Quantum reality

[Bart]

Time and space are emergent properties of quantum reality..


So, quantum physical particles can be in more places than one at the same time. And observation of quantum particles (pseudo-magically) changes their nature from being everywhere simultaneously into materializations in time and space. And I guess that dark matter = what TUB calls Paradise gravity = the ultimaton = what science is searching for as the so-called WIMP (weakly interactive massive particle); the unseen quantum physical basis of all matter and gravity (the Isle of Paradise)..

[boomshuka]

I would take some of this quantum stuff with a grain of salt. I am no scientist but Chris Halvorson who has a ph.d in physics says that scientists are completely off the mark in almost all fields. He thinks that they have invented theories of "magic matter" in order to fill in all the blanks.

[Bart]

Quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling, quantum non-location, et cetera, are NOT theories but observable phenomena. No physicist in his right mind denies their reality and I’m sure Chris Halvorson doesn’t either.

Who do you actually think you are? I provided an excellent video illustrating some of the intriguing phenomena that are undisputedly going on in the microscopic (quantum) realm of reality for anyone who is interested, and you shamelessly suggest that it should be taken with a grain of salt because of what you think Chris Halvorson thinks.

I really wonder how much longer the admins will tolerate your provocative, nonsensical disruptive posts and comments. I stated elsewhere that there should be a forum rule against proclaiming obvious nonsense. If you don’t agree with someone or anything, then you should state precisely what you don’t agree with and provide relevant arguments and/or references in support of your opinion.

[As-Above-So-Below]

I must agree with you Bart in your rebuttal, and by the way, the video was extremely well done. I think that there are many parallel UB quotes that can be applied with the video's view, especially in the inward look at the universe. These same principles will probably be applied to some universal constants, regardless of size.
Although I was not able to finish watching all of the presentation, due to its length, and I doubt that Boom did either, but I have seen this presentation on the different Science channels on TV. It would appear that Science is moving into the realm of what the UB is presenting. Maybe some of the nomenclature is different but is definitely a viable comparison when reading between the lines.

[Bart]

… the video was extremely well done. I think that there are many parallel UB quotes that can be applied with the video's view, especially in the inward look at the universe. These same principles will probably be applied to some universal constants, regardless of size. …

Hi As-Above. I fully agree. And many relevant TUB quotes may be found here: Relativity and TUB.

[boomshuka]

@Bart the video talks about time travel, particle teleportation and the observer affecting particles by just observing them. How can we not take this with a grain of salt? This stuff is definitely not all fact. Most if it is theory, and a lot of this theory is not talked about in the urantia book. Quantum entanglement is observable but what exactly is happening is still considered theory.

Bart: I really wonder how much longer the admins will tolerate your provocative, nonsensical disruptive posts and comments. I stated elsewhere that there should be a forum rule against proclaiming obvious nonsense.

I feel the same way about particles going back in time and particles teleportating. I don't see those theories being supported by the u.b nor do I feel that an infinite oscillation is supported by the urantia book, and those are all theories not facts. The videos explanation of quantum tunnelling is that "particles are borrowing energy from the future". Thats rich. The video also suggests that "reality may be a figment of our imagination". This video is loaded with magical theories that are not supported by the u.b.

Who do you actually think you are? I provided an excellent video illustrating some of the intriguing phenomena that are undisputedly going on in the microscopic (quantum) realm of reality for anyone who is interested, and you shamelessly suggest that it should be taken with a grain of salt because of what you think Chris Halvorson thinks.

You take this stuff way to personally. Lighten up dude . I am not writing this stuff to attack you or anything like that. Its intriguing in many ways, I just don't think we should gobble it down as fact because its mesmerizing.

[Bart]

@Bart the video talks about time travel, particle teleportation and the observer affecting particles by just observing them. How can we not take this with a grain of salt? This stuff is definitely not all fact. Most if it is theory, and a lot of this theory is not talked about in the urantia book. Quantum entanglement is observable but what exactly is happening is still considered theory.

The video talks about quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling, quantum non-locality, et cetera, all of which are NOT theories but observable phenomena. These are all empirical FACTS. No physicist in his right mind denies their reality and I’m sure Chris Halvorson doesn’t either.

… I don't see those theories being supported by the u.b nor do I feel that an infinite oscillation is supported by the urantia book, and those are all theories not facts.

For an extensive discussion about the eternal circle of reality see: Relativity and TUB. You didn’t respond to questions aked to you there, and bringing this topic on here is obviously an attempt to disrupt this discussion.

The videos explanation of quantum tunnelling is that "particles are borrowing energy from the future". Thats rich. The video also suggests that "reality may be a figment of our imagination". This video is loaded with magical theories that are not supported by the u.b.

Again, if you don’t agree with anything, then please provide relevant arguments and/or references in support of your opinions.

… You take this stuff way to personally. Lighten up dude . I am not writing this stuff to attack you or anything like that. Its intriguing in many ways, I just don't think we should gobble it down as fact because its mesmerizing.

Again, if you don’t agree with anything, then please provide relevant arguments and/or references in support of your opinion.

By discarding anything I say without proper argumentation, YOU make this discussion a personal issue. I assume you know very well that if you just call other people liars or fools, they tend to take it personally.

[As-Above-So-Below]

. . . . the video talks about time travel, particle teleportation and the observer affecting particles by just observing them. How can we not take this with a grain of salt? This stuff is definitely not all fact. Most if it is theory, and a lot of this theory is not talked about in the urantia book. Quantum entanglement is observable but what exactly is happening is still considered theory.
. . . .
I feel the same way about particles going back in time and particles teleportating. I don't see those theories being supported by the u.b nor do I feel that an infinite oscillation is supported by the urantia book, and those are all theories not facts. The videos explanation of quantum tunnelling is that "particles are borrowing energy from the future". Thats rich. The video also suggests that "reality may be a figment of our imagination". This video is loaded with magical theories that are not supported by the u.b.
. . . .
You take this stuff way to personally. Lighten up dude . I am not writing this stuff to attack you or anything like that. Its intriguing in many ways, I just don't think we should gobble it down as fact because its mesmerizing.

Boom:
In your last comments above, it appears that you admit that you are opposing/attacking these specific posts in that you believe that these post are being contributed as “fact” rather than theoretical, scientific, parallels to what individual readers of the UB may identify, with implied science, imbedded in the UB through its grammatical narration. And that is OK, as long as it does not interfere with the general intention to share information that people believe may be found in the UB or for that matter if science is moving closer to what may be stated in the UB. If you are not sure of what has been posted, you might question the validity of a post by asking for clarification. Also, by stating “Chris Halvorson’s” qualifications and inferring that he would, or would not, agree or disagree, can be an issue in that are you authorized to speak for “Chris”?

Regarding the manipulation of “time”; the UB mentions “time” throughout its many pages, and the following topic, post: http://truthbook.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=55068#p55068 is such a resent example, in that within the UB quotes provided, when read within the grammar used in these quotes, would lead a reader to believe that Jesus’ bodily resurrection, within unestablished science, although only theoretical science today, may be possible or fact, in what we might think is the spirit realm of a dualistic nature.

Regarding fact, I actually saw, in the news last week, that there was a breakthrough, in science, that might make the imaginary “Invisibility Cloak” as mentioned in the “Harry Potter Movies” a reality. Not to mention that when Sony first produced the Camcorder, they had to recall the product because the movies that people where making of people with specific clothing where being recorded without clothing or the Camcorder was filtering out the clothing, under specific conditions, therefore this might be considered as X-ray-vision. So: who are we to question one persons insight into something that cannot be proved as fact today, if those who have no imagination to believe that something out of the ordinary is possible.

Besides, the UB states that GOD exists, yet we cannot see Him, yet do you not believe, or must GOD come down and stand in front of you to know that He exists? O yah, according to the UB He did that in the body of Jesus.

[boomshuka]

@Above-so-below all I am saying is that much of (theoretical) side of quantum physics should be taken with a grain of salt. That is not in any way an attack on Bart, I am not inferring that he is a fool or anything like that. I am questioning the theories presented within this video and they are theories. Quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling and quantum non-locality are observable phenomonon but this video takes those observations and uses them to form extravagant theories. "Particles borrowing energy from the future" is not a fact. "reality as a figment of our imagination" is not fact, these are not even widely considered theories. "Teleportation" of anything is not a fact.

By discarding anything I say without proper argumentation, YOU make this discussion a personal issue. I assume you know very well that if you just call other people liars or fools, they tend to take it personally.

All I said is that we should take this video with a grain of salt and you take it personally,-I don't see how you think I am infering you are a fool or liar?! This is simply a online debate, nothing needs to be taken personal.

Also its very difficult to debate a concept that has no basis in reality. Such as "reality is just a figment of our consciousness" as was brought up in this video. The u.b states that finite reality is very real, and that it is not a projectin of our consciousness. Also teleportation seems incredibly unlikely, there is no being in all the universe with powers of teleportation, the highest finite beings have the ability of incredible speeds of locomation but none can literaly teleport. Theoretically anything is possible though, all I am saying is that I wouldn't personally accept such theories until there is some verification. That is how I feel though, anyone can feel how they want about this.

[As-Above-So-Below]

@Above-so-below all I am saying is that much of (theoretical) side of quantum physics should be taken with a grain of salt. That is not in any way an attack on Bart, I am not inferring that he is a fool or anything like that. I am questioning the theories presented within this video and they are theories. Quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling and quantum non-locality are observable phenomonon but this video takes those observations and uses them to form extravagant theories. "Particles borrowing energy from the future" is not a fact. "reality as a figment of our imagination" is not fact, these are not even widely considered theories. "Teleportation" of anything is not a fact.

And Boom, I agree that this is your opinion, and can you provide credentials so support your opinion?
I am fully aware of what the term "with a grain of salt" means and comes from; in general it is a skeptical term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt
"(With) a grain of salt," (or "a pinch of salt") in modern English, is an idiom which means to view something with skepticism, or to not take it literally."
History:
"The phrase comes from Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, regarding the discovery of a recipe for an antidote to a poison. In the antidote, one of the ingredients was a grain of salt. Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt," and therefore less serious.

An alternative account says that the Roman general Pompey believed he could make himself immune to poison by ingesting small amounts of various poisons, and he took this treatment with a grain of salt to help him swallow the poison. In this version, the salt is not the antidote. It was taken merely to assist in swallowing the poison.

The Latin word salis means both "salt" and "wit," so that the Latin phrase "cum grano salis" could be translated as both "with a grain of salt" and "with a grain (small amount) of wit."

The phrase cum grano salis is not what Pliny wrote. It is constructed according to the grammar of modern European languages rather than Classical Latin. Pliny's actual words were addito salis grano ("add a grain of salt")."

If you take that one grain of salt and examine it to determine its function in a formula, it may reveal more truth than what was previous perceived as non truth or just someones opinion.

[Bart]

@Above-so-below all I am saying is that much of (theoretical) side of quantum physics should be taken with a grain of salt. That is not in any way an attack on Bart, I am not inferring that he is a fool or anything like that. I am questioning the theories presented within this video and they are theories. Quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling and quantum non-locality are observable phenomonon but this video takes those observations and uses them to form extravagant theories. "Particles borrowing energy from the future" is not a fact. "reality as a figment of our imagination" is not fact, these are not even widely considered theories. "Teleportation" of anything is not a fact.

By discarding anything I say without proper argumentation, YOU make this discussion a personal issue. I assume you know very well that if you just call other people liars or fools, they tend to take it personally.

All I said is that we should take this video with a grain of salt and you take it personally,-I don't see how you think I am infering you are a fool or liar?! This is simply a online debate, nothing needs to be taken personal.

Also its very difficult to debate a concept that has no basis in reality. Such as "reality is just a figment of our consciousness" as was brought up in this video. The u.b states that finite reality is very real, and that it is not a projectin of our consciousness. Also teleportation seems incredibly unlikely, there is no being in all the universe with powers of teleportation, the highest finite beings have the ability of incredible speeds of locomation but none can literaly teleport. Theoretically anything is possible though, all I am saying is that I wouldn't personally accept such theories until there is some verification. That is how I feel though, anyone can feel how they want about this.

Boomshuka - I posted this video because it struck me how well it portrays strange quantum physical phenomena such as quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling, quantum non-locality, dark matter, et cetera, all of which are NOT theories but observable phenomena. It also struck me how the video suggests that the answer to all this strangeness may be a kind of sub-quantum particle that exists in 3+ spatial dimensions. As I said earlier, I think that might be the ULTIMATON of The Urantia Book. Also, any theoretical explanations in the video only serve to provide an understanding of what happens, without stating that this actually IS what happens. The term SEEMINGLY and the phrase IT APPEARS AS IF, are used many times. And there is no doubt in the video that scientists absolutely don’t agree about WHAT exactly happens at the quantum level.

Yet, your immediate reaction to this video was: "I would take some of this quantum stuff with a grain of salt". Why? Because, according to you: "Chris Halvorson who has a ph.d in physics says that scientists are completely off the mark in almost all fields. He thinks that they have invented theories of magic matter in order to fill in all the blanks".

I admit you made me angry with that reply and I think that is a quite natural reaction, assuming you saw the video. Why? Because the way you reacted (and still are reacting) is directed against TRUTH. The video is not proclaiming any (what you call) "invented theories of magic matter in order to fill in all the blanks". That’s a lie. Whereas the video is about what we observe in the quantum world, you say: "this video takes those observations and uses them to form extravagant theories". That’s simply not true. If you watch the video, you will see that you are talking nonsense and tell lies. And I really can’t say exactly why you do this, but I suspect you have an agenda of your own which tells you to disrupt any constructive discussion about The Urantia Book with nonsensical replies and (if necessary) with lies..

Now it appears that you indeed didn’t even watch the video. You say: "teleportation seems incredibly unlikely, there is no being in all the universe with powers of teleportation". Why do you say this? There is absolutely NOTHING said in the video about teleportation, not a word. You made this up. I guess you will try to twist and wiggle yourself out of this one, but IMO here you finally exposed your intention to disrupt normal, constructive discussions about The Urantia Book. There is a word in Internet slang for this: TROLL.