TurquoiseB: > I have *no earthly idea* how or why these things occurred. > Well, that pretty much sums it up: Turq has no idea what 'quantum mechanics' is, or even the general laws of physics!
But, Turq sure does seem fond of those metaphysical terms like 'selves', 'spiritual', and 'enlightenment'. LOL! But, the real *mystery* is why Turq would even attempt to chime in on the topic of quantum physics. Now that is a mystery! > None whatsoever. I have suspicions, or theories, > or speculations, but I am also clear that that's > *all* that they are, so I keep them to myself or > discuss them only with people who have shared the > same experience. I am suggesting that theories and > speculations are all they are for everyone else, > too. I'm just more honest about it than they are. :-) > > *May* have no connection with any physical laws. > > I certainly am not. Others may if they want. They > are free to do that. I am free to laugh at them. :-) > > I know that you're just using a euphemism or a > common phrase here, Lurk, but to be clear I don't > actually *have* a "side." *I* am not trying to sell > anything, even a theory about How It All Works; others > are. *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with > my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached > to people agreeing with them. I'm just discussing this > with you because I enjoy jackpotting ideas around, for > fun. I have no aardvark in this race. :-) > > Exactly. The earth-centric universe *made sense*. It > matched people's subjective experience. It just had > nothing whatsoever to do with reality, that's all. > My suspicion is that "quantum consciousness" is going > to be regarded as just as silly in 50 years. > > I stand in opposition to no one and nothing. I didn't > make a claim either way. I asked *you* a question. You > answered it. End of story. > > I am curious, though, about what a "quantum pioneer" is. > I have images of Einstein sitting in the seat of a covered > wagon cracking his whip and shouting, "Move along little > quarkies." :-) > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe > "allowed for?" > > It was a subjective event, shared by me and hundreds of > other people. We saw him levitate. That does *NOT* imply > that he actually levitated, only that we saw it. For all > I know, because no cameras were present, it could have > been a *purely* subjective experience. So, am I supposed > to get all hinky trying to think up an "explanation" for > something that might have been purely subjective? I think > not. > > Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, > I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for > how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly > sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing > to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if > one does, certainly isn't male. :-) > > For whom? For you? I owe you nothing. For anyone else? > I owe them nothing. I am selling nothing, not even a > theory about why or how what I and hundreds of others > witnessed. I am merely telling you what we witnessed. > > If you have a problem with this without an accompanying > "why" or "how," that is YOUR problem, not mine. > > WHY would that be "better?" Because YOU would be more > comfortable with it? > > As far as I could tell, it was physical levitation. As > far as anyone else in the room or out in the desert with > Rama could tell, it was physical levitation. I am open to > that *not* being the case because there is no way I could > prove that it was physical levitation. It certainly looked > like it was physical to me. > > You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in "physical > laws" and in their predictability. I do not share this. If > you find yourself threatened by the idea that this really > happened on a physical level, I suggest that this is YOUR > problem, not mine. > > What is lame, dude, is that you don't seem to be able to > understand plain English. I *provided* no "explanations." > I will *never* provide any "explanations" of the many > things I have experienced and/or witnessed. > > There are two reasons for this. The first, and most > important, is that I have *no earthly idea* how or why > these things occurred. I'm certainly not going to make > one up just to make YOU feel more comfortable or less > threatened. > > The second is that *I am not trying to sell you anything*. > I DON'T GIVE A SHIT what you believe. Never > have, never will. What you believe doth not affect me in > any way. > > If you're looking for someone who will "defend" his or her > perceptions of extraordinary phenomena or "explain" them > to you, continue looking. I am not that person. And I won't > become that person no matter how many times you ask. > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > you not get? >
