Do you have any specific references that will attest to the “validity” of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Have any analogies held up under test-retest situations? Do these analogies have possible applications outside QM?



So in the analogy you have presented can we assume that 15 people viewing the same car accident from various and some similar locations have actually altered the event? Are you suggesting that the descrepancies between the reports of these 15 people are based on subjective observation influence?



I agree with perception in one regard. Another person can describe a thing, an event, a proposition and I can construct an abstract overview of what was described and that will be my perception, though I have never observed what might have been described. From there logic can be applied. No one ever viewed sound waves before there was logical conclusion that they existed. In fact until some very modern equipment we had no idea that sound waves could be viewed in color – we don’t even have to hear them.



You take the hypothesis and the analogies too far. From some subatomic particle to the complexity of wholly formed and integrated functional system (bug, plant, animal, human, planets).

You have an appetite for knowledge and before too long you too may join the ranks of some very notable scientists who really loved to write science fiction novels. But you really have to learn the difference between fact and fiction in order to make your stories seem like futuristic possibilities.



It is most definitely a scientific field of intrigue and it holds some thought provoking possibilities but at the moment there is way too much speculation about the information that is being disseminated. History has held many such intrigues in the past and today we can hardly imagine a time when people did not know or understand what we take for granted.

I realize I’ve jumped in at the middle but I think if I begin with the following I might catch up.

JasonP wrote:


A bird can fly and in so doing defied all logic – until somewhat recently (in terms of humanity).
Yet we don’t need math to explain and understand how a bird can fly. Although we can apply mathematical expression to the phenomena.

Mathematics developed as measuring tool. Each number represented a specific set of something without ever having to describe the something being counted.

People often make the mistake of confusing Mathematics, as described above, with the way modern mathematical notation is applied to scientific research. The applied version of mathematics is actually a strict and formal language. The notation used (signs, letters, ideograms) in combination with numbers are both qualitative and quantitative. They represent descriptions of and predictions for very abstract ideas and concepts.

This language continues to evolve as new fields of science develop. These scientific fields often need new “descriptive” characters that can be applied to “purely mathematical” equations and previously used scientific notation in unique ways.

I know I’m being rudimentary with my explanation but, like you, I’m still at the beginner level. So I thought, maybe, another beginner could better explain why your thoughts regarding “MATH” are finding so much opposition.

Science actually deals very little with math and as Massage and Wux have tried to explain – math is not the logic which is used to back up the science you have been relating too, but rather it is the application of ‘equations’ in combination with descriptive features of (scientific languate) that is being used in support of the scientific research being done today.

I hope this helps – and I also hope that others more knowledgable than me will correct my errors so that I TOO might learn.

EDIT: I forgot one thing - look up some real scientific equations. If you know what the various signs, letter, and idiograms really mean you might gain a better perspective with my explanation. The end results of these 'equations' is not a number describing a set of something - it is actually representitive of an abstract concept.

I think this is the reason why this method cannot be equated with the same kind of absolutes we equated pure math to.

Does that make sense?

OH MY - my bad, I had not considered that memory was not stored in the brain. Wow - off site storage no back up required. Cool.

That does present other questions though. Between the body and the mind (mind being the controler or the little man)which is actuaually seeing? In other words is the eye just a mechanism feeding the information to the controller?

The the body is defective, say it has defective cone cells in the eye like color blindness or just damanged cones - is the picture the controller sees and stores altered by the effects of the damaged body part?

WARNING - long post and the questions within it are for you Ladylid and for you Ruth - I'm not expecting answers, I think you'll understand if you can make it through this novelette.



How do you know your level of empathy is unusually high?
To what do you compare it?
To what do you attribute your empathetic characterists?
What made you look for ways to contol how you feel?

The questions I'm asking you are with regards to your mental state. This is what I call questioning your mental state. Sometimes these questions refer to your cognition, how you think. Questioning a mental state is not about finding mental illness, it's simply a way to track down what might be causing adverse affects on a person.



Do you feel quilty if you cannot drop everything and immediately help a person?
Do you ever feel like you are the only one who can help?
Is there some burden you feel accompanies your ability to empathise?
Does what you feel prevent you from providing assistance when you are able?

Yes, all those questions have to answered in order to strike a balance between your life and the damands of others on you.



Women tend to be predominantly more empathetic than men. Part of the reason has to do with how we are put together or wired and a part of it has to do with how females are raised and socialized.

Women, the home-grown care takers of the world, were given this burden thousands of years ago and the arrangement has been mutually accepted even in the face of greater demands and a heavier load.

Just as you have stated, there can be a feeling of inadequecy when we face the fact that we simply cannot shoulder the burden.
Often we blame ourselves because "we have accepted" this burden that is what our culture, our language, how we are socialized has taught us to believe.

So we look for excuses, we prioitize based on rationalizations and sometimes we look outside ourselves, and we suffer for how we feel.

But we have not accepted this burden it has been thrust upon us becasue cultures, languages, traditions, have not kept pace with the roles we play.



Ladylid, I understand your empathy, my personal experiences are not unlike what I have heard from you and include many other experiences that we may or may not share. In my own search for 'excuses' I too have found 'the balance' (most of the time). For me, the greatest relief has only come in the last 6 or 7 years when science gave me answers instead of excuses. Or it could be that science just seemed like a 'better excuse'

Anyway, as I've said before, I know that others find viable alternatives so there is absolutely no way I would EVER take you for a nutcase or even think there is anything wrong with you.

I take these posts as sincere exchanges to share the different options available because, like you, when we find something that finally help relieve the burden we want to share it.



Empathy is an important human characteristic. It is so highly valued that it has been instilled in women for thousands of years through cultures, language, and tradition. That is the problem, women shoulder the burden of keeping it alive, while men still run the world. Wouldn't it be great if we equalize this characteristic between the sexes? I'm willing accept my share but I am no longer willing to accept more than I can handle.

I'm certainly not slammin you Ladylid or you Ruth, just offering other options.

Same 'ol flowers - but daisies have always been my favorite. Happy to give them to you!

HI TO YOU TOO WUX & ABRA & LaM (did I miss anybody?)

And I suppose if everybody but one person in every city of population of 100,000 meditates - there might be a little more peace, at least during the time they all consumed in their meditative state.

I certainly don't have the latest statistics on how many people attend one or another religious service on any given day, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job of creating peace.

Of course they may not be meditating correctly, it may just be a slight dogmatic issue. What do you think?

Dennet is equating soul to the little man, just as you equate the driver of the car to the little man.

You are saying that the car is the body, and the driver runs the body - but in the designer thread when Shoku questioned you about having complete knowledge of how the car works in order for the driver to have created and contol it, you balked. Why?

When you/the driver, want to see an image of a cat, how do make the brain show it to you the driver/little man?

JB you said:


And then followed it up with this:



I can’t be the only one confused by this. Can you explain how part of your mind can practice mind control against your will on another part of your mind?

And can you also explain how emotions have anything to do with non-physical entities? As in how does your mind even possess emotions when the ‘spiritual’ nature of it has absolutely no need for emotion because if there is only one universal mind and that mind has a non-physical nature what good is emotion to it?

Thanks NR for your responce. Have you ever considered Deterministic Chaos as a way to integrate eveolution with the concept of God?

Most of your responces on this thread seem to point in that direction, with the exception of personal communication with God and possibly angels. I don't think there is any way to integrate religious dogma with any scientfic theoryies.

People often attribute communication problems between generations to a lack of life experience, knowledge, and the wisdom that comes from both. And they would be correct if the attribution was applied equally to the older generation.

What I have learned and how I internalize my experiences are directly related to how I learned what I know. The same is true for everyone.

In my history class we are up to the end of WWI and the professor spent, what I considered to be, an inordinate amount of time giving some very detailed explanation of 'the cold war' what it was, what it meant and on and on.

The whole time I sat there thinking, OMG he must think we are all stupid idiots. And then he stopped and asked if there any question because he knew this material could be difficult to grasp.

At that moment I realized how old I am and that my experiences can never be fully comprehended by the 120 kids in that class or the millions in this nation or in the world.

By the same tolken I will never fully grasp how their experiences affect them, because even though our lives will have an overlapping period, how events affect them will be far different than how they affect me just becasue our foundations are so different.

The generation gap:

"I hear babies cry, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll never know
And I think to myself what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world."

So I like to listen when younger generations speak, and I can only hope they might tarry long enough to listen to me from time to time.

I ask a lot of questions when this kind of topic comes up for several reasons. One is that trends change over time as one idea or another gains in popularity. What I've found is that some new way to present information about the idea tends to change the name of the phenomina that is being exploited. (ie. Aura becomes vibrations)

I use the word exploited because these types of phenomena are not easily given over to sceintific proof. But there are so many who experience similar types of phenomena that they are prime targets for those looking to make a buck.

So people lookign to get rich quick and easy, rename the phenomena, add some creative elements to it and will often erroneously site science theory or bogus statistial information, then repackage the whole deal and sell it to anyone looking for confirmation and explanation of the phenomena they are experiencing.

My personal opinion is that if a phenomina is natural and intuitive, then there is no need for it to be explained by a lot of books, diagrams, statistics or even scientific method.

If the phenomina is causing distress, it is likely related to a mental state more than to the phenomina itself.

Here is my reasoning. If negative vibrations produce a physical affect on individuals who are sensitive to vibrations, then positive vibrations must have, at least, an equal affect.

I doubt that there are many poeple who don't have a single worry or care in the world. On the other hand, I doubt that there are many people who have only negativity within.

The field of social psychology offers a wide variety of findings indicating that while most people experience some worry or even a negative attitude about a particular thing, overall, those people are generally happy with thier life, feel fortunate, and can site many reasons why they have more to be thankful for than not.

These studies run the gambit from the very poor, the teminally ill, the young, old, and the very rich. So if an individual is sensitive to these vibrations, they must also be picking up the good ones, which are much more plentiful than the negative.

This makes me question what a person knows about the phenomina being experienced, where the information has come from, and in some cases I question the mental state of the individual.

Some people have a history that makes them suseptible to depression, to fears, to being shy and so on. These are all stessors that in a public situation can, in fact, depleat a person's energy, cause confusion and prevent the individual from enjoying portions of their life.

In the case of sensing vibrations, It makes no sense that this would not be a pleasant experience. For it to be otherwise indicates, to me, that there is some other underlying cause.

So I ask a lot of questions - in order to know how to respond.

Perhaps if you change your attitude, say to believing that your good mood and joy in life can have good effects on those around.

To stay in your house is to admit defeat - that others are controling your actions by their mood (or vibrations) when you are really the one in control.

If the idea of vibrations as Ladylid describes and as you claim to feel is true, then YOU carry the positive energy to offset it.

Come-on help us all out and get out there and share some good vibes with others. I don't buy what people sell when it comes to our beliefs - but I know for a fact that individuals have the ability to command great change - even if it's only in small doses and even when you don't recognize it.

Unless you are talking about a non-physical entity who creates a universe out of nothing but thought. Rights????

What has been explained about vibrations is not much.

Are the words aura and vibration synonomous? If not what makes them different?

hakushaku - as a student of psychology you probably understand the importance of maintaining awarness - cognitively experiencing your surroundings rather than allowing hueristics to guide actions.

Understanding that means that we are able to recognize small changes that would alert us to some underlying condition. For example, Ladylid suggestes that "the tension in the room was so thick you could cut it with a knife". Is that really a function of vibrations or is that a perceptions based on small changes that are not normally present? (body language, facial expressions, tone of voice and many other things).

Another question I have regarding vibrations - what is their boundary? Two foot diamater - 100 feet - infinate?

What is the potential of this vibration? Can it change things/people around you or only things inside you?

One other thing for hakushaku - in the groups you speak of, do you think group-think has any influence?

How would you describe God's interaction with the physical?
As in - consistent and ongoing, simply a designer and observer, in other words to what degree is God's will (interaction)a part of the chain of evolution?

Also, with regards to "the rate and way that humans are evolving..."
You have chosen an extrememly limited selection to qualify your argument. In a discussion of evolution I would expect a very broad and far reaching examination. For example - in a universe of billions of solar systems, if intelligent life was the purpose or even a goal for the design to attain, could it have fallen short? It seems that forty years of scientific exploration and discovery is a long time and includes a lot of planets in a vast array of solar systemns not to have found evidence of other intelligent life like our own.

For your statement to have any valdity then there would have to be some limitations set for the discussion of evolution. Like - are we only discussion evolution on planet Earth?

As humans we normally consider atrocity to be hideous acts of cruelty mostly to other humans but also to other living creatures.

But in a deity/designer that would have the ability to design every feature of every living creature equally, I would consider it an atrocity that millions of living creatures should be given substandard (less than equal) designs. Specifically (for all creatures not just human)genetic diseases, birth defects, and that even the birthing process should present so much risk to mother and child.

I'm not suggesting that evolution is random at all, I do believe it follows a pattern but that it is not guided beyond a general outline.

For example, we can follow a complex recipe to make some scrumptious meal. We can use the same recipe a hundred times but we can only use the all the ingredients once. The next time we make the dish we have to get all new ingredients. The ingredients are not exact replicas of the original and the dish we make may vary in taste, smell, appearance, and texture.

This is how I view evolution, and it doesn't preclude a designer, it only limits the participation of the designer in favor of pre-selected determinents (or law that were instituded as guidelines for the actual design).

Does that make more sense?

thanks for your responces JB and Abra, appreciate your considerations.

To which Eastern view of pantheism are you referring, Abra?

Personally, if I were creating a universe into which conscious life forms would develop, I would make some permanent provision within the molecules to make such a panteistic view an inherant quality.

What a wonderful global socialism we would have. What great fun we could have developing all manner of environmentally friendly technology. We would enjoy this world of sensual pleasures without corruption, hate, greed, and no need of morals. By our inherant nature we would not knowingly harm anything or anyone.

Not really - unless you are also willing to attribute all manner of atrocity to the deity in question. Knowing that certain elements will eventurally come together to create an RNA strand does not account for every possible mutation that would occur in every single new strand.

However, I wouldn't argue that such a deity/designer might have known all possible ways that the created main elements could come together, if certain cosmic laws were instituted.

But to go any further in that thought process is to take away what you are trying to sew together - that evolution is a process, uncontrolled by anything other than the cosmic laws that govern the universe into which the main creation was infused.

Now take your example of the dominoes - dismantle them into the smallest possible elements of which they are constructed. Put all those elements into a box and shake it up. Would you create even one domino?

If the designer/deity wanted to end up with perfect dominoes why leave it to a flawed system,like evolution, why not just create them?

Massage - Ladylid is specifically talking about David Hawkins and the books he has published. To me this means she is following his self-proclaimed theories. For him kinesiology is not about exercise.

You said:


Obviously if Ladylid is following along with the written works of David Hawkins, she has not diverged to some other "more popular movement'.

In my opinion she is following the (b) path which you suggested above. I was just trying very hard not to seem judgmental as I understand that good people can find valid ways to deal with an otherwise, potentially, harmful belief.

I'm sorry I confused you, I was just avoiding pointing out the flaws I "personally" find in the AK concepts. It is not my intention to get into yet another discussion in which fundamenaltist beliefs are in contention. That is why I was attempting to make the point that such beliefs are not good for everyone and then bow out and leave Ladylid to the practice of what makes her happy.

Thanks for keeping me honest though K.

You certainly could connect evolution to a creator/designer/god but I think it would have to an indirect link. For example: if the 'creator' designed a certain number of physical elements, knowing they would come together to formulate new ones including what we call lifeforms, then what was created was only those few elements.

The rest would be indirect emergent qualities which proceded from the original creation.

Of course if someone wanted to create a more in depth view to show some kind of 'direct' and personal link between a human being and that creator - it could be maintained that this creator oversees every aspect of every interaction between every element in the universe thereby constructing each and every complex combination of elements into whatever currently exists.

Which is what many people have done. This proves to be a very problematic beleif.

But leaving that part out I can definately understand how people might easily combine their belief in a creative force with evolution.