Return Home
It is currently Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:21 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 11:40 am
Posts: 17
Quote:
I say it again, when the experiment is done by Tom, the results will surely be what he mentioned.
I am sure they won't. He will prove himself wrong.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Hi,

I have also been trying to understand MBT for the past few month. It takes time to grasp and digest.
According to my latest understanding, you actually have to think differently.

The experiments as Tom describes them are "metaphors" for "non-scientists".
Take the double-slit experiment with "which-way detectors": There are actually no such straight-forward "detectors" available (they are probably impossible).
The actual detection is done in a more complex way.

To be more philosophical: Take the "Darwinist Evolution" for example: There is no actual "Evolution", Just a rule set.
There is an excellent "Quantum Mechanics I" course at MIT by Prof. Allen Adams where he mentioned a couple of times: If someone tells you: "In reality it is this and that - punch him in the gut..."

All physical models, explanations, reasoning and interactions are actually metaphors.

Hope this explains it.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 944
Quote:
Hi,

I have also been trying to understand MBT for the past few month. It takes time to grasp and digest.
According to my latest understanding, you actually have to think differently.

The experiments as Tom describes them are "metaphors" for "non-scientists".
Take the double-slit experiment with "which-way detectors": There are actually no such straight-forward "detectors" available (they are probably impossible).
The actual detection is done in a more complex way.

To be more philosophical: Take the "Darwinist Evolution" for example: There is no actual "Evolution", Just a rule set.
There is an excellent "Quantum Mechanics I" course at MIT by Prof. Allen Adams where he mentioned a couple of times: If someone tells you: "In reality it is this and that - punch him in the gut..."

All physical models, explanations, reasoning and interactions are actually metaphors.

Hope this explains it.
Well welcome aboard Avi Tal. But be careful not to fall overboard.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:29 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Thank you John.

Maybe I can make a small contribution to MBT by suggesting that the "metaphor" concept should be more emphasized.
I can see that Tom mentions it here and there, but as you probably remember I made the same mistake as probably many others do:
I was also trying to look for the 'actual' "envelopes" and "detectors", ...


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 944
Quote:
Thank you John.

Maybe I can make a small contribution to MBT by suggesting that the "metaphor" concept should be more emphasized.
I can see that Tom mentions it here and there, but as you probably remember I made the same mistake as probably many others do:
I was also trying to look for the 'actual' "envelopes" and "detectors", ...
Some say you first focus on your surroundings, then SELF, then ALL. Enjoy the ride. By the way, nice meeting you and others here along the way.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6169
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
Hi, I have also been trying to understand MBT for the past few month. It takes time to grasp and digest. According to my latest understanding, you actually have to think differently. The experiments as Tom describes them are "metaphors" for "non-scientists". Take the double-slit experiment with "which-way detectors": There are actually no such straight-forward "detectors" available (they are probably impossible). The actual detection is done in a more complex way. To be more philosophical: Take the "Darwinist Evolution" for example: There is no actual "Evolution", Just a rule set. There is an excellent "Quantum Mechanics I" course at MIT by Prof. Allen Adams where he mentioned a couple of times: If someone tells you: "In reality it is this and that - punch him in the gut..." All physical models, explanations, reasoning and interactions are actually metaphors. Hope this explains it.
Yes, to understand MBT to have to undergo several paradigm changes in the way you think.

The experiments Tom has described are not metaphors for anything. They are experiments to be done by scientists and funded by the recent Kickstarter campaign that raised $236,590. Tom explains the experiments in detail here:

Experiment 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8&t=29s
Experiment 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUiDoHkQRU&t=1s
Experiment 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1JczKIVEU&t=1s
Experiment 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCpusboaWk8&t=1s
Experiment 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLVbljym4w&t=1s

Yes there is evolution. The ruleset supports evolution. And evolution is essential for consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Quote:
Quote:
Hi, I have also been trying to understand MBT for the past few month. It takes time to grasp and digest. According to my latest understanding, you actually have to think differently. The experiments as Tom describes them are "metaphors" for "non-scientists". Take the double-slit experiment with "which-way detectors": There are actually no such straight-forward "detectors" available (they are probably impossible). The actual detection is done in a more complex way. To be more philosophical: Take the "Darwinist Evolution" for example: There is no actual "Evolution", Just a rule set. There is an excellent "Quantum Mechanics I" course at MIT by Prof. Allen Adams where he mentioned a couple of times: If someone tells you: "In reality it is this and that - punch him in the gut..." All physical models, explanations, reasoning and interactions are actually metaphors. Hope this explains it.
Yes, to understand MBT to have to undergo several paradigm changes in the way you think.

The experiments Tom has described are not metaphors for anything. They are experiments to be done by scientists and funded by the recent Kickstarter campaign that raised $236,590. Tom explains the experiments in detail here:

Experiment 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8&t=29s
Experiment 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUiDoHkQRU&t=1s
Experiment 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1JczKIVEU&t=1s
Experiment 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCpusboaWk8&t=1s
Experiment 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLVbljym4w&t=1s

Yes there is evolution. The ruleset supports evolution. And evolution is essential for consciousness.
Hi Sainbury,

I am still learning (evolving) as you can see... I may need some help (not ashamed to ask...).

Maybe I am wrong, but what I meant by "metaphors" is that in these videos, the exact details are missing. For example: Except for experiment 5 - What are the which way detectors? How can they detect a photon without absorbing it and letting it hit the screen? If you actually shoot something at is (like a low energy electron), it's phase will be destroyed and you will probably not get a diffraction pattern.
And for experiment 5: How exactly does the u-C calculates the expected probabilities?

This is why I understand these experiments as "metaphors".

I will be happy to learn more.

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:35 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6169
Location: Ocala, FL
I'm sure more details will be published when the results of the experiments are published.

But the definition of metaphor is:
- a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance
- something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol

These experiments are meant to be scientific experiments. They do not resemble another concept.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:06 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Quote:
I'm sure more details will be published when the results of the experiments are published.

But the definition of metaphor is:
- a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance
- something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol

These experiments are meant to be scientific experiments. They do not resemble another concept.
Hi Sainbury,

I am sorry if I used the word "metaphor" not in place. English is not my mother-tongue... (I speak Hebrew better...).
But, I heard Tom say that a "particle" is 'actually' a metaphor. What do you say? Is it right to call it a metaphor or is there something else I don't understand?

Maybe I can explain my point better:
I feel that MBT is in the right direction, and I would like to get a deeper understanding of how to explain this to myself and others.
I can't see how "direct" which-way detectors can be implemented. Instead, the which-way path probably has to be deduced indirectly like other delayed choice quantum eraser experiments that where done in the past.

As far as I understand, the exact details can effect the results. So I believed (maybe by mistake) that Tom was speaking "metaphorically".

If someone here can shed more light on this then I am sure more people would join!

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 944
Avi Tal, please review the video attached to the following thread and provide your thoughts:

viewtopic.php?f=220&p=106761#p106761


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6169
Location: Ocala, FL
Quote:
I am sorry if I used the word "metaphor" not in place. English is not my mother-tongue... (I speak Hebrew better...).
But, I heard Tom say that a "particle" is 'actually' a metaphor. What do you say? Is it right to call it a metaphor or is there something else I don't understand?
Avi Tal - no problem. That is why I gave a definition of the word metaphor - so we would both be on the same page.

I am still working on the transcript of this video, but Tom does talk a lot about particles and other things that have been named in the scientific quest to describe reality as physical. Here is a part of it.

US Space and Rocket Center (Part 1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxeEaO ... ibCRsMi_IM

...the bottom-up model starts with elementary particles called fundamental particles. The problem with elementary particles is they aren't composed of anything – they have no size and so can have no substructure. How then can you explain the properties of these particles and show how they can be used to explain the contents of the universe? If a particle is truly fundamental it doesn’t have any piece parts because it is at the bottom of the building block of matter. We used to think the atom was a fundamental particle. Then scientists found that atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons. And we used to think that about the electron and now the electron has quarks and the nucleus has proton and neutrons. Then the protons and neutrons got broken apart, and everything that used to be elementary became a part of something else. So there’s always something else that becomes elementary.

Now in the physical model we have this set of particles that we call elementary, and they’re fundamental. The problem is if it’s elementary, and it has no piece parts, where does it come from? It’s not made from anything, it has no piece parts, and so there’s no way make one. If there is no way to make one, how do you get it? Well, they just exist. It exists because they exist. If you want to cheat this a little bit you’d say “They happened in the big bang somehow. They just got made.” But how do you make something with no piece parts. Where did they come from? If they came from the Big Bang, then where did the Big Bang come from? It’s the same problem. The Big Bang just pops out of nowhere. So the explanation is that the elementary particles, this whole reality is built on, just popped out of nowhere. That doesn’t give you a real warm feeling about the results that you’re going to get from this calculation. These particles that aren't composed of anything, that have no size and no substructure, are elementary and fundamental.

The second problem is that none of these particles have ever been observed or measured. What has been observed, or measured, are the effects of these particles. We can see an effect. Like gravity is an effect. Things fall down. That’s an effect. Let’s explain that effect. Well, maybe it’s that masses attract. Maybe it’s curvature of space-time. Maybe it’s electromagnetic. So, the particle is just a hypothetical model of what somebody dreamed up to tell you how the effect works. One, they’re elementary which makes it difficult to know where they come from. Two, they’re fundamental which means they are just theories. Nobody’s ever seen one; nobody’s ever measured one. We make them up to solve the problem of why we get an effect. Like the theories about gravity that says masses attract or it's because of a bend in space-time. Scientists make those theories up to solve the gravity effect. There’s often multiple ways that you can describe something. You get different ways of describing all kinds of things like describing things with particles.

The fact is that back in the early 1900’s, when quantum mechanics was just getting started, physicists had a big argument among themselves. Neils Bohr with his Copenhagen Interpretation [1] said that there was a good probabilistic model that could explain reality. And the other physicists said “Yeah, but probability is weird. We’re used to Newton and his particles where everything is mass. And we understand that. We don’t like a probability model. It’s too weird. We like particles.” So at that point back in the early 1900’s most physicists went with the particles. That feels better to us because science has always been committed to materialism and particles.

Physicists have been down that rabbit hole ever since the early 1900’s. That’s why they’re having so many problems now trying to say, "How does the double slit experiment work?" And why scientists keep asking, "Why do particles act like that?” It’s because particles are the wrong way to model the problem. It’s not a good model to explain the effects, so it fails. Physicists say these fundamental particles are hypothetical particles, they’re elementary, and they pop out of nothing. We see materialism doesn’t exactly have a strong, logical foundation. Materialism starts to look pretty ratty at the roots.


As for your questions about the experiments, I cannot answer those. You will have to wait for the results to be published.

People find the theory when they are ready. It is no use to those who are not.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:41 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Quote:
Avi Tal, please review the video attached to the following thread and provide your thoughts:

viewtopic.php?f=220&p=106761#p106761
Hi John and Sainbury,

Thanks allot for the video.
I must admit that I understood only parts of it.

As far as I can see, the debate between physic scientists is about what is emergent: Conscience from Physical reality or Physical reality from Conscience.
Tom's Virtual Reality theory is a good evidence of the later. His suggested experiments should evidently settle this debate.

My problem is perhaps that I am a "simple person", and when I first saw the double slit experiment with my own eyes in college, I thought: Well, maybe light is a wave, maybe it is particles, these are all physical models. We will never know the "truth".

Tom's experiments bring us closer to the "truth". He suggests (and I agree) that these experiments will make a shift in scientists way of thinking and consequently lead to a new age of technology, where conscience will be able to define the rule set.

I also wish that this will happen and this is why I would like to understand how these experiments are done. I tend to think that they are much more complicated then what appears in Tom's lectures since he explains it to "non-scientists".

Sainbury said "As for your questions about the experiments, I cannot answer those. You will have to wait for the results to be published."
Maybe you know someone who can answer? I think that "material" explanation of these experiments will pull many others to this important mission.

Or, maybe I am wrong? Maybe looking for "real" envelopes and "real" detectors is not the way?

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6169
Location: Ocala, FL
Tom could answer your questions, but he travels so much and does so many podcasts, interviews, and YouTube videos that he doesn't have much time left.

With some patience your questions will be answered when the experiment data is published.

And all of the experiments are to push scientist faster into the model of a virtual reality. It doesn't have anything to do with evolving the quality of your consciousness. And that is the real purpose of MBT.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited