Return Home
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:08 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 931
Quote:
Quote:
Thank you. As do I. Do you agree that knowledge, awareness, focused consciousness produces outcome?
Sure. A typical MBT phrase is "Intent modifies information".
Idk if that is what you mean by outcome.
I do visualizations. Is that an outcome?
This is my first introduction to the phrase. Outcome by definition means "the way a thing turns out; a consequence". Information by definition means "facts provided or learned about something or someone". In my way of thinking, the intent to use visualization (one of the 5 senses) to create an outcome can produce the desired results. Mental imagery is more effective when all 5 senses are in use. In my Hermetic studies, I learned to use all 5 senses; defined as "mental wondering".

We seem to be in agreement on the fundamentals of consciousness and intent. So, please explain how during a double slit experiment (slit), when detectors are on and not recording the communication theorem is not at issue, and when they are recording it is? Further, if you operate in NPMR and know WAIT, why are you preoccupied in the intellectual rather than the being level?. The whole argument over the slit forms a basis for whether consciousness is immortal? If I understand you correctly, you believe it is.

Minde: He did miss the No Communication Theorem. He should have added in his videos in Youtube that if the success of the recordings control the output being interference or not his predictions violate the No Communication Theorem.

Respectfully,

John


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: Lincoln, NE
Quote:
He did miss the No Communication Theorem.
I'm not sure, but I think Tom indicated the No Communication Theorem was irrelevant in the Reddit thread reply ?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:19 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 11:40 am
Posts: 17
Quote:
So, please explain how during a double slit experiment (slit), when detectors are on and not recording the communication theorem is not at issue, and when they are recording it is? Further, if you operate in NPMR and know WAIT, why are you preoccupied in the intellectual rather than the being level?. The whole argument over the slit forms a basis for whether consciousness is immortal? If I understand you correctly, you believe it is.
I am 99.99% sure that Tom will conclude from the experiments that recordings don't change anything (interference to no interference, etc.).
I assume TC believes the change (successful recording or not) is propagated instantaneously (like entanglement).
You can see this in his video of experiment 1c1 & 1c2, when he talks about adding a which way data device. This device can be switched on and off and change the outcome from interference (diffraction) to no i (d).
This allows a yes/no communication that can also be used like a Morse communicator. This communications violates the No Communication Theorem.

I am not preoccupied about the intellect. I don't blindly follow TC's beliefs. I think that if I have abilities (like good objective analysis and critical thinking), I should use them and improve on them.
I deal with the being level as well. You can do both. There's nothing wrong with doing both.

The double slit has nothing to do with the lasting of consciousness.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:21 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 931
Quote:

I am 99.99% sure that Tom will conclude from the experiments that recordings don't change anything (interference to no interference, etc.).
I assume TC believes the change (successful recording or not) is propagated instantaneously (like entanglement).
You can see this in his video of experiment 1c1 & 1c2, when he talks about adding a which way data device. This device can be switched on and off and change the outcome from interference (diffraction) to no i (d).
This allows a yes/no communication that can also be used like a Morse communicator. This communications violates the No Communication Theorem.

I am not preoccupied about the intellect. I don't blindly follow TC's beliefs. I think that if I have abilities (like good objective analysis and critical thinking), I should use them and improve on them.
I deal with the being level as well. You can do both. There's nothing wrong with doing both.

The double slit has nothing to do with the lasting of consciousness.
Thank you. This interaction is an important part of training for me. For the record, I do not and will not blindly follow anyone's belief. As you know, MBT refers to this as the path of surrender. During my training, I learned to accept everyone's right to follow their own path. I do not judge them. I was going through an initiation with an organization (60 years old) on said path and chose to terminate it because I simply cannot surrender; I could not entertain the thought that their leader was a liar nor could I expose said views to the congregation. I chose to walk away and maintain a distant friendship.

I had a solid grasp of the MBT Model (with different metaphors) long before I happened upon Tom's video on OBE 2 months ago. I did not have any knowledge of QM/Physics until this forum. When I took the personality test, it indicated my best career fit was a physicist. I "cut my teeth" on the Quantum Eraser experiment thread authored by Avi Tal. I thought I was helping AvI Tal with an explanation of Tom's example of the double slit and it ended up being a crash course in QM. My last post reflects my reasoning: since I have experienced NPMR (I separated my consciousness from my body in PMR with verification), the double slit debate must be based on the fundamental differences in belief systems regarding the source of or genesis of consciousness. No, the double slit does not have anything to do with mortality per se. It does address consciousness.

In my training, I also learned that me the actor (left brain) and me the observer (right brain) work together towards lower entropy/higher vibrational state called love. My actions as an actor are directly related to ego and fear based. My actions as observer are related to harmony and love based. The observer me is the most beneficial by definition. Once I peeled back the layers of ego/fear, I discovered my personality, intellect, etc., were already established in the NPMR avatar.

Your thoughts are appreciated wise one.

Respectfully,

John


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:34 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:13 am
Posts: 9
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


The theory behind the double slit experiment supports the notion that "knowledge"/ "awareness"/ "focused consciousness" produces an outcome. If the detectors are on but not recording the data, then there is no evidence by which you can have knowledge of the outcome. Therefore, the test with detectors on mimics the test that had no detectors and accordingly produces a diffraction pattern.

So how does this cause you to suggest that Tom lied? Please respond. Thank you.

Regards,

John
It might be the case that when you turn on the detectors but don't collect the data you will get a diffraction pattern, as there is no conscious observer to collapse the wave function.
But in order to REALLY know that, an experiment should be done to test this hypothesis.
Was there such an experiment?
Tom claims that there was, I do not know of such experiment. If you know of such experiment, please share with us...
This thread is in the physics section of the forum. In the same section is a thread with the title: Quantum Eraser experiment authored by Avi Tal. I encourage you to review that thread, if you have not done so. Then let's discuss.

I don't understand how this experiment is relevant. I was talking about the original double slit experiment and I asked if there was a version of it of which they use detectors, but didn't collect the data(as Tom says on the video: "...They realize that they can leave the detectors detecting, but not collect any data...")
I don't know of such experiment.
Again, I am talking about the classic double slit experiment, not Quantum Eraser.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:09 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 11:40 am
Posts: 17
Quote:
I don't understand how this experiment is relevant. I was talking about the original double slit experiment and I asked if there was a version of it of which they use detectors, but didn't collect the data(as Tom says on the video: "...They realize that they can leave the detectors detecting, but not collect any data...")
I don't know of such experiment.
Again, I am talking about the classic double slit experiment, not Quantum Eraser.
Hello Rotem:

Tom is going to falsify what you are asking by doing experiment 1c1 and 1c2.
Actually 1f1 and 1f2 are easier. All these will check for and falsify what you are concern about.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8

Experiment 2 is even simpler and will falsify the relevancy of recording the information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUiDoHkQRU

There, and as I also mentioned before, he can control the recording of which data by switching on and off the which way data device.


Last edited by minde on Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 11:40 am
Posts: 17
John:

I think you are doing very well in your progression towards better QoC.

Good training!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:37 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 931
Quote:
John:

I think you are doing very well in your progression towards better QoC.

Good training!
Minde:

Thank you, wise one........and thank you for taking care of the light work.

All the best,

John


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1251
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1506.0068v1.pdf

Thoughts?


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:13 am
Posts: 9
Quote:
Quote:
I don't understand how this experiment is relevant. I was talking about the original double slit experiment and I asked if there was a version of it of which they use detectors, but didn't collect the data(as Tom says on the video: "...They realize that they can leave the detectors detecting, but not collect any data...")
I don't know of such experiment.
Again, I am talking about the classic double slit experiment, not Quantum Eraser.
Hello Rotem:

Tom is going to falsify what you are asking by doing experiment 1c1 and 1c2.
Actually 1f1 and 1f2 are easier. All these will check for and falsify what you are concern about.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8

Experiment 2 is even simpler and will falsify the relevancy of recording the information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUiDoHkQRU

There, and as I also mentioned before, he can control the recording of which data by switching on and off the which way data device.
If Tom is going to do experiment 2 of which he will leave the detectors on but not collect the data, why in his video in 2014 he argues that such an experiment has been done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhcQy_f ... tu.be&t=8m

Please watch from 9:15 minutes.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1251
Quote:
If Tom is going to do experiment 2 of which he will leave the detectors on but not collect the data, why in his video in 2014 he argues that such an experiment has been done?
Perhaps he was mistaken at the time and thought such an experiment had been done. Maybe that’s why he wants to do the experiment now. Perhaps the best person to answer your question is Tom. I’m not sure we can really help you any further with your question. As to what the results will turn out to be, I guess we will find out when we find out.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:55 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 11:40 am
Posts: 17
Rotem:

Tom himself already answered your question about if he lied or not:

From a comment of user soprano:
Quote:
I apologize if my opinion was not welcome. I should let the people think of how to label what Tom says in the double slit workshop videos:

This is why I said it though. I just copied a PM from Tom to me that was the cause of my opinion about it:
Quote:
Claudio: “In all the links of that chapter (the same you sent me) I searched for record, tape, detector, erase, etc. I did not find what you mentioned about a header measuring but not recording.”

Tom: Is that what you are doing? Oh, Jeez...You are not going to find that -- that was just an example I made up to make the concept easy enough for the general non-scientific audience I was speaking to. you can easily find the logical equivalent at Bottom layer. The point was that recording the data vs not recording the data was the key element -- exactly how that was done in a particular physics experiment was irrelevant to this audience. I simply gave them a logically equivalent metaphor they could relate to. That is how scients have to talk to non-scientists so that they get it rather than get lost and overwhelmed in the detail. I am trying to accurately communicate main, big ideas here, what matters, the result, not accurately describe the specific details of a specific laboratory set up -- nobody in my audience cares about that -- they want to know: "so, what does it mean in a language i can understand" It s my job to explain it to them with metaphors they can relate to and still produce an accurate understanding of the principles involved.
From: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7296&start=285


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 931
Quote:
Rotem:

Tom himself already answered your question about if he lied or not:

From a comment of user soprano:
Quote:
I apologize if my opinion was not welcome. I should let the people think of how to label what Tom says in the double slit workshop videos:

This is why I said it though. I just copied a PM from Tom to me that was the cause of my opinion about it:
Quote:
Claudio: “In all the links of that chapter (the same you sent me) I searched for record, tape, detector, erase, etc. I did not find what you mentioned about a header measuring but not recording.”

Tom: Is that what you are doing? Oh, Jeez...You are not going to find that -- that was just an example I made up to make the concept easy enough for the general non-scientific audience I was speaking to. you can easily find the logical equivalent at Bottom layer. The point was that recording the data vs not recording the data was the key element -- exactly how that was done in a particular physics experiment was irrelevant to this audience. I simply gave them a logically equivalent metaphor they could relate to. That is how scients have to talk to non-scientists so that they get it rather than get lost and overwhelmed in the detail. I am trying to accurately communicate main, big ideas here, what matters, the result, not accurately describe the specific details of a specific laboratory set up -- nobody in my audience cares about that -- they want to know: "so, what does it mean in a language i can understand" It s my job to explain it to them with metaphors they can relate to and still produce an accurate understanding of the principles involved.
From: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7296&start=285
Thanks, Minde. I spent over an hour last night revisiting the videos that Rotem posted and watched a couple devoted to the double slit by others. I see what you refer to as interference from the detectors among other revelations.

Regards,

John


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:04 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:13 am
Posts: 9
Quote:
Rotem:

Tom himself already answered your question about if he lied or not:

From a comment of user soprano:
Quote:
I apologize if my opinion was not welcome. I should let the people think of how to label what Tom says in the double slit workshop videos:

This is why I said it though. I just copied a PM from Tom to me that was the cause of my opinion about it:
Quote:
Claudio: “In all the links of that chapter (the same you sent me) I searched for record, tape, detector, erase, etc. I did not find what you mentioned about a header measuring but not recording.”

Tom: Is that what you are doing? Oh, Jeez...You are not going to find that -- that was just an example I made up to make the concept easy enough for the general non-scientific audience I was speaking to. you can easily find the logical equivalent at Bottom layer. The point was that recording the data vs not recording the data was the key element -- exactly how that was done in a particular physics experiment was irrelevant to this audience. I simply gave them a logically equivalent metaphor they could relate to. That is how scients have to talk to non-scientists so that they get it rather than get lost and overwhelmed in the detail. I am trying to accurately communicate main, big ideas here, what matters, the result, not accurately describe the specific details of a specific laboratory set up -- nobody in my audience cares about that -- they want to know: "so, what does it mean in a language i can understand" It s my job to explain it to them with metaphors they can relate to and still produce an accurate understanding of the principles involved.
From: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7296&start=285
Thank you for that comment :)


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:46 am
Posts: 10
Is sad to see how some followers of Tom Campbell try to justify all his words and actions. He is clearly talking about an event of the past, something some scientists did in the past.
I think that if he does this experiment (and I am sure I will do this one) the result will be like he predicted.

It is not just 2014. Also in 2012, in the famous Calgary workshop: https://youtu.be/2Nlbro2MNBs?t=2624 The same thing, a past event.

Let's go further in time. Los Angeles 2016. Important workshop in which he explain the experiments he want to perform. Here he talks about this experiment: https://youtu.be/OZUqtxdT0QY?t=3939 In 1:06:26 he does he exlpains that he have received criticism from talking about an experiment that wasn't done. Here he says:
Quote:
"I can't find it anywhere in the literature, neither. That is why I am put in it up here. I can't believe this hasn't been done.."
A scientist must be more rigorous. If you say something it must be true. If the experiment wasn't done, just say it, and tell us what you think would happen when the experiment is done. I do believe the result will be that, it is logical.
_____________________________
Edit: I have been thinking that maybe that experiment was indeed done, but wasn't published, or we have lost the literature (or having being digitalized).
Tom could have KNEW that the experiment was done because he discover it through the Database. He mentioned in one occassion (Ireland, I think) that he and his partner haven't seen a movie, but he knew what the movie was about. He told that sometimes he know things without realizing it.

I say it again, when the experiment is done by Tom, the results will surely be what he mentioned.


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

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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