Quantum incarnation, destruction of the timebound entity and its collective resonance

[freddyfresh]

words can never do justice to the complexity of infinite capacity and the life experience. I feel that we are infinite beings pretending to exist in a finite universe. Hence talk will always be just speculation. How can infinity EVER be defined?, especially if it is i a constant ongoing creative process. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[freddyfresh]

words can never do justice to the complexity of infinite capacity and the life experience. I feel that we are infinite beings pretending to exist in a finite universe. Hence talk will always be just speculation. How can infinity EVER be defined?, especially if it is in a constant ongoing creative process. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[freddyfresh]

for example in my finite wisdom I cannot even figure out how to delete my own post

[Rah nam]

Originally Posted by freddyfresh

for example in my finite wisdom I cannot even figure out how to delete my own post

You can not

[7luminaries]

I do love quantum mechanics and astrophysics generally. Also bio and cultural sciences. What I find particularly fascinating are "hard problems" and the impossibly long odds of finding ourselves as we are, where we are, in existing in the first place.

These include the "hard problem" of consciousness, the measurement (observer) "problem" of quantum mechanics, and the growing understanding that, like consciousness, quantum entanglement is foundational to physical reality and not a special outcome overlaid on top of it.

Given my insight and understanding on the topic to date, I would say broadly that consciousness is the "field" within which matter (the physical realm) arises. Which means that we are consciousness first and foremost, and also we (in our physical incarnations) are of consciousness. We like all things, both are consciousness and also have or experience an individuated consciousness which is coupled to our temporal physical form.

Because consciousness is foundational and pre-existing (so to speak )...it can never ultimately originate in the physical being. The physical being can and will experience its own form of consciousness, one that is both linked to its own timeless consciousness and also to all other temporal consciousness.

Put simply, we are never separate from our timeless centre (unbound consciousness), nor from all others, nor from all that is...birds, bees, animals, trees, mountains, skies, stars, and galaxies. Yet we are each an individuated, unique, and irreplaceable aspect of source consciousness.

As for who we are, look within. Regardless of the windowdressing (current incarnation), time, or place...we are never other than what we are, right now, in this moment and place. Our challenges and shortcomings are ours to own...our words and deeds are ours to own. And ultimately we must and we will, eagerly even and with all due haste. So we may as well get to it, and move into our spiritual and emotional maturity

Just my 2 ps.

Peace & blessings
7

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Because consciousness is foundational and pre-existing (so to speak )...it can never ultimately originate in the physical being. The physical being can and will experience its own form of consciousness, one that is both linked to its own timeless consciousness and also to all other temporal consciousness.
7

Consiousness is abstract.

try to define it and you will find a pletora of definitions.

What was the 'cause' of consciousness? We do not know.

Is consciousness pre-existing? Hard to say.

Did it originate in our mind? Can not really say.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

I do love quantum mechanics and astrophysics generally. Also bio and cultural sciences. What I find particularly fascinating are "hard problems" and the impossibly long odds of finding ourselves as we are, where we are, in existing in the first place.

These include the "hard problem" of consciousness, the measurement (observer) "problem" of quantum mechanics, and the growing understanding that, like consciousness, quantum entanglement is foundational to physical reality and not a special outcome overlaid on top of it.

These are still hotly debated. To me, if an observer actually interferes with the observed results will differ from those without the interference. Anyone measuring the working of an (electronic) circuit will be aware of it.

In the past here I've said "Show me the maths" in which these things can exist 'unharmed' - not that I'd understand. Maths applied to quantum is much about probability which is made more difficult when commenters assume one has an easy understanding of the transforms, integration and so on, so misses steps. So I take it to dad who started life as an actuary and understands these things, can repackage it in bite-sized chunks for me. Mathematical statistics; Probability of continuous functions isn't nice! My maths is ok but not that advanced.

So - show me the maths. I know someone who can help me with it!

...

[7luminaries]

Lorelyen, Yes, observer measurement collapses the quantum probability wave (say, of a single particle into a single point. There's no way to view the other outcomes from our vantage in this slice (our universe) of the quantum multiverse. Within our universe, the particle when measured will have a definite outcome (its position when measured).

However if we don't measure the outcome of the particle and allow it to randomly exit from one of (say) two locations, we can observe the outcomes after the fact, which represents all the possible outcomes of a particle from either location and which (in the classic double-slit experiment) exactly resembles a 2-wave interference pattern. In effect, the particle occupies every possible location in this universe at point X, given its prior exit from both location 1 and 2, until and unless it is observed/measured. The measurement coalesces the wave probability into a location, impacting reality at the quantum particle level.

There are many other aspects to the hard problem of consciousness, but this test and many other similar laboratory outcomes have led many researchers to grudgingly conclude that consciousness appears to be a fundamental aspect of the universe (such as, consciousness is or "exists" a priori to or "beyond" the universe, such that the universe is "embedded" in a field of consciousness), even if we do not as yet have a full grasp of its scope or how to best or most accurately convey (the nature of) this (i.e., our) reality.

And also yes, the research is never done and no perspective is (or should be IMO) final or finalised
Peace & blessings
7L

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

These are still hotly debated. To me, if an observer actually interferes with the observed results will differ from those without the interference. Anyone measuring the working of an (electronic) circuit will be aware of it.

In the past here I've said "Show me the maths" in which these things can exist 'unharmed' - not that I'd understand.
...

Your statement should be rewritten.

When an electronic measurement is taken, the measuring device affects the electronic circuit being measured if there are connections. The measuring device alters the properties of the circuit. The amount of alteration is minute.

If there are no connections, such as taking a temperature, there is no alteration.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Your statement should be rewritten.

When an electronic measurement is taken, the measuring device affects the electronic circuit being measured if there are connections. The measuring device alters the properties of the circuit. The amount of alteration is minute.

If there are no connections, such as taking a temperature, there is no alteration.

You're wrong. There are usually connections. And if I'm using, say, my scope with an impedance of 10MΩ/12pf to check something like distortion in part of a circuit that has an impedance of 12MΩ at a frequency of 100kHz the difference won't be minute.

Otherwise thanks for the point that supports my own belief that simple unconnected observation should not change the behaviour of the observed.
.
pax tecum