It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
On 8/15/24 10:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
I've heard it said that nearly every quantum mechanician has his own "interpretation" of what it means. De Chardin was a bit early to have
had that much influence. Feynman suggested that nobody understands
quantum mechanics but that Einstein may have been close with his "spooky action at a distance.
Newton, of course, had no precognition of quantum
mechanics, but he too was bothered by the action at a distance idea.
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and >subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
IDentity <identity@invalid.org> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
IDentity <identity@invalid.org> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped >>> on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard >>> was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >>> whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,
137?
"But where did 137 come in?
Pauli became convinced that the number was so
fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary particles.
This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
endurance, he sought the help of Jung…"
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
IDentity <identity@invalid.org> wrote:137?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped >> >>> on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard >> >>> was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >> >>> whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,
"But where did 137 come in?
From experiment of course, to 12 significant digits.
Pauli became convinced that the number was so
fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary
particles.
Yes, but that is obsolete by now.
Thanks to string theory we know nowadays
that this is just another random number,
selected anthropically at the big Bang.
'Uggly theories are good!'
This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
endurance, he sought the help of Jung"
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple
Who couldn't help either.
And now, almost a 100 years on,
we are still as clueless as Pauli was a century ago.
Asking some Buddhist idiot, or a Taoist idem,
or any other Eastern 'sage' like this IDentity <identity@invalid.org>
will get us lots of fuzzy language, but not 137
On 9/21/24 8:19 AM, IDentity wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin HarranOmmm..
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 9/21/24 8:19 AM, IDentity wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin HarranOmmm..
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped >>> on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard >>> was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >>> whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu
I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.
"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 9/21/24 8:19 AM, IDentity wrote:I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin HarranOmmm..
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped >> >>> on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard >> >>> was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or >> >>> whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.
You might like the 'Austin interpretation' of quantum mechanics,
by John Wheeler.
It takes all that 'conciousness of the observer'
nonsense to its logical conclusion.
It posits that the whole past doesn't exist,
except as potential possibilities.
Those T. rexes for example existed only as quantum superpositions,
together with infinitely many other logicaly possible creatures.
Then the first mind came along, observed something, a dead cat perhaps,
and all those billion years of quantum superposition
crashed down into the one world we happen to know.
--"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:24:57 |
| Calls: | 9,832 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,193,274 |