The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[charter.rights]

If we all were connected in some way, we would have a hive mind mentality like most insects. But even then, there is individual communication between them. Worker bees are a good example. They dance around telling others where the food is. That gets passed to others, it is a clear form of communication and does not seem to have any mystery to it.

Humans are very individual and we don't have a hive mentality.

Maybe through genetics we have found a way to shut out the chatter. Maybe ~some~ hear voices.....and can't shut it off. Who knows.

[GostHacked]

Maybe through genetics we have found a way to shut out the chatter. Maybe ~some~ hear voices.....and can't shut it off. Who knows.

Some DO hear voices. Do you know where those people usually go?

[jbg]

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

Are neutrinos mentioned in the Bible? Or are they purely a creature of science?

[GostHacked]

Are neutrinos mentioned in the Bible? Or are they purely a creature of science?

Don't you go injecting any logic here my good man.

[kimmy]

OK analyze it. We are talking QM level interactions, so I will, out of necessity, have some QM related questions to ask you once we receive your analysis.

You choose the parameters. Pick anything you like, any one of C-R's notions of how our thoughts are an integral part of the electron soup. Neutrinos, radiation, the electromagnetic waves generated when you think, "radon", I don't care. Pick whichever one you'd like me to discuss. Tell me what the sender is, the receiver, and what information you believe can be exchanged through this channel. And I will do my level best to assess it in terms of classical physics, which I'm far more comfortable with, and then I'll send it back to you and the other Masters of Quantum Reality here on the forum to explain how quantum mechanics would greatly enhance my analysis of the situation.

Sound like a plan?

Quantum mechanics is all about the physical layer and yet you keep avoiding its implications.

Quantum mechanics is analysis of the physical. But neither you nor c-r have offered a reasonable suggestion as to how it might provide a viable physical layer.

If we're talking about neutrinos or any of the other ideas c-r has been suggesting, we're talking about an analysis of a physical layer that's simply not a viable means of communications.

Suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if neutrinos could be the physical layer of a viable communications channel would be like suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if I could throw a baseball to the moon.

I've got two plastic cups and a piece of string here, and I don't think I can do broadband data over this physical layer. Would you like to analyze the situation with quantum mechanics?

-k

[charter.rights]

Are neutrinos mentioned in the Bible? Or are they purely a creature of science?

Ummmm..do they mention in the Bible that God is a man?

Or do they say that Man was created in the image of God....you know....quantum particles would kind of fit the bill, don't you think? What can be God and also man?

[charter.rights]

You choose the parameters. Pick anything you like, any one of C-R's notions of how our thoughts are an integral part of the electron soup. Neutrinos, radiation, the electromagnetic waves generated when you think, "radon", I don't care. Pick whichever one you'd like me to discuss. Tell me what the sender is, the receiver, and what information you believe can be exchanged through this channel. And I will do my level best to assess it in terms of classical physics, which I'm far more comfortable with, and then I'll send it back to you and the other Masters of Quantum Reality here on the forum to explain how quantum mechanics would greatly enhance my analysis of the situation.

Sound like a plan?

Quantum mechanics is analysis of the physical. But neither you nor c-r have offered a reasonable suggestion as to how it might provide a viable physical layer.

If we're talking about neutrinos or any of the other ideas c-r has been suggesting, we're talking about an analysis of a physical layer that's simply not a viable means of communications.

Suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if neutrinos could be the physical layer of a viable communications channel would be like suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if I could throw a baseball to the moon.

I've got two plastic cups and a piece of string here, and I don't think I can do broadband data over this physical layer. Would you like to analyze the situation with quantum mechanics?

-k

Again you are on the wrong tangent. We're not talking "communication". We're talking connections. No senders, no receivers. Just everything that "Is".

[kimmy]

Again you are on the wrong tangent. We're not talking "communication".

Earlier you said that any idea we have is actually formed from the energy of ideas we receive from other beings:

And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

...which certainly sounds like communication.

But now you wish to say that you're not talking about a form of communication at all. Ok, if there's no communication, then the

"collective consciousness" you've claimed we're part of

isn't really very "collective", is it.

But as we look at where you started and where you're at now, we notice that you've gone from claiming that individual thought is an illusion and that we're all part of a collective consciousness to

suggesting that hey, *maybe* "ah ha!" moments *could* be possibly inspired by thoughts from others

and denying that any communication is actually taking place.

So it sounds like I've made my point.

We're talking connections. No senders, no receivers. Just everything that "Is".

...but if all you're trying to say is that we're connected by the forces of the universe, then nobody will argue that point. But so what? How does that support the claim that the existence of God is proven by science?

Wow, we're all connected by gravity. How does that constitute proof that there's a God?

You keep insulting my intelligence and acting as if you're some great scholar of quantum mechanics. But then you go and blow your cover by posting something like this:

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

I don't know a lot about modern physics, but I know enough to see where you slipped up. I think everybody here who actually knows anything about modern physics can spot you for the pretender you are.

-k

[charter.rights]

Earlier you said that any idea we have is actually formed from the energy of ideas we receive from other beings:

And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

...which certainly sounds like communication.

But now you wish to say that you're not talking about a form of communication at all. Ok, if there's no communication, then the

"collective consciousness" you've claimed we're part of

isn't really very "collective", is it.

But as we look at where you started and where you're at now, we notice that you've gone from claiming that individual thought is an illusion and that we're all part of a collective consciousness to

suggesting that hey, *maybe* "ah ha!" moments *could* be possibly inspired by thoughts from others

and denying that any communication is actually taking place.

So it sounds like I've made my point.

...but if all you're trying to say is that we're connected by the forces of the universe, then nobody will argue that point. But so what? How does that support the claim that the existence of God is proven by science?

Wow, we're all connected by gravity. How does that constitute proof that there's a God?

You keep insulting my intelligence and acting as if you're some great scholar of quantum mechanics. But then you go and blow your cover by posting something like this:

I don't know a lot about modern physics, but I know enough to see where you slipped up. I think everybody here who actually knows anything about modern physics can spot you for the pretender you are.

-k

Man! You are dense.

No we're NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMUNICATION.

We live in an electron soup of made up of quantum particles that are not separate from the soup or from each other.

Do yourself a favor and just sit back an read. You might eventually learn something (although I doubt it given your past record.)

But then you go and blow your cover by posting something like this:

I guess you aren't smart enough to follow the links and read the science. Yes you don't know anything about physics, at all.

And now all you are doing is trolling. Go away and dye your hair.

Edited February 5, 2010 by charter.rights

[kimmy]

Man! You are dense.

No we're NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMUNICATION.

If we're talking about information being conveyed from one place to another, then we're talking about communication. You're talking about communication, you're just afraid to call it that because you know that if you do, you'll get your ass kicked using information theory.

We live in an electron soup of made up of quantum particles that are not separate from the soup or from each other.

Do yourself a favor and just sit back an read. You might eventually learn something (although I doubt it given your past record.)

We're not in the same soup. Our soup is separated by distance. Your soup has statistically almost zero chance of influencing my soup even if we're in the same room. Quantum mechanics shows that the statistical odds of our soups interacting with each other is so infinitesimally small as to guarantee individuality.

I guess you aren't smart enough to follow the links and read the science. Yes you don't know anything about physics, at all.

You still don't have the foggiest idea of the mistake you made in that message, do you. Want a hint?

-k

[ToadBrother]

Man! You are dense.

No we're NOT TALKING ABOUT COMMUNICATION.

We live in an electron soup of made up of quantum particles that are not separate from the soup or from each other.

If you're trying to sound stupid, this is an awfully good start. An "electron soup made up of quantum particles"?

I don't want to get bogged down in the rest of your moronic BS, so let's concentrate on that silly notion. Electrons are one kind of subatomic particle, a charge carrying particle, and an elementary particle to boot, so there is no "electron soup", save perhaps some bizarre states of matter like a Bose-Einsten condensate (but this hardly typical of electrons throughout most of the observable universe.

No one refers to "quantum particles", because a particle, at least a particle that mediates a force, is a quanta (this is the origin of the term "quantum mechanics").

You accuse someone else of knowing nothing about physics. What's clear is that you don't even know what the terminology means. You throw these word salads together from TV shows, articles and websites you've looked at, with no fundamental understanding of what's being described. The kinds of effects your thinking of in general, like entanglement, coupling and tunneling, only happen at extremely small scales, and because in quantum mechanics everything is calculated in terms of probability, the larger the effect, the less likely it is to happen. Only certain types of massless or near massless particles like neutrinos, which are so small and without charge that they are unlikely to interact with any other particle, can pass through even dense matter condensations with little effect.

[charter.rights]

If you're trying to sound stupid, this is an awfully good start. An "electron soup made up of quantum particles"?

I don't want to get bogged down in the rest of your moronic BS, so let's concentrate on that silly notion. Electrons are one kind of subatomic particle, a charge carrying particle, and an elementary particle to boot, so there is no "electron soup", save perhaps some bizarre states of matter like a Bose-Einsten condensate (but this hardly typical of electrons throughout most of the observable universe.

No one refers to "quantum particles", because a particle, at least a particle that mediates a force, is a quanta (this is the origin of the term "quantum mechanics").

You accuse someone else of knowing nothing about physics. What's clear is that you don't even know what the terminology means. You throw these word salads together from TV shows, articles and websites you've looked at, with no fundamental understanding of what's being described. The kinds of effects your thinking of in general, like entanglement, coupling and tunneling, only happen at extremely small scales, and because in quantum mechanics everything is calculated in terms of probability, the larger the effect, the less likely it is to happen. Only certain types of massless or near massless particles like neutrinos, which are so small and without charge that they are unlikely to interact with any other particle, can pass through even dense matter condensations with little effect.

Quarks are "quantum particles".

Go read a science book.

[charter.rights]

If we're talking about information being conveyed from one place to another, then we're talking about communication. You're talking about communication, you're just afraid to call it that because you know that if you do, you'll get your ass kicked using information theory.

We're not in the same soup. Our soup is separated by distance. Your soup has statistically almost zero chance of influencing my soup even if we're in the same room. Quantum mechanics shows that the statistical odds of our soups interacting with each other is so infinitesimally small as to guarantee individuality.

You still don't have the foggiest idea of the mistake you made in that message, do you. Want a hint?

-k

No mistakes. There is no discussion on communication. At the quantum level, communication does not exist (at least in any sense you might understand). There only "Is". Which is the nature of God described in the Bible.

At the quantum level your don't exist. So there is no difference between you and me in the same room.

Go cuddle with a Toad and read a science book. It my evolve into you getting some if the Toad wants warts and all.....

[Shwa]

You choose the parameters. ... Pick whichever one you'd like me to discuss. ... And I will do my level best to assess it in terms of classical physics, which I'm far more comfortable with... then I'll send it back to you...

Aye, there's the rub. I have already told you that I am not going to do a QM tracetroute for you. You either know or you don't. If you are not "comfortable" with quantum mechanics and have no desire to become comfortable, I am not going to do your homework for you.

Quantum mechanics is analysis of the physical. But neither you nor c-r have offered a reasonable suggestion as to how it might provide a viable physical layer.

You do understand that quarks, bosons and leptons are considered 'physical' do you not? This is why it is called quantum physics. The most fundamental layer of the physical (natural) world.

If we're talking about neutrinos or any of the other ideas c-r has been suggesting, we're talking about an analysis of a physical layer that's simply not a viable means of communications.

Really? Then what is fibre optics all about?

be careful kimmie, the future may pass you by.

Suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if neutrinos could be the physical layer of a viable communications channel would be like suggesting I need to look at quantum mechanics to see if I could throw a baseball to the moon.

Really? If photons can be used for the physical layer of a viable communications channel, who knows what applications neutrinos might hold? Subspace radio perhaps? But you don't need to worry about that since you are more occupied with trying to throw a baseball to the moon.

[Shwa]

No one refers to "quantum particles", because a particle, at least a particle that mediates a force, is a quanta (this is the origin of the term "quantum mechanics").

This is a general public forum and not a strict science journal. Plenty of people refer to "quantum particles" including the author of this NASA article , all these articles from eScience News, the editor of Nature.com (an Internation weekly journal of science), and this physics prof from the University of Oregon. The term is in the vernacular bud.

The kinds of effects your thinking of in general, like entanglement, coupling and tunneling, only happen at extremely small scales, and because in quantum mechanics everything is calculated in terms of probability, the larger the effect, the less likely it is to happen.

Cool. Please elaborate on this thought.

[GostHacked]

Aye, there's the rub. I have already told you that I am not going to do a QM tracetroute for you. You either know or you don't. If you are not "comfortable" with quantum mechanics and have no desire to become comfortable, I am not going to do your homework for you.

No you would be doing the trace route for yourself. Kimmy already has discounted that you and CR would not do any work to prove the point.

You do understand that quarks, bosons and leptons are considered 'physical' do you not? This is why it is called quantum physics. The most fundamental layer of the physical (natural) world.

Considered 'physical' ?? Why the use of quotes? No. Quantum Physics is the study of how sub-atomic particles behave. It is sub-physical I would say, because you can't really touch them on any level. We need instrumentation to observe things on the quantum level. And sometimes we need very big instruments. The smaller the particle the bigger the machine we need to detect them it seems.

Really? Then what is fibre optics all about?

If I may say a few things about fiber optics.

A piece of hardware converts electronic pulses to light pulses (photons) and sends it down the glass tube. Another piece of hardware picks up the signal and turns it back into an electronic signal that can pass through copper lines. It all still follows binary code. On and Off states. Ones and zeros. Fiber optics still obeys the TCP/IP rule because there is an originating IP and a destination IP. One single photon does not carry all the information, like like one electron will not carry all the information.

be careful kimmie, the future may pass you by.

Quantum communication is the art of transferring a quantum state from one location to another

If the transfer is to happen, there is a detectable medium in which we can observe on how the information travels. And you still have an origin and a destination.

Really? If photons can be used for the physical layer of a viable communications channel, who knows what applications neutrinos might hold? Subspace radio perhaps? But you don't need to worry about that since you are more occupied with trying to throw a baseball to the moon.

Photons are not a physical medium, photons are an energy medium. The glass tube would be the physical layer in order to harness the photon as a means of communication. But it's all still pulses and on/off states. Pulse 1 for ON, No pulse for OFF.

[GostHacked]

Again you are on the wrong tangent. We're not talking "communication". We're talking connections. No senders, no receivers. Just everything that "Is".

If there is a connection, there can be communication. If I shut off all my switches/servers ect for my network, I still have a physical connection but no communications. So the network just 'Is', but not doing anything. If it's not doing anything, it is useless in my view.

[kimmy]

Aye, there's the rub. I have already told you that I am not going to do a QM tracetroute for you. You either know or you don't. If you are not "comfortable" with quantum mechanics and have no desire to become comfortable, I am not going to do your homework for you.

I'm not asking you to do my homework, I'm asking you to set the basic parameters.

I'll discuss the channel as I see it, including an assessment of the quantum mechanics implications for that channel.

Then you can grade my work, including critiquing my assessment of the quantum mechanics implications if you wish.

(My suspicion is that you're unwilling to participate because you know that once you commit to specifics, ToadBrother will make short work of whatever means you come up with.)

You do understand that quarks, bosons and leptons are considered 'physical' do you not? This is why it is called quantum physics. The most fundamental layer of the physical (natural) world.

The fact that something exists in the physical world does not necessarily make it a reasonable physical layer for the OSI model.

Is a bucket of sand physical? You bet. Is it a physical layer in the sense of the OSI model? Not on its own...

Did you actually reference the OSI model because you wanted to talk about communications? Or did you just think that people would accept "physical = physical layer" at face value and move on?

Really? Then what is fibre optics all about?

Fascinating, Shwa. You can receive data directly into your brain through the means of fibre optics? I'm truly astounded!

I keep talking about means of communication available to the human brain, and you arbitrarily forget the brain portion when it suits your purpose.

Is fibre optics a viable communications channel for equipment built for that purpose? Obviously so.

Is fibre optics a means of communication available to the human brain? Obviously not. It could be part of a channel (ie, what we're doing right now) but ultimately that communication channel is going to have to transfer the data to one of our 5 senses (ie, what your monitor is doing right now) or we're not going to get the data.

be careful kimmie, the future may pass you by.

And let me know when your brain gets online with the Quantum Entanglement Network...

Really? If photons can be used for the physical layer of a viable communications channel, who knows what applications neutrinos might hold? Subspace radio perhaps? But you don't need to worry about that since you are more occupied with trying to throw a baseball to the moon.

Who knows what possibilities neutrinos might hold. But for terms of this discussion-- which has been about how our thoughts are influenced by the "electron soup" -- the possibilities are non-existent.

-k

[Shwa]

No you would be doing the trace route for yourself. Kimmy already has discounted that you and CR would not do any work to prove the point.

Nope. I have already stated that I wouldn't be doing it and it was used a reference to a model and a means. Did you not get it?

It is sub-physical I would say,

Then you'd be wrong. sub-physical, come on now. You are talking supernatural astral netherworlds now.

One single photon does not carry all the information

Did I say they did? It was a question of means. Try and stay focused there GH.

Photons are not a physical medium, photons are an energy medium.

Oh good grief... could you just read the damned article please: Physics.

[GostHacked]

Nope. I have already stated that I wouldn't be doing it and it was used a reference to a model and a means. Did you not get it?

No, I don't get it anymore. You are absolutely right. I have no clue what you and CR are talking about anymore.

Then you'd be wrong. sub-physical, come on now. You are talking supernatural astral netherworlds now.

Huh? No, I am not talking about supernatural astral nether worlds. I was talking about electrons and photons. And I agree sub-physical may not be the right term I am looking for, but you seem to understand the gist of it.

Did I say they did? It was a question of means. Try and stay focused there GH.

If I am out of focus, it is because the information given here between you and CR has lost it's own focus.

It comes down to the line 'It just is' (when referring to the electron soup in which everyone is connected but not talking to each other). Which is not good enough for scientists.

Oh good grief... could you just read the damned article please: Physics.

Quantum Physics might be under the realm of Physics, I agree. But QM physics have different rule sets than the physics we experience on our scale and above (planets ect). You obviously understand the difference right?

[Shwa]

I'll discuss the channel as I see it, including an assessment of the quantum mechanics implications for that channel.

I am still waiting for that btw.

(My suspicion is that you're unwilling to participate because you know that once you commit to specifics, ToadBrother will make short work of whatever means you come up with.)

A feeble attempt at intimidation by using the promise of someone's else's expertise to back you up in a time of need. New to the Internet are you?

*sidebar to TB: you have made it to the level of Knight in Shining Armour. Enjoy bro!*

The fact that something exists in the physical world does not necessarily make it a reasonable physical layer for the OSI model.

What the heck are you talking about?

Did you actually reference the OSI model because you wanted to talk about communications? Or did you just think that people would accept "physical = physical layer" at face value and move on?

I use the OSI model because it is a stacked model for communications with discreet interactive layers at the bottom of which is the description of the fundamental actions of the elements of previous layers. {sigh} That hard for you to grasp wasn't it?

Fascinating, Shwa. You can receive data directly into your brain through the means of fibre optics? I'm truly astounded!

Fascinating kimmie since you took my reply completely out of context. Let's review, shall we?

Kimmie comes up with this gem:

...an analysis of a physical layer that's simply not a viable means of communications.

To which Shwa replies:

Really? Then what is fibre optics all about?

To which kimmie makes some arcane comment about brain portions.

Is fibre optics a means of communication available to the human brain?

No, but it is a part of a possible communication path isn't it? And the operations of your senses are also part of a communication path too yes? And in all of those paths, the application of quantum mechanics is coming into view: quantum biology Do you somehow think that your senses and their constituent parts are somehow exempt from quantum analysis and description? Please do explain that one.

But for terms of this discussion-- which has been about how our thoughts are influenced by the "electron soup" -- the possibilities are non-existent.

Wow. This is from someone who is not "comfortable" with certain aspects of physics. Good for you. The non-existent possibilities is also a function of lack of information too. Unless you would like to proclaim that man cannot live and breathe underwater too?

And let me know when your brain gets online with the Quantum Entanglement Network

Trust me, discussing physics with you is like a Quantum Entanglement Network.

[Shwa]

I was talking about electrons and photons. And I agree sub-physical may not be the right term I am looking for, but you seem to understand the gist of it.

If by "gist" you mean to say that QM is a description of physical elements yes. If you mean "gist" to refer to "sub-physical" do a google search on the term. QM is in the domain of "physics." Period.

If I am out of focus, it is because the information given here between you and CR has lost it's own focus.

Bullshit. Now you are blaming others for your own inadequecy. You are not an idiot GH, take some time to do a little research and you will get it. Photons are a means to communication a la fibre optics. (don't get me started on the medium is the message )

I see light!

But QM physics have different rule sets than the physics we experience on our scale

Yes! Of course they do. But now, think of 'our scale' as one of the layers in a stacked model similar to something like the OSI model where the bottom layer - the furthest we can breakdown the physical world (i.e. as described by quantum mechanics) corresponds to the physical layer of the OSI. It isn't a perfect model, but it might be illustrative. Then, if you can see what I am getting at, we can look at how a communication path between two nodes of that model might have implications at the quantum level.

[ToadBrother]

Quarks are "quantum particles".

Go read a science book.

Tell you what, why don't you give me a citation to a science book, Mr. "Electron Soup".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[whowhere]

I have to question all of your supposed knowledge of science. You throw around alot of words which really don't mean much of anything. If anyone on hear knows how informations is trasmitted, it is transmitted on a carrier frequence and the information signal is imposed on this carrier frequency. It really doesn't matter what this Carrier Frequency is, Cell phones are transmitting in the Gigahertz which 10^9. The biggest Prefix is exahertz which is 10^18 and then it is off the documented spectrum. Just because modern instruments don't exist to detect carrier signals say of a frequency 10^10000000000000000000000000 does not mean that signal does not exist. All it means its beyond the worlds technological grasp along with space travel. The human body on average puts out a hundred watts of power. How much of this energy is used to project thoughts on Carrier signals beyond this world's detectable ranges cannot be determined. One other salient fact of Carrier signal transmission is it takes less power to tranmit at higher frequencies than at lower frequencies. A 100 watts at the right Carrier frequency could theoretically project a signal across the Universe. Also, just because humans can only hear up to 20 khz does not mean dogs are crazy when they hear sounds in the 35 Khz range. The world cannot be defined by those of the lowest common denominator.

[ToadBrother]

I have to question all of your supposed knowledge of science. You throw around alot of words which really don't mean much of anything. If anyone on hear knows how informations is trasmitted, it is transmitted on a carrier frequence and the information signal is imposed on this carrier frequency. It really doesn't matter what this Carrier Frequency is, Cell phones are transmitting in the Gigahertz which 10^9. The biggest Prefix is exahertz which is 10^18 and then it is off the documented spectrum. Just because modern instruments don't exist to detect carrier signals say of a frequency 10^10000000000000000000000000 does not mean that signal does not exist. All it means its beyond the worlds technological grasp along with space travel. The human body on average puts out a hundred watts of power. How much of this energy is used to project thoughts on Carrier signals beyond this world's detectable ranges cannot be determined. One other salient fact of Carrier signal transmission is it takes less power to tranmit at higher frequencies than at lower frequencies. A 100 watts at the right Carrier frequency could theoretically project a signal across the Universe. Also, just because humans can only hear up to 20 khz does not mean dogs are crazy when they hear sounds in the 35 Khz range. The world cannot be defined by those of the lowest common denominator.

Um, the higher the frequency, the greater the energy required. I think anyone broadcasting at the frequency you just referenced would probably be putting holes through planets.