> > > > > > > > >> --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Yifu and FFL readers, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> For your information, Dr. Pagels died in 1988. Any statements > > > > > >>> that he made while alive has been superceded by discoveries > > > > > >>> made in recent years in quantum physics. If he was alive > > > > > >>> today, he would have changed his position. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pagels > > > > > >> > > > > > > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I rest my case. Quantum Idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't had a case here for a very long time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> --- "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> from Skeptic.com, by Dr. Heinz Pagels, physicist.: > > > > > >>>> ... > > > > > >>>> " > > > > > >>>> The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do > > > > > >>>> with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what > > > > > >>>> physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with > > > > > >>>> consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of > > > > > >>>> people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a > > > > > >>>> unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. > > > > > >>>> The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, > > > > > >>>> and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about > > > > > >>>> pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who > > > > > >>>> might not know any better. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me > > > > > >>>> distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the > > > > > >>>> beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of > > > > > >>>> generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a > > > > > >>>> feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these > > > > > >>>> distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and > > > > > >>>> his movement because it supports world peace and other high > > > > > >>>> ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized > > > > > >>>> within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts > > > > > >>>> scientific truth (Pagels). > > > > > >>>> What Chopra is peddling is quantum gibberish." > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First of all, on what basis would Pagels have changed his opinion? It > > > > > is true Pagels trashed the TM theory of quantum mechanics. This was > > > > > based on things Larry Domash had written. As I recall, Domash used > > > > > the vacuum state of quantum mechanics as an analogy to explain TM, > > > > > much in the way one might use an orange and a golf ball to create an > > > > > analogy describing how the Moon and Earth, orbit around a common > > > > > centre of gravity. I am not acutally aware of how the quantum vacuum > > > > > analogy morphed into TC *is* the quantum vacuum, or how this > > > > > subsequently morphed into the Unified Field equivalency that we see > > > > > today under Hagelin. Hagelin is still of course talking about this. I > > > > > do not know what Domash's view would be today. > > > > > > > > > > I recently re-listened to a debate with woo meister Deepak Chopra, > > > > > neuroscientist Sam Harris, skeptic Michael Shermer, and scholar Jean > > > > > Houston that took place in 2010. Though Chopra is not in the movement > > > > > any more, he does hew to the new age quantum nonsense that many, > > > > > including the TMO, make their stock in trade. In this debate, the > > > > > skeptics raked Chopra over the hot coals repeatedly for this. What > > > > > was really interesting about this debate was it was a Cal Tech, and > > > > > physicist Leonard Mlodinaw was in the audience stood up and offered > > > > > Chopra a short course of quantum mechanics to straighten out his > > > > > misuse of quantum notation. Mlodinaw, whose field is mathematical > > > > > physics, recently wrote a book with Stephen Hawking (The Grand > > > > > Design). Mlodinaw said he had never come across a definition of > > > > > consciousness that made any sense. It was clear that for Mlodinaw the > > > > > correlations between consciouness and quantum mechanics that Chopra > > > > > was presenting made no sense whatsoever, that is, it was nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The full debate: http://youtu.be/wi2IC6e5DUY > > > > > The debate covers much more ground than just this aspect of spiritual > > > > > nomenclature and physics. > > > > > > > > > Xeno, > > > > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the > > > > importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me > > > > present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient > > > > being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still > > > > exist? The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. > > > > Why? Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the > > > > dimensions of space and time. Without your presence, how is it > > > > possible for the universe to exist? > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote > > > > > > For the first 30 or 40 million years after the big-bang > > > there was no life, not even bacteria in the universe. > > > > > > The first generation stars made of pure hydrogen had to > > > create other elements and explode. Most of them collapsed > > > into stellar black holes. > > > > > > These stellar black-holes merged with one another to form > > > super-massive blackholes and used their massive gravity to > > > evolve galaxies. > > > > > > Which logically means this theoritical "Observer" has to > > > exist outside the bubble universe. > > > > --- "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > IMHO, this Observer is both within and outside this universe. This could > > be the scenario if the multiverse theory is ever proved. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Not really, the multiverse wouldn't have formed until the first > definite particles appeared about 3 mins after the big bang. It > was all a bit chaotic before that, all the forces unified - that > sort of thing, so any observer wouldn't have existed either. > > > It's also possible that It is everything that you can think of, but at the > same time It is NOT. > > I'm fairly sure that doesn't make sense.... >
It's the local bubble Universe that came from the big-bang. We really don't know how the Multiverse-Cosmos was created. As Barry points out, it could be an eternal machine that always there.
