Um, the other one?

Certain theories of quantum physics may be beat out by a new theory, but quantum mechanics itself includes demonstrated phenomena like entanglement, which has been reproduced and verified.

That is true, but that doesn't prove that quantum mechanics as a whole is true. A theory can give correct predictions for most situations we encounter, but still be innaccurate on a deeper level, just as Newtonian physics makes all the right predictions until you get to situations near the speed of light, etc. Bohmian mechanics, one of the pet rival theories being considered now, also makes predictions about entanglement, and also offers solutions to problems which some feel quantum mechanics answers, but in a very awkward fashion.

Freewill allows us to use our thoughts to effect our realty. The effects of this may take some time, maybe seconds, minutes, or even years.

It definitely seems to be the case that we have some form of freewill, but there is also a question of showing how we can exercise freewill when the world seems to be causallly closed, and every material event seems to happen merely as a result of past material states and physical laws. People are still searching for ways in which we can explain how freewill operates under these circumstances- where the "insert" point is in the the chain of cause and effect for our wills to function.

Quantum mechanics seems to offer a solution to that problem, since at the subatomic level, things are not directly caused to happen, but have a certain probability to occur- some people feel our will might effect which of the probabilities are realized. That is why theories like quantum mechanics is relevant to discussions of freewill.

I'm not ready to give up nonlocality.

I know, it seems to fit so well. Sometimes reality is much stranger than you might have supposed, and other times, it is far more simple and prosaic. It is obvious from apologetic concepts like multiple parallel universes to explain the probability doctrine that quantum mechanics makes some ontologically expensive claims, and so maybe some of them may have been too unrestrained. But whatever the real solution is, I think it is safe to say that is probably far beyond our current understading.

Well, must of those who are today interested in quantum mechanics are interested in it for its implications-namely that not everything in the universe follows the laws of causality (cause and effect), and there is room in our view of the universe for apparently random, or at least uncaused events. People have been latching onto this idea lately as a means of showing how freewill operates in a world where everythings already seems to be determined by physics and chemistry, or how other wills may operate in our otherwise causally-closed universe.

It is interesting to consider that quantum physics is not the only model which has been proposed to describe the data at had- there are other models, such as the Bohmian model, which makes many of the same predictions, yet also integrates other variables with allow physicists to save the idea of causation. There have been some developments lately, such as some interesting anomolies in the microwave radiation patter, which may potentially allow physicists to pit quantum mechanics against other therioes:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.829.html

http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/causation_with_qm.pdf


Interesting stuff. I don't at all think the answer to these questions has anything to do with whether or not people have freewill, etc., but I do think they seriously affect the explanation for how freewill might be exercised, and how responsible we may or may not be for looking to quantum mechanics for explanations of philosophical questions, as many have done as of late.

I would be glad to hear what you guys think 

Maybe, but then they would just be getting the value of the exchange rate.

Are you saying Sirians are inherently dishonest?

but what disturbs me, not about your specific posts, is the attitude of some here that automatically assign disbelief to anything that even smells scientific, and automatically believe anything that sounds alternative.

Indeed, they are both forms of indoctrination. The healthy tendency that the critics of each knowledge base should maintian is skepticism, not to be confused with closed-mindedness.

Haha....

The Zhuangzi is incredible ( early Daoist text that reads like existentialist literature, many episodic stories)

Matter is just energy with mass, and any chemical reaction releases it, like fire for example, turning the matter into pure energy.  Like in a nuclear reaction, for example.  Another example would be a burning building (less drastic)-when a burning building is burnt into a crisp- photons escape, and eventually whatever matter that doesn't become pure energy is left as a different type of matter. 

I think you mostly have a good handle on it, CFT, but it is worth noting that what is released in combustion is generally "chemical energy" stored in molecular bonds, as the reagents move to bonds with lower embodied energy. Nuclear reactions (involving a nucleus) are normally the ones where matter is directly translated into energy, because for some reason not all protons are alike- the ones in Helium are slightly lighter than the ones in Hydrogen, for example, and the extra energy from fusion is partly a result of this "shaving". 

No silly, they want alien money (so they can pay someone to fix up their site layout)

Learn to economics 

Welcome to AP 

Awesome Stookie.

In alphabetical order, if I can only name a few,

America,
Bach,
The Beatles,
Beirut,
Bealle and Sebastian
Ben Folds,
Beethoven,
Billy Joel,
Bjork,
Bob Dylan,
Cheap Trick
Crash Test Dummies
Crowded House
Dave Mathews,
Debussy,
The Decemberists,
Dirty Three,
The Doors,
Duran Duran,
The Eagles,
Elton John,
Erik Satie,
Fleet Foxes,
Holst,
Jefferson Airplane
Jethro Tull,
Joanna Newsom,
King Crimson,
Led Zeppelin,
Lennon,
MGMT,
Moby,
Moody Blues,
Neil Young,
Paul Mcartney,
Oasis,
Peter Gabriel,
Pink Floyd
Radiohead,
Roguewave,
Rolling Stones,
Scissor Sister,
The Shins,
Simon and Garfunkel,
The Smiths,
Smokey Robinson,
Starsailor,
Steely Dan,
Sting and the Police,
Stravinski,
Supertramp,
Talking Heads,
Tchaichovsky,
U2,
Vetiver,
The Zombies

And that is maybe 1/3 - 1/4 of them, lol, but those artists account for around 80% of my musical library.

Well you know, when you want something and your mind, the way it is programmed, is not fine with that - you have to force it, like you would tame something beasty nasty, I always say hehe.

Yes, that is similar language to that used in several sutras on meditation: the mind is described as a monkey that wanders. The response that usually follows in these sutras is that we should be aware of its wanderings, and allow it to roam a bit, then come back on its own, rather than merely forcing it back on task, as it will only wander again. We need to really let go of all of its attachments fully in the course of the meditation, not just distract our mind from them, or we will never be successful.

That is this traditional response at least.

Seconded. We can have attachments to non-physical goals just as we can have attachments to material things, and each can be equally damaging.

I feel it is healthy to want to expand our experiences and perspectives to include other levels of our self and reality, but we should remember too that the physical itself is a place of challenge and growth which could not probably be attained as easily in other places. If we decide we are done with physical existence because of boredom with it, perhaps we are missing out on all of its intricacies.

Hi Tiny,

Why are you interested in meditating that long everyday? That is seriously a monk-length period. Even Hindu gurus and Samanas spend time eating and doing chores, lol- that is about how long they go at it. Long-period meditations can be insightful, but needn't be practiced often at all to experience their effects.If you are interested in becoming the Buddha, lol,it will take more than 6 hour meditations to do it

A couple hours is decent span for a "normal" sort of person, and you needn't even spend that long starting out, before you learn to breathe at the proper rate. For me, when I would fall asleep meditating, it was always either because I was too tired to begin with, or that I was was breathing in too shallow or slow a manner.

No I don't mean those annoying pulsating ones, but that 0-beat, slow-brainwave type of music.

But only 1 per post! And no double posts 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc1FiK_i0rE

Can definitely hear that binaural beats are probably built into this. Good sound.

NoY   
Too bad Nay isn't around much anymore