The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics

Thanks for the reply, Mayflow.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

1. Zero motion is not vibrational. It is not kinetic energy (which is vibrational), it is latent energy. Metaphysically, latent energy is creator of everything, but it is not itself born or created and it cannot be destroyed.

Okay, I'm a bit confused on what exactly is being meant by "zero motion". This needs to be properly defined before we can move on. By latent energy, do you mean potential energy? That is what it seems like you mean, by your electronics example (since voltage is the electric potential energy per charge).

Originally Posted by Mayflow

A bit more technically The impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation travelling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E|/|H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| magnetic field strength. It has an exact value, given approximately as 376.73031... ohms per meter.

3. The impedance of free space equals the product of the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant μ0 and the speed of light in vacuum c0. Since the numerical values of the magnetic constant and of the speed of light are fixed by the definitions of the ampere and the metre respectively, the exact value of the impedance of free space is likewise fixed by definition and is not subject to experimental error.

So ...you just copied this all from wikipedia. What does the impedance of free space have to do with this discussion? I'm not sure how it is related to anything I have said so far.

Originally Posted by Kepler

Thanks for the reply, Mayflow.


Okay, I'm a bit confused on what exactly is being meant by "zero motion". This needs to be properly defined before we can move on. By latent energy, do you mean potential energy? That is what it seems like you mean, by your electronics example (since voltage is the electric potential energy per charge).



So ...you just copied this all from wikipedia. What does the impedance of free space have to do with this discussion? I'm not sure how it is related to anything I have said so far.

Well yeah I copied it from Wiki, and it probably doesn't have any much thing related to what you have said so far, as so far I haven't seen you say anything anything all that interesting to me. Zero motion just means zero motion, how can that be confusing? Of course we could get into standing wave theories where motion and zero motion seem to coincide. Another interesting idea.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Well yeah I copied it from Wiki, and it probably doesn't have any much thing related to what you have said so far, as so far I haven't seen you say anything anything all that interesting to me.

Sorry, I assumed that since you were posting it in response to one of my posts, that it had something to do with that post.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Zero motion just means zero motion, how can that be confusing?

So, basically, something is in its zero motion state if it is not moving? That's fine, if you want to define it that way, although that does conflict with athribiristan's original use of the word because he claimed that objects at both ends of the vibrational spectrum are in their zero motion state. It doesn't make sense to say that something vibrating with a very high frequency is not vibrating. This is why I asked him that question in the first place.

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Kepler

Show your work!

All vibrations are constant...except for thought, which is variable through consciousness. Hence it is the only vibration that is truly causal. If you are the only thinking being in the universe, you are the only cause. Thought interacts very weakly with the physical universe but if you could hold the same thought long enough the universe would eventually fall in line.

Originally Posted by seekerscientist

The three major metaphysical aspects of quantum mechanics are:

1. Particle-wave duality.
2. The role of the act of observation in creating reality.
3. Nonlocality (spooky action at a distance).

Particle-wave duality and nonlocality, as metaphysical as they may seem, are aspects that have been observed experimentally and so would seem to be definitely a part of our physical reality.

But what about the quantum mechanical formalism that the act of observation actually creates reality? The central problem, of course, is who is the observer?

What do you think?

have you read a book called the self aware universe? if not, you might like it.

Originally Posted by athribiristan

All vibrations are constant...except for thought, which is variable through consciousness. Hence it is the only vibration that is truly causal. If you are the only thinking being in the universe, you are the only cause. Thought interacts very weakly with the physical universe but if you could hold the same thought long enough the universe would eventually fall in line.

Thanks for the reply. When you speak of vibrations, to what are you referring? In other words, vibrations of what?

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Kepler

Anyway, in my previous post I was playing along with the assumptions up to that point. It's worth discussing those as well.


Vibrational spectrum of what? For there to be a vibration, some thing needs to be vibrating. Also, how do both the high and low ends of this spectrum correspond to zero motion?

Energy. From the low end of densely packed vibrations that is matter, to the high end which is consciousness. Eventually you get to a point at the low end where vibrations become so densely packed that motion is no longer possible, or a point at the high end where the wavelength becomes so small that it can no longer be defined as motion. These are of course theoretical points, like infinity. Not achievable by any practical means but necessary to complete the theory.


Remember, even if everything is made of energy, there are different kinds of energy. For example, it's nonsensical to think of an electromagnetic wave interfering with a water wave.

Not at all. Energy is energy. and if you don't think EM waves interfere with ocean waves you'd better think again. Mind you the interference would almost undetectable as the difference in wavelengths is huge.


Can you go into some more detail here. Our thoughts do produce some EM waves, that's for sure. Is that what you're talking about?

Our thoughts are energy. Here's proof:

Our muscles move. This is caused by electrical impulses transmitted by the nervous system. This is caused by the firing of synapses in the brain. This is caused by thought. In order for this chain of events to take place energy must be transformed as it cannot be created out of nothing. EM waves are the natural byproduct of any conduction of electrical current.

But ultimately what I refer to is the energy of thought before it enters the physical body. We as spiritual consciousness can have a direct, albeit small effect on the physical universe without resorting to the use of physical bodies. Our brains and bodies just serve as a conduit and transformer to step down the higher vibrations of consciousness to vibrations that more closely resemble physicality. The stepped down vibrations are much more effective at influencing the physical universe but are subject to various limitations, like being filtered through all the **** that the physical brain picks up and clings to over the years.

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Kepler

Thanks for the reply. When you speak of vibrations, to what are you referring? In other words, vibrations of what?

Vibrations of energy, or waves. All energy is transmitted by waves, which is essentially another term for vibration.

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Kepler

This is a good point. Most definitions of consciousness are a bit vague.

I define it as awareness of awareness. That's about as basic as it can get. Everything else develops from there. At the most basic level, I am that which is aware that it is aware.

Originally Posted by athribiristan

I define it as awareness of awareness.

Right. And how do you define "awareness"?