Consensus Reality, Quantum Physics and Magick

You cannot bend the laws of physics with thought though. You may babble about how matter is energy and thoughts are energy that does not mean you can manifest a purple unicorn driving a corvette. Your taking something logical and stretching it into the common abomonation that is new age religion.

reply to post by Wertdagf



You're assuming quite a few steps up in your head there. What you describe is indeed the abomination of new age religion but that doesn't mean that what you describe is what's going on. The whole point of the thread is maybe talking about if indeed we know all the laws of physics? I duno, there is too much left unexplained and no one's doing any explaining about it so some people try to figure it out for themselves. Setting limits on trains of thought is not conducive to success in this arena.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
You cannot bend the laws of physics with thought though. You may babble about how matter is energy and thoughts are energy that does not mean you can manifest a purple unicorn driving a corvette. Your taking something logical and stretching it into the common abomonation that is new age religion.

How do you know that you cannot manifest the purple unicorn driving a corvette?

Do you comprehend that someone needed to conceive of the corvette and spread the concept to others, before entire teams of engineers could manifest it?

Do you not believe that another team could manifest a purple unicorn, and yet another team devise the method of training it to drive the corvette?

As for spontaneous simple alterations in a local reality of limited participants, I have witnessed it, numerous times.

If you were to convince enough people you just might find that the physical reality follows the belief. However the majority's belief that reality is independant of belief will not preclude subtle changes from happening.

You are also endowed with incredible powers of denial, and ignorance.

(No I am not calling you ignorant!) I am using the word litterally. So please do not be offended.

Incidently, I am not a New Ager.
reply to post by Cyberbian


You expressed it masterfully and I thank you very much for doing so. Star for you!

Such shifts in belief as to what is possible do not and cannot happen as quickly to suddenly have a purple unicorns roaring down the road in a corvette.

reply to post by heyo


Weird isn't it? It's had me scratching my head for at least a week now.

reply to post by heyo


And the thing that bothers and annoys me about mainstream science is that these things are dismissed outright and anyone attempting to incorporate them into their models are ridiculed as quacks/religious/New Ager/etc ad nauseum also outright, yet they do happen.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Very interesting thread.
Its hard to say we live in a consensus reality, when at times it seems there is so little consensus on anything!
On the other hand, there are also many things people generally believe in without finding it necessary to discuss - the sun will rise tomorrow, the force of gravity will continue to hold us safely against the earth, the object in front of me is solid, and real, and not just a figment of my imagination.
Beliefs alter our perception of reality, this much we know for certain. But do our beliefs alter reality itself, not merely through physical manifestation, but directly? Is reality in fact contingent on belief? Tough to say... after all, all we really have are our perceptions to go on. There really is no way to tell for sure how well our perceptions are actually representing reality, when our perceptions are the only things we see.
Suppose all the humans were to die, would there still be a reality without us? We generally believe there would, just as we believe reality will continue after our own individual demise.
But here's the problem. We don't really know what that reality would be. The reality we see, is but a infinitesimal fraction of the overall reality, the one that we perceive. So, in this sense, our reality dies with us, and only the absolute lives on. The reality that lies beyond our perspective is unquantifiable, immeasurable, indescribable, and infinite.
Certain ancient peoples, having acknowledged that we can know nothing beyond our own perceptions (and thus demonstrating greater intelligence than most modern humans) postulated that all of reality exists as a thought in the mind of the creator, a single expression, out of infinite possibilities, issued from the absolute void - and your life and my life, dreams within a dream. I don't see much difference between this view and quantum physics, where the universe exists as a spacial, temporal hologram held in place by a unified quantum field.
Some scientists believe that the key to consciousness is that it operates partially on the quantum level. If this is so, then it would be quite natural for our mind to apparently violate the laws of physics. Of course, we couldn't really alter the laws of physics, only the laws of physics according to our severely limited understanding.
I don't think it violates any laws of quantum physics for a corvette driving, purple unicorn to somehow materialize out of nothing. Such an event would be highly unlikely, but by no means impossible. After all, that seems to be what happened to the universe as a whole, time, space, matter, energy, all just sort of popped out from who knows where.
If the mind has the ability to operate and effect things on a quantum level, it would be difficult to determine the theoretical limits of what the mind is capable of. A cursory look at the history of parapsychology will tell us that we don't know all that the mind is capable of, telepathy, psychokinesis, out of body experiences, precognition - there are no known limits.
Human beings have been observed bending spoons with the power of their thoughts alone. Our own government used taxpayer money to train and employ remote viewers to spy on far away places using only their imagination. The big question is not whether some people actually have these abilities - that question has been answered and they do. The big question is, what are the limits of those capabilities? The answer, there are no known limits.

reply to post by outsider13


Great post. But I do have one item of dissention with your otherwise superb post. I think there is limits in that we are limited by, well, each other. By that I mean our conflicting beliefs, thoughts and etc. If everyone affected reality then it goes to say that we would naturally by our very natures limit each other.
The analogy I am really fond of using is say you and I want to push a ball in two exactly opposite directions and act to push the ball at the same time in the direction we wish to move it, the ball would not go anywhere because the fact we are pushing the ball at the same time in exactly opposite directions would cancel out any movement at all. Limiting, so to speak.
It's late so I hope i get my meaning across.
But all in all, star 4 you!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by outsider13
Very interesting thread.
Its hard to say we live in a consensus reality, when at times it seems there is so little consensus on anything!
On the other hand, there are also many things people generally believe in without finding it necessary to discuss - the sun will rise tomorrow, the force of gravity will continue to hold us safely against the earth, the object in front of me is solid, and real, and not just a figment of my imagination.

Ah, stop right there. I do not take any of the things you just named for granted. In my reality those are all "maybes"(those of you into quantum logic should know "yes/no/maybe"). And those "solid" object that are "non-imaginary" only exist in my mind, as does the entire universe, and hence are imaginary.

So there we have it, you and I do not live in the same reality.

Great thread but I must say, as a philosopher, that this subject is one that even philosophers can't come close to settling.

The problem is that all information that we have about the "supposed" world out there only exists in our minds.

But great topic! Mind exercises are always a good thing.

Vas

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth

Ah, stop right there. I do not take any of the things you just named for granted. In my reality those are all "maybes"(those of you into quantum logic should know "yes/no/maybe"). And those "solid" object that are "non-imaginary" only exist in my mind, as does the entire universe, and hence are imaginary.

So there we have it, you and I do not live in the same reality.

Actually, since we are interacting, it seems to me that we exist within the same reality.

Great thread but I must say, as a philosopher, that this subject is one that even philosophers can't come close to settling.

The problem is that all information that we have about the "supposed" world out there only exists in our minds.

But that information in our heads is a reflection of something larger by virtue of fact we have shared experiences, case in point responding to each other's posts. I could argue that I am just a mad god in a void but I find it highly unlikely.

But great topic! Mind exercises are always a good thing.

Vas

Cheers!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I personaly believe that Quantum pysics has it wrong. Particles do not pop in and out of existance. What is there has higher and lower periods of radiation. This would make sense if the universe was a fractal structure, and all matter contains a singularity.

Knowledge is what moves mountains. Not telekenisis... have faith the size of a mustard seed in your ability to understand and manipulate the universe, and you can move mountains. Although it is not "impossible" there is no evidence that this has or will ever happen.... as much as me saying we are all beavers in tanning salon under hypnosis.

People tell lies about events through intension or ignorance. Then the sheer number of the people that belive the lie and write books about it becomes its own evidence as to its existance. That is insane... although it does prove that ignornace and the slavery to unlimited "probablity" can distroy the world. After all who could say it isnt "possible" that white people are the master race... can you really say for sure? So why not go along with it?



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Wertdagf]

It is extremely difficult to see consensus at work within society. I have spent years at sea with very small crews. Under such conditions it becomes much easier. I think the number of people involved and their proximity are critical factors.


I knew a man once who could walk within ten feet of a particular printer and it would power off. He would take one step back and it would power back on. One step forward and it would power off.

This came about by his repeated conviction that if he stepped within ten feet of that printer that it would break!

He demonstrated this in front of 4 experts in digital electronics, and 4 experts in analog. He was a digital expert himself. We benched the printer and checked every aspect of it, there was nothing wrong with it.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Cyberbian]

Great thread. Although I will not go to in depth right now since I do not have time to read it all at the moment. However, I believe that the concept of consensus reality (which I've always subscribed to) extends to religion/deities as well. Does the Christian god exist? Sure, because enough people believe he exists. If everyone stopped believing in a particular god then he/she/it's existence would then cease. Anyhow I'll add more thoughts and expound some later.

P.S.- I haven't been in a posting mood lately. I'm only posting right now because it is one of your threads watcher, and of course I haven't been a very good friend as of late, and because of that, I certainly owe you.

Watcher, I very much agree with your sentiment that we are constrained by the beliefs of others. I go further to elaborate it is in proportion to proximity, number, and strength of conviction.

If that is correct, is there any wonder then that ancient adepts removed themselves from society?

Under this constraint, reality is a tug of war.

In regards to Quantum Physics, please consider that it is the cutting edge of mans understanding, the very edge where beliefs are allowed to shift wildly, are influenced by an extreme few, and potentially change forever the belief set of all mankind.

Consider then, that if reality is instantiated by consensus, and subject to the change of that consensus: Then the physics itself has the highest potential for incorporating the newest changes to reality.

Democritus thought atoms were the furthest reduction of the material world. Before Democritus, did atoms even exist?

After Democritus, did the quantum universe even exist before it was conceived of by modern physicists?

You could not prove it did. It could well be that known laws of the physical universe instantiate because we have willed them to, and will continue to do so.

Once you objectively examine the logic of this stuff, logic and reason fail to prove the necessity of their own existence.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Cyberbian]

A young student was taking a morning stroll with his Kung-Fu master
when they came across a a beautiful rare flower.The student remarked to his master "Sifu, this is a most beautiful flower indeed".
"Yes" said the master "but alas, it is not real.

A little further down the path the perplexed young man pointed to the
distant mountain range and remarked, "Sifu, those mountains are as old as time itself, and how magnificent they are".
"Yes" said the master, "But they are not real".

The young man was now as confused as ever. They walked several more miles untill the boy stoped and asked of his master, "Sifu, What is real"?

The Old man looked to him and said.......

"That is real, which lasts forever".

Bottom line, None of this is real.
NONE OF IT!!!!!!!
You are not real. I am not real. At least not the meat puppets that we wear. Reality is nothing more than a commonly agreed upon illusion.
Release your mind and know that one day you will wake up from your slumber underneath a shade tree in heaven and remark, What a terrifc dream I just had.

That's all it is folks. A dream, or nightmare for most, that we cannot wake up from unless we do the unthinkable....A manual dream termination.
It is supposedly an unspeakable, unforgiveable act but what if we broke the glass and took what was on the otherside of it, and ended our dream.
And what if when we awoke, we awoke to applause, for we finally had the courage to end the dream ourselves.

With that said I'll leave you with this.

Row, Row, Row your boat..............


[edit on 3-3-2009 by DirkDiggler]

reply to post by Cyberbian



Hey there that's a great saying about them not proving the necessity of their existence. Personally I think logic can be used as slavery. A very irrefutable and undeniable box it can create. I think guilt could be a deciding block of this process if it exists. It would seemingly allow things to become reality for free, and a lot of people feel guilty when getting free things. I think in most people subconscious they maybe don't think they deserve this and that's why they/we don't have it? If enough of us believe we are entitled............

You think it is that easy?

No, you do not. You also believe other things. Bad things which will happen if you do. You are conflicted. We all are.


As for terminating the meatbag, how sure are you that it will terminate the dreamers dream?

I am convinced that it will not. Total enlightenment is not found easily at the end of a gun. You will have changed nothing of that which held you bound except the limiting and protective physicality.

Oh what damage we might do and sustain if we were unbounded from these bodies.

Please excuse my absence some very good posts I am noticing. Here goes.

reply to post by Osiris1953


That's pretty much my take on it as well. People's belief creates and fuels the beings they believe created them. More or less.

reply to post by Cyberbian


Very good point and thus a hidden reason for the seemingly instinctive and constant battle of beliefs.

reply to post by Cyberbian


How dare you state it better than I can.

reply to post by heyo


Well there is another avenue of that, there are believe that they are entitled to too dang much but that "The Man" will never give it to them and etc etc etc.
Also be factored in is those that believe someone else doesn't deserve something. Mankind being what he is, and jealousy being what it is and as popular as it is, well, you know.

reply to post by Cyberbian


I am not soo sure "enlightenment" is the name of the game soo much as a goal set by certain individuals, I think that like life there are many paths to walk and we choose the one that best suits us. That life is more or less expressly for the purpose of us to learn what it is "to be" so to speak.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Just some tidbits I found.

Observer Effect?

Q: the theory of observing changing the observed

-Anonymous (age 55)
seward, mpls

A: In quantum mechanics we learn that the behavior of the very smallest objects (like electrons, for example) is very unlike the behavior of everyday things like baseballs. When we throw a baseball at a wall, we can predict where it will be during its flight, where it will hit the wall, how it will bounce, and what it will do afterward.

When we fire an electron at a plate with two closely spaced slits in it, and detect the electron on a screen behind these slits, the behavior of the electron is the same as that of a wave in that it can actually go though both holes at once. This may seem odd, but its true. If we repeat this experiment lots of times with lots of electrons, we see that some positions on the screen will have been hit by many electrons and some will have been hit by none. The observed "interference pattern" for these electrons is evidence of their dual wave-particle nature, and is well described by thinking of each electron as a superposition of two "states", one that goes through one slit, one that goes through the other.

To add to this already mysterious behavior, this interference will only happen if both possible paths that the electron can take are not distinguishable. In other words, if we could somehow tell which slit the electron went through each time, we would no longer get the interference. The act of making a measurement of the electrons path fundamentally changes the outcome of the experiment.

Mats

SOURCE:van.physics.illinois.edu...

There is a related issue in quantum mechanics relating to whether systems have pre-existing — prior to measurement, that is — properties corresponding to all measurements that could possibly be made on them. The assumption that they do is often referred to as "realism" in the literature, although it has been argued that the word "realism" is being used in a more restricted sense than philosophical realism. A recent experiment in the realm of quantum physics has been quoted as meaning that we have to "say goodbye" to realism, although the author of the paper states only that "we would [..] have to give up certain intuitive features of realism". These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, although it is clear from experiment that an "observer" consisting of a single electron is sufficient -- the observer need not be a conscious observer. Also, note that Bell's Theorem suggests strongly that the idea that the state of a system exists independently of its observer may be false.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]