[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I appreciate that.  I have a lot to learn, and your posts give me incentive.

This whole thing about observers and reality and quantum vector collapse is
very interesting and allows me to zoom around with possibilities.

Along those lines, it is quite possible that some people have a larger
influence on the nature of the quantum collapse, or reality as it appears on
a moment to moment basis.  For example prayer or voodoo dolls may have more
impact than sitting on the john.  Another example is that some politicians
may have more impact on the continuing quantum collapse of the US economy
(that one is for Platt).  Indeed, we may see a reversal of such a thing just
through the positive thoughts of new people that contemplate this thing on a
daily basis.  Wonder who's going to take credit?

Cheers,
Mark

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I offered the article because John Carl is fond of the Robert's Lanza's
> BioCentrism and I think also Ham has mentioned him.
>
> Love you too.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, 118 wrote:
>
> > Hi Craig,
> > I agree, although there are other interpretations of quantum collapse
> right
> > in the moment, and thus creation through the arising of one from an
> infinite
> > number of probabilities by observation itself.  Concern:  These ideas
> only
> > true according to theories in quantum mechanics.  We must not make it
> more
> > than that since such theories have their limitations.  They should not be
> > projected without an understanding of the premises which create them.  A
> > good example of such reckless projection can be seen in the use of the
> > theory of evolution.  The ubiquitous use of (sometimes unrelated)
> scientific
> > theory for everything is one of the flaws of Scientism.  I believe Marsha
> is
> > guilty of this promotional effort, from the subject's title.  Use it when
> > it's useful, deny it when it's not.  Sometimes lacks credibility.
> >
> > (Love you Marsha)
> > Mark
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM, <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Observation" is ambiguous.  If light or other detectable energy is
> >> created in a physical process, then it existed before it was observed.
> >> But if light or something else is introduced in order to observe,
> >> then it changes the process.
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >>
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>