Huh!?!?

[Faceless]

Quantum physics, OK, bit of a blow to the brain that section of the book...

Things only exist if people are looking at them? The whole world would dissappear if there was no one here to observe it?

So if I'm in a room on my own and I close my eyes the room dissappears?


Am I getting this right?


Thanks

[Adrian]

Hello Faceless,

You are getting it right in principle

The entire world only exists in the form it does today because it has been created that way in the Mind of man. Constantly observing that creation perpetuates its existence.

This is much more apparent in the Astral worlds where "creation" happens instantly based on focussed thoughts, and that creation will remain as long as it is observeed which in Astral terms means focussing on its existence. As soon as the focus stops the creation fades away. This is why the Astral worlds are so much like the physical world at the mid-Astral level because they have been created by the Minds of men based on the physical world which they believe to be reality. These vast places in the Astral worlds are concensus creations of millions of people which is why they are so resilient.

The same applies to the physical world, but because of the much higher density and lower vibration the whole process takes much longer.

But the point is everything is Energy and Energy is made up of "Quanta". Quanta are totally influenced by Mind and become forms when they are observed, or concentrated upon. Once that concentration or observance ceases, then the object ceases to exist as an object and becomes the same dissipated Quanta of Energy as when it started.

Best regards,

Adrian.

[malganis]

I'm a bit confused on that subject also.

When the Earth came into existence there were probably no humans on it so we could not observe it. And what about other planets in our solar system or stars? Or we are all in mind of God and everything exist because of that?

Well, my opinion is that God, Creator or whatever name you prefer gave us heap of sand and water and we can make a castle of it or just a mud in metaphorical meaning.

Yours,
malganis

[Arrakis]

Faceless,
If you are interested in quantum physics, a really interesting book to read that explains things in laymen's terms is "Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot.  I couldn't put it down.  I was actually doing a google search on something in the book when I found this forum and Adrian's incredible book.

[Faceless]

Hey Melganis I was wondering that myself.

It still confuses me though Adrian, I close my eyes, my computer doesn't dissappear, it's still humming I can reach out and touch it, it's still there.
I could throw a ball with my eyes shut, it would bounce off the wall and whack me in the face, both ball and wall still exist. I don't get it, I guess I'm no quantum physisist (can't even spell it heh).

Hey Arrakis I will certainly look up that book thanks.

[Adrian]

Hello Faceless,

Hey Melganis I was wondering that myself.

It still confuses me though Adrian, I close my eyes, my computer doesn't dissappear, it's still humming I can reach out and touch it, it's still there.
I could throw a ball with my eyes shut, it would bounce off the wall and whack me in the face, both ball and wall still exist. I don't get it, I guess I'm no quantum physisist (can't even spell it heh).

Hey Arrakis I will certainly look up that book thanks.

That is because you still expect and believe it to be there.

If you focussed on it not being tangible it would not be. Universal Laws work in all directions, and at the final analysis everything, including your PC is Energy which is all controlled by Mind.

Best regards,

Adrian.

[Faceless]

But what about other planets? Who's keeping them in existence?

[Adrian]

Hello Faceless,

But what about other planets? Who's keeping them in existence?

It isn't the actual Planets but rather what is on those planets.

Planets are an aspect of the larger Universe, the macrocosm, that are created by The Source, The First Cause, God in the beginning with "let there be Light". All planets, in fact everything are held in the mind of "God".

As creators in the microcosm, humans determine what is on the planets by virtue of our thoughts, intent and actions. So it is not the planets themselves, but rather the characteristics of the planets surface.

If "God" stopped focussing on the Universe the entire Universe would be withdrawn and cease to exist as sich, and likewise if humans all stopped focussing on the physical aspects of Earth, all physical aspects would cease to exist, and the Earth would remain in its natural state just as the vast majority of planets in the Universe are.

Best regards,

Adrian.

[Daniel]

I love Adrian!  He totally gets it.  I "get it" and then it slips away sometimes, or most of the time.

Although it's not the greatest movie, I suggest the film "What the &#@! Do we Know?" to those who struggle with this concept since they do a fairly nice job of illustrating this concept.

[Dana]

Hello All,

I think everyone is missing the point. Quantum Mechanics is not the solution, it is a big red flag showing the problem. It is the child yelling, the Emperor has no clothes. Please throw out that Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, it is not the only way. There are other interpretations without an "observer". Quantum affects are the result of pushing a world view or theory outside of it's domain of validity. That theory is the seperateness theory, that the Universe is constructed of particles, seperate things. When these "things" are viewed as seperate then Quantum affects such as discontinuous motion and appearing to be in more than one location occur. This only means that the theory or world view is limited. It is getting fuzzy around the edges as we push it to the very small, beyond it's domain. I wish that I had the intellect and linguistic skills to explain this, but there was a man on Earth that did a very good job of it. David Bohm. He put forth the Holographic interpretation of Quantum Physics. I warmly recommend that anyone interested please read the book, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by David Bohm. You will never view the Universe the same way again. Or yourself.


Thanks for listening.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm

Also the "Holographic Universe" contains a lot of David's work and others.

[rudiger650]

When I was a kid I wondered if I left a room and it disappeared. Guess I was right AAAASSS usual!

[Adrian]

Hello Dana,

Thank you for your excellent post!

Hello All,

I think everyone is missing the point. Quantum Mechanics is not the solution, it is a big red flag showing the problem. It is the child yelling, the Emperor has no clothes. Please throw out that Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, it is not the only way. There are other interpretations without an "observer". Quantum affects are the result of pushing a world view or theory outside of it's domain of validity. That theory is the seperateness theory, that the Universe is constructed of particles, seperate things. When these "things" are viewed as seperate then Quantum affects such as discontinuous motion and appearing to be in more than one location occur. This only means that the theory or world view is limited. It is getting fuzzy around the edges as we push it to the very small, beyond it's domain. I wish that I had the intellect and linguistic skills to explain this, but there was a man on Earth that did a very good job of it. David Bohm. He put forth the Holographic interpretation of Quantum Physics. I warmly recommend that anyone interested please read the book, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by David Bohm. You will never view the Universe the same way again. Or yourself.


Thanks for listening.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm

Also the "Holographic Universe" contains a lot of David's work and others.

I totally agree with you vis a vis David Bohm. Of all the quantum physicists he was the most "correct" in my view, and even stood up against his peers.

I fully recognise David Bohm in my book, Our Ultimate Reality, where I discuss him at length.

As for the "observer"; this in fact also equates to reality; i.e. the way things actually are, specifically the behavious of quanta under the influence of thought Energy. This is an important component of The law of Attraction and how reality is created.

"Seperatedness" does not exist, ever; it is an illusion, a trick of the ego and the five physical senses.  To that extent "observer" is a somewhat erroneous but understandable word to apply. We cannot "observe" something  that is not separate from us. However, the fact still remains that we are all aspects of the same intelligent Energy, Quanta, Spirit etc., and that Energy is directly influenced by the power of thought, by the Mind. This is the very basis of creation. Without Mind influencing Energy there would be nothing.

Thanks again for a very thoughtful post.

Best regards,

Adrian.

[Dana]

Hello Dana,

Thank you for your excellent post!


I totally agree with you vis a vis David Bohm. Of all the quantum physicists he was the most "correct" in my view, and even stood up against his peers.

I fully recognise David Bohm in my book, Our Ultimate Reality, where I discuss him at length.

As for the "observer"; this in fact also equates to reality; i.e. the way things actually are, specifically the behavious of quanta under the influence of thought Energy. This is an important component of The law of Attraction and how reality is created.

"Seperatedness" does not exist, ever; it is an illusion, a trick of the ego and the five physical senses.  To that extent "observer" is a somewhat erroneous but understandable word to apply. We cannot "observe" something  that is not separate from us. However, the fact still remains that we are all aspects of the same intelligent Energy, Quanta, Spirit etc., and that Energy is directly influenced by the power of thought, by the Mind. This is the very basis of creation. Without Mind influencing Energy there would be nothing.

Thanks again for a very thoughtful post.

Best regards,

Adrian.

Adrian,

I must apologize, I got your book so long ago that I am forgetting what is in it. LOL I had to go read the section you wrote on Quantum Theory again. Looks like we have the beginnings of a real discussion here. Let me expand on one point and then make a proposal.

I did not mean to imply that David's Holographic Theory is correct or incorrect, right nor wrong. I think David would be the first to tell you that all theories are simply views that can give insights within their domain of validity. Let me quote David;

"This implies, of course, that we are not to regard what we find in such investigations as having an absolute and final validity, but rather we have always to be ready to discover the limits of independence of any relatively autonomous structure of law, and from this to go on to look for new laws that my refer to yet larger relatively autonomous domains of this kind."

My interpretation is that the Holographic Theory does not claim the Universe is a hologram, far from it. It uses the analogy of a hologram as an instrument in order to extract some meaning or insights. It shows that if we view the Universe with a holographic analogy that can perhaps give insights beyond other theories that have come before. No theory can claim to be Reality "the way it is". We must always be observant for the limits of any theory. If a theory is believed to "be" reality then that seems to me to be delusion, when the illusion is believed that is delusion.


Now I am afraid we have probably strayed very far from the question that Faceless first asked in this thread. There is, of course, lifetimes worth of material needing discussion along these lines. I am thinking that several new threads with much more specific subjects would be wonderful for discussion. Hopefully this will get many others interested in the discussions as well. My fear is that your views/theories and my views/theories intersect in far too many areas to completely air a subject. Some other views are needed to enrich the discussion and bring new views to the subjects. I can play the contrarian only so long before I loose interest. LOL

Now the hard part, picking some subject matter within this realm, specific enough to keep the discussion focused and yet general enough to get lots of folks interested.

Here is one that interests me. "There is no theory of reality "the way things actually are". This is a mistake most of us make when talking theories, we start believing that the theory is reality.

Perhaps some background discussions like "What does local / nonlocal mean?" But then again this is not a physics class room.

I don't know. I will ponder on it. Please do the same. Right now I have a pot of beans soaking that I have to tend to. The explicate mundane calls. This stuff makes my brane hurt. ROFL

Anyone else?


Sincerely,

Dana

[Inguma]

Quanta are totally influenced by Mind and become forms when they are observed, or concentrated upon. Once that concentration or observance ceases, then the object ceases to exist as an object and becomes the same dissipated Quanta of Energy as when it started.

Hey Adrian,

I am curious what experiments would bring you to this conclusion? I am aware that before the act of measuring a quanta is defined by a wave function (Schrodingers I believe), which described all the possible states that the quanta can occupy. The act of measuring then tells us which of these states it is actually in at that one instant in time, like scrodingers cat. But, with this cat in a box, we cannot honestly say that the cat occupies both a dead and alive state until measured, we can only say that until we look, we dont know whather it is dead or alive. Similar to the quanta, is there some experiment that disproves this point of view?

Also, the idea that consciousness affects the outcome of the experiment, I would again be interested to hear any refernces you have to support this point of view. Of course, measuring the state of anything on the quantum level affects the state that particle is in, since you cannot measure something without forming a connection with it. When we watch a car travelling down the road, the light (photons) are bouncing off the car and forming that connection to us, but the photons are soo small and the car so much bigger that the car is not significantly affected in any way. On the quantum scale however, this is obviously not the case, since the act of measuring fires particles on the same scale as that being measured and so affects that thing being measured. I dont necessarily see that this means that it is consciousness that affects things being measured, it  seems to me more of a technicality of measuring very very small things.
I am, however, open minded on the subject! If you or anyone else can convince me otherwise I would love to hear it  

all the best

Rob

[Dana]

Hello Rob,

I am not Adrian and can not tell you about his statements, however I may be able to give you a couple of things to think over as I understand them.

In reference to Schrodingers Cat, you seem to be taking the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory. This was devised by Bohr et al something around 70 years ago. It was a struggle to put the theory into some kind of framework. That is not the only interpretaion, there are several dozen others. Some minor tweaks, some not. One from around 1957 is the "Many Worlds View". The name of the author escapes me righ now. But anyway, in this view the cat is alive in one world and dead in another, all existing simultaneously.

Now I jump to the Holographic interpretation as set forth by Dr. David Bohm. In this view the world is viewed as a hologram with all parts enfolded within each region, like in a hologram the entire image is enfolded into each part no matter how small. David goes on to develop what he calls the Implicate order from which everything unfolds and is again enfolded. See my book reference above.

Now the interesting thing here is that David goes on to incluce consciousness into the theory. He asserts that consciousness unfolds from the same Implicate order just as physical matter does. This puts matter and consciousness on the same footing. What implications this has, I don't have a clue. It is an interesting view, IMHO, and quite worthy of further exploration.

Hope all that makes some sense, many times my thinking and my writing do not coincide.

Dana