Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.

[b]Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz;
So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength f ...[text shortened]... eady debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.[/b]

Edit: “So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength for you and for me and for your hypothetical sentient beings with different eye sight.”

When did I mention that light lacks of wavelengths?
On the other hand, the vision abilities of each sentient species are different, because they have different spectral absorption characteristics due to the fact that their cone systems selectively absorb light of different wavelengths. The sentient beings I am referring to, are dolphins, monkeys, spiders, eagles, killer whales etc, and thus are not hypothetical.
Mind you, the wavelength of the visible light is relative: there are many animals that see beyond the human limits of wavelength, beyond Our visible light spectrum, for their visibility range extends into the infrared or ultraviolet range. In that sense, the limits of visible light wavelengths are indeed relative, and the reality each group of sentient beings perceives is different than that perceived from other groups of species. In fact, the sentient beings see as colours/ objects something that their optical system and the response of their brain create during their interaction with a particular set of electromagnetic waves
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.

[b]Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz;
So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength f ...[text shortened]... eady debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.[/b]

Edit: “I know they are. How does that make a relationship? And why did you pick people versed in QM? You are trying to make a relationship where there is none. Why?”

It does make a relationship, and the studies, the books and the papers for the time being indicate that the relationship holds, therefore my view herenow is scientifically justified. It isn’t me the one who made up such a relationship out of the blue, it is them the ones who point out again and again that this relationship holds in the QM realm. However, this relationship holds also in other theories of reality too (ie constructivism)
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.

[b]Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz;
So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength f ...[text shortened]... eady debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.[/b]

Edit: “So why only bring it up in QM discussions?”

I don’t. In the past I had many conversations with you and other RHP friends regarding this relationship on philosophic fields. I enjoyed debates about constructivism, sociology and philosophic concepts like aletheia, theoplacia, archetypes, religious beliefs etc;


Edit: “To be honest, I usually find your posts too long and I give up before I have read them all. I also am too lazy to go and look up all your references.”

This is not my fault! I could well be laconic, but then again my Zen would be Greek to you. However, if you want to keep up playing the bongos when I take my time and I post and share with you and with our RHP friends my opinions, be my guest😵


Edit: “I would have difficulty debunking your thesis because I am, as always, unclear as to what it is.”

You cannot claim that I am unclear; there is not even one question you asked me that I didn’t answer. But again: what exact post of mine at this thread is unclear to you? Ask your questions and you will have my replies;


Edit: “A moment ago, I thought you were claiming that QM was intricately tied to consciousness and I have already debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.”

You debunked nothing. I still claim and I sourced that QM, along with all the other theories of reality at our disposal, are all strictly related to our consciousness and our rest five senses alone
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Then again, the Madhyamika in black beetle (many words follow oh the horror) argues that this idea of yours is just an empty projection of your (empty) mind emerging out of your engagement with the superposition. Because, from the given superposition of the bit -the simplest element of reality- (thus from the indefinite to you state 0/1 that holds whene ...[text shortened]... es? It's Only Me!
And I hope your girl and your boy-kid there Down Under are fine😵

All is fine, thnx BB. (with my and my own) thnx for asking 🙂
I'll just stick with my own expression (as you seem to have suggested), as we have established before: its just words.

so I'll stick with mine and follow it through to it's logical conclusions.


but thanks,as always, for the input 😵

Originally posted by Taoman
I guess in the broad sweep of history quantum science is still in its infancy though it emerged asking some of these basic questions a century ago.
We always do have some way to go, avoiding a catastrophe for our human species. We appear to need a rapid "holistic" learning curve to avoid same in one way or another.
What will be and what will not be in a thousand years?

Oh, I burnt my toast! How zen.

1000 years? Gosh, in these "evolutionary times" , it's hard to know what will be in a 1000 years. "Time-slips" have become a daily/weekly phenomanom rather than a yearly/or more one . We are headed fror a "spike" in our history.
I believe there is a scientific book written about this subject,ie, "the "Spike". In that boook it postulates that we CAN't know what happens after the "spike", that all we have been able to predict before,based on previous collective experience, will become irrelevent, because there will be so many variables that it will be impossible to predict the next major change in human history.

burnt is a flavour all unto itself 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
1000 years? Gosh, in these "evolutionary times" , it's hard to know what will be in a 1000 years. "Time-slips" have become a daily/weekly phenomanom rather than a yearly/or more one . We are headed fror a "spike" in our history.
I believe there is a scientific book written about this subject,ie, "the "Spike". In that boook it postulates that we CAN't k ...[text shortened]... t the next major change in human history.

burnt is a flavour all unto itself 🙂

That certainly sounds interesting and has some persuasiveness about it. Fast rates of change and increasing variables make it very hard to predict what will happen in the future. I just hope its not as serious as my pessimistic view contemplates.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “So why only bring it up in QM discussions?”

I don’t. In the past I had many conversations with you and other RHP friends regarding this relationship on philosophic fields. I enjoyed debates about constructivism, sociology and philosophic concepts like aletheia, theoplacia, archetypes, religious beliefs etc;


Edit: “To be honest, I usually ...[text shortened]... t our disposal, are all strictly related to our consciousness and our rest five senses alone
😵

Sorry to have to say it, but sometimes I do wonder if the bongos are playing an unusual troll tune?

Originally posted by black beetle
When did I mention that light lacks of wavelengths?

You have been suggesting it all along. You have been suggesting that quantum phenomena (of which wavelength is one) are dependent on consciousness. Now you seem to be admitting that they are not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have been suggesting it all along. You have been suggesting that quantum phenomena (of which wavelength is one) are dependent on consciousness. Now you seem to be admitting that they are not.

The sole thing I keep up suggesting is that the quantum phenomena, as every other phenomenon we are aware of, are merely projections of our mind that occur when we collapse the wavefunction and thus actualize (by means of our perception) a specific potentiallity of experience. Certainly I argue that our collective subjectivity and the reality we experience are mutually dependent and, therefore, I claim that there is no such a thing as an "objective" or "absolute reality/ truth" out there in the physical world that is separated from our awareness/ consciousness. In other words, I evaluate all kinds of dualist approaches as delusional and I discard them on the spot
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
That certainly sounds interesting and has some persuasiveness about it. Fast rates of change and increasing variables make it very hard to predict what will happen in the future. I just hope its not as serious as my pessimistic view contemplates.

Yes, I recall reading the book and remembering that it was written by three scientists, ( I could be wron, it may have just been one main writer), but alas, I cant find it. I'm sure it can be found on the net but I'm not about to go looking.
As I remember, (or possibly my altrusitic memory clouding my memory), they were saying that it could easily go either way in the sense that things could turn out really well if someone finds some fantastic revolutionary invention, (or power scouce or something),for example, which could radically alter our daily lives within months.
With the advent of quantum and nano-technology, these potentialities may not be far off as one might think. It may be just around the corner.

Now how the general populace would react to some new fantastic technology could go either good or bad. you have to assume dealing with the lowest common denomenator with society, so education is paramount.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, I recall reading the book and remembering that it was written by three scientists, ( I could be wron, it may have just been one main writer), but alas, I cant find it. I'm sure it can be found on the net but I'm not about to go looking.
As I remember, (or possibly my altrusitic memory clouding my memory), they were saying that it could easily go e ...[text shortened]... to assume dealing with the lowest common denomenator with society, so education is paramount.

Let's hope so, Karoly. There is some exciting stuff appearing on science sites, but they mostly have still to be properly tested etc. Things that look hopeful are some uses of bacteria for manufacturing of clean fuels in large quantities, and great improvements in solar power technology. But underlying the problems is always the increasing pressure of population. It has got to slow down somewhere or it is logically not sustainable in the long run.

Safe power, food and water even with great innovations needs to accelerate and the more it does the faster the population grows by sheer force of multiplication.
I think finally nature itself will trim the population down, as it does with every species that outruns its resources, but it won't be pretty.

Facing such things requires a spirit strengthening understanding of the greater context of existence. This is what I find in Buddhist philosophy and its support in quantum physics. The material aspect of existence is but one side of the Great Journey. In a greater sense we the waves though tossed about in great storms remain ever the Great Sea.

Ever see "Castaway"? There's a scene where he is on the raft with his imaginary "friend", and he nearly loses his life trying to save this dressed up basketball. Afterwards he is floating all alone on that raft after the storm looking up at the wide starry sky. sad at his loss of his "friend". It struck me then that he was never really alone and instead of that ball his living "companion" was always all about him, if he could but see it.