in a
> string theory paradigm, have a look at this link:http://www.superstringtheory.fanspace.com/guest_book.html > Note: although his theory is not the same as mine, the ZPF aspect of
> it is compatible with mine.
> You can also look at wikipedia for the ZPF:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_field > and its corresponding, Einstein-proposed zero-point energy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy.
> In McTaggart's book, she describes many experiments which rely on
> the ZPF. The most important one being that, if you assume a ZPF, you
> can derive F=MA and no longer have it as an axiom but as a proven
> fact. Newton, of course, had to assume it. But, the ZPF also lays
> the foundation for homeopathy and mind-over-matter effects. It's a
> great book, Potts; one well worth getting.
> "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science did away with the "ether" idea a long time ago, I understand, though I don't know much about the specifics of either what is was supposed to be or what it was that "science" did away with. All I know is that it was an idea that was floated around during the 19th and early 20th centuries that is not much talked about today even in metaphysical circles among those who understand the subject best.
> However, scientists do a good job at misunderstanding what Metaphysicists are saying, and go about "disproving" what the metphysicians are NOT saying! ;D
Yup, and the ZPF has brought it (the ether) right back into the
fray.
> > I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
> > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
> > rather than a physical one.
> > You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them
> > to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We
> > look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing
> > there. But that is a trick of the mind.
> > The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum.
> > There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is
> > the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes
> > as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But
> > it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence
> > begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not
> > there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
> > The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is
> > there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous,
> > reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of
> > Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced
> > by Quantum Theory.
> > Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a
> > vacuum. There must be something to wave.
> > There is a Zen mondo that goes:
> > Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag
> > that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came
> > along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH
> > wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
> > The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever
> > is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not
> > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> > Namaste
> > Pottsie
> "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie- Hide quoted text -
On Jul 23, 7:58 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:57 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What? Do you think I'm a physicist or something? I'm just a wandering pilgrim looking for a bit of shade! ;)
> > Is McTaggart's book written in lay terms?
> Absolutely. If it weren't, I wouldn't have mentioned it. In
> fact, that's one of it's big selling points.
After I'd read it, I was so impressed I made contact with one of
the scientists (Hal Puthoff) mentioned in the book. We exchanged a
couple or three emails back about a couple of years ago. He's a very
approachable guy and certainly open to new ways of thinking about
things.
> >I seem to have misplaced my handy dandy physics lingo dictionary, >and my math is limited to sophomore algebra. Trig was the class >in which I wrote letters to my girlfriend, and my Calculus prof >was straight off the boat from Taiwan, and couldn't even be >understood when he said "Herrow!" :D
> The ideas behind calculus are really quite simple. For example,
> integral calculus takes countless n-dimensional (4-D, for example)
> objects and integrates them into one n+1-dimensional (5-D, in this
> example) object. Differential calculus does the opposite and takes a
> n-dimensional object and cuts it up into 'n-1 dimensional' objects.
> The rest is the 'how-to' bit. Conceptually, you use integral calculus
> to get a loaf out of slices and differential calculus to get slices
> from a loaf. Easy as pie...well, maybe easy as bread. ;-)
> You'd have absolutely no problems with "The Field". I only
> remember one bit of math coming out of it and that was the reference
> to F=MA (Force=Mass*Acceleration). Have a quick look at her website:http://www.livingthefield.com/
> > > I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest
> > > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point
> > > rather than a physical one.
> > ><snip>
> > > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
> > > Namaste
> > > Pottsie
> > Have you not heard of the Zero-Point Field? If not, grab a copy
> > of Lynne McTaggart's book "The Field". It describes the fabric of
> > space time AS a medium through which energy moves. The ZPF is the YIN
> > to the active YANG of energy. While also a field of energy, per se,
> > it is passive energy. That is, it (the ZPF) is a single singularity
> > that stretches throughout space-time and forms the Planck-length
> > pointed gridiron through which energy acts. It is, as Molly says, the
> > up-to-date scientific version of 'ether'. As to how it applies in a
> > string theory paradigm, have a look at this link:http://www.superstringtheory.fanspace.com/guest_book.html > > Note: although his theory is not the same as mine, the ZPF aspect of
> > it is compatible with mine.
> > You can also look at wikipedia for the ZPF:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_field > > and its corresponding, Einstein-proposed zero-point energy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy.
> > In McTaggart's book, she describes many experiments which rely on
> > the ZPF. The most important one being that, if you assume a ZPF, you
> > can derive F=MA and no longer have it as an axiom but as a proven
> > fact. Newton, of course, had to assume it. But, the ZPF also lays
> > the foundation for homeopathy and mind-over-matter effects. It's a
> > great book, Potts; one well worth getting.
> > "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie- Hide quoted text -
After I'd read it, I was so impressed I made contact with one of the scientists (Hal Puthoff) mentioned in the book. We exchanged a couple or three emails back about a couple of years ago. He's a very approachable guy and certainly open to new ways of thinking about things.
"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
wrote: > Science did away with the "ether" idea a long time ago, I understand, though I don't know much about the specifics of either what is was supposed to be or what it was that "science" did away with. All I know is that it was an idea that was floated around during the 19th and early 20th centuries that is not much talked about today even in metaphysical circles among those who understand the subject best.
> However, scientists do a good job at misunderstanding what Metaphysicists are saying, and go about "disproving" what the metphysicians are NOT saying! ;D
Yup, and the ZPF has brought it (the ether) right back into the fray.
> > I think I just thought of something that may help (hinder) your quest > > to find out what connects quanta, albeit it a philosophical point > > rather than a physical one.
> > You have two objects. Two of anything. Quanta or Sardines. For them > > to communicate or interact there MUST be a medium between them. We > > look at the two objects and see nothing, and say there is nothing > > there. But that is a trick of the mind.
> > The Universe abhors a vacuum. And Nothing is the ultimate vacuum. > > There is no such thing as Nothing. Nothingness DOESN'T exist! It is > > the true figment of our imagination. We think of Existence sometimes > > as this great big "Thing" floating on a background of Nothingness. But > > it's not. Existence doesn't end and Non-existence > > begins. Existence goes on forever. If "Nothing" is not > > there....there has to be SOMETHING....even if we can't see it.
> > The problem with this is is that once you define what it is that is > > there, you will have to prove that THAT substance is continuous, > > reaching from object to object. In my rudimentary understanding of > > Physics, that is what happened to Atomic Theory when it was replaced > > by Quantum Theory.
> > Another way of looking at it is: Sound Waves don't travel through a > > vacuum. There must be something to wave.
> > There is a Zen mondo that goes:
> > Two monks were arguing over a flag. One monk claimed it was the flag > > that was waving. The other claimed it was the wind. The Master came > > along, rapped them both with his stick, and said, "You are BOTH > > wrong. It is your mind that waves!"
> > The medium between the quanta is Mind. No-Thing. Spirit. Whatever > > is there will not appear until we observe it. The "object" will not > > appear until the Observer shows up! :D
