non-action is impossible

[beavis]

ever hear the saying observe but don't act?

That wasnt meant on a quantum size or to be exact. It means (for example) if somebody asks a straight male "whats your boyfriend's name?" then you can observe the question but choose not to respond because any answer will probably result in more gay insults.

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, does it make a sound?

It makes a sound. The tree is there to feel the sound vibrations.

[RooJ]

volcomstone: for example the more accuratly you can measure the speed of a particle (electron, atom) the less accurate you can predict the position of the particle, and vice-versa

I may be wrong but i heard that the reason the act of measuring a particle to predict position or speed makes the alternative measurment less accurate is because in the act of measuring e.g. the position of the particle your using light. The photons bouncing off the particle can alter the speed and direction, so the second you recieve the position the speed reading is then unreliable.

I agree though that quantum mechanics is an amazing subject and may produce some crazy findings in the future.

[volcomstone]

yes thats true, in order for us to detect one particle we hafta bounce another particle against it,

i suppose that their are ways to reduce the improbability,
what you need is a detection array that applies no force to measure ,
thats very difficult

[Adkha]

Wait a sec....where do you argument the statement that it is impossible to not act:S?
I dont understand....pleaze explain your statement and arguments further for me

[volcomstone]

everyday you look at an object, and your perception fields extend out to the object, they engulf it and surround it, shaped by your neural processes aided by the stimuli from the senses, your entire world is an outward perception of what most consider to be entirallly in your head,

we process the information we get from the objects, and we apply that information onto the objects, we extend ourselves onto anything we touch see, feel or even think about, []

think about that, and try and make some nice materialistic "your mind is nothing more than the mechanistic functionings of your physical neural pathways, dictated by the chemical messages and electronic signals that are transmitted through your brain"

arguements to go against it

[Ybom]

Now wait a minute, hold the phone. These ideas are very very nice, but you see, in a camera, aka our eyes or whatever photoshooter you like, the light comes TO IT after it hits the object in question and changes some material that reacts to the light, and in the eyes or a digital camera, that material further transfers those changes into electric signals for the storage medium.

Now when you take into account reaching out with your aura to touch it, digital cameras don't friggin do that. Cameras can then transfer the picture information into a program that detects changes over series of pictures, and to react to it with peripheral action, maybe a robotic arm, or possibly wheels, or possibly into another sound bit application to create speech. Now, the actions of that robot or computer can be observed by a human, in which the human is partially observing the picture based on the actions of the robotic, but the human isn't reacting to any picture at all, aka a recorded medium, meaning there is no chance that they could reach out with their aura (even back in time) and manipulate said reaction if that's even possible.

Now, to sum up what I just said in a less complicated, more organized structure:
1. Digital Camera records series of photos
2. Photos are used by robot to walk somewhere
3. Human observes robot walking, therefore experiencing all the photos through the robot's actions

Does the human still affect every reaction going on in those photos, even minorly? That would be an interesting point to discuss.

[volcomstone]

okay the phone is holded

but the robot is still acting on the picture, if there wasn't complex algorithms describing and computing what the images relay, then the images would be useless information that the robot couldn't interpret

when the robot apply's those algorithms its interpreting the information, in a sense its acting on the picture for it to become concievable robotic information

but if the robot couldn't apply those algorithms then the picture wouldn't even be anything it would be akin to white noise that the robot would pick up

as for the video recording idea, its been shown that people can "feel" when they are being watched even through closed circuit television,

[yombalula]

No people can't feel they are being watched.

[Trans2222]

Stop Vol. Just, stop. You're comparing influence on an philsonphical level to influence on a phisical level. Because of the identical terms, and the similairty between the methods, it may seam at first that somthing is possible that is obviously imposible, or, a reverse paradox. But, you failed to convince your audiance that the two ways of analyzing the situation were part of the same system, and confusion ensued. The object observed is affected by an observer, but this only applies to the information gathered by the observer, not the acctual object itself itself. Confusion of the mind's idea of the object, and the actual object in reality is common, mostly to those who belive that there is no acctual object beyond what is observed. This thinking was introduced as part of you original post, but it introduces the problem of where the event originated form, if not from an extierier reality, as the observer would not have any experiance to use as a referance to what the observed object should consist of, and nothing would be observed at all.

[Ybom]

No, volcomstone is right as of the time of his explanation. I wasn't thinking about the intelligence of inanimate objects which I would technically relate to as the robot since it isn't categorized as living (to be argued on for forever and a day).

The robot acts on the image, even if it just bypasses the image in question. Bypassing it was an act and if the inanimate object in the picture is sensitive enough (as in a future sensor of some kind, insanely advanced), it could pick up on the subtle feeling that the robot had bypassed the picture of it. It's sort of the way you can tell the difference between a stagnant lake and one that has current deep down that you just can't see, even if the lakes were identical on the surface (lighting included). You can just sense a difference beyond the 5 senses.

[JoWo]

As Trans2222 points out, volcomstrone's original message needs a clarification of semantics.  In our common use of language, we differentiate between mental and physical activity.  We imply that we do not 'act' when we do nothing but think or observe.  This does not mean that our thoughts or observations may not affect our environment.  Actually, we select our environment through our mind, out of an untold number of possibilities.  But we usually do not identify this as 'action'.  

When we talk about subatomic effects, we must understand that we are dealing with more dimensions than our four (three space and one time dimensions).  For argument's sake, let's say that the subatomic world has six dimensions.  Then, when we observe, we may catch any subset of four dimensions out of the set of six, simply because our perception is limited to four dimensions.  This is how our observation appears to influence a subatomic event.  In reality, we pick one of many possible aspects of a multi-dimensional reality, and we think that we changed the event while in actuality we only picked a different view of it.  Yes, we can call this an 'action' on our part, but it is not the same type of action that we associate with physical activity.

[volcomstone]

I realised that non-action is possible, but it requires one to be in the "state of buddha" or complete white light,

[volcomstone]

hey you know what? ever hear the saying observe but don't act?
did you know that its impossible for that?

when ever you observe something directly you alter it, you act on it and cause it to achieve a different quantum state than before you looked at it!

for example the more accuratly you can measure the speed of a particle (electron, atom) the less accurate you can predict the position of the particle, and vice-versa

its like the old conundrum "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, does it make a sound?"

quantum physics , and uncertainty principle says that the tree never fell in the first place, it existed in a state of falling/standing, until someone/something can observe it , once the observation occurs, then the quantum state will shift into either one or the other depending on chance/probability

when you think about it, its hard to actually observe a healthy tree sporadically fall down (unless you cut it), but whenever you walk in a forest you always see felled trees, and standing ones, so you must concieve that the tree's fell down to get to that position

but what if the trees never had to fall, its like time will pass over  a forest and the forest will change like a oozing, shifing mosiac,
but nothing ever falls, depending on the time frame from which you observe it


look up the famous shroedingers cat thought experiment, i have no links so you should do some research

anyhow, this acting while observing couldverywell explain some of the "paranormal" or esp stuff, including telekinesis or telepathy


everything exists in a quantum flux, until observation (which=action)

the flip of a coin, only has two outcomes right? but what if you flipped that coin and it fell down a crack,  for all you know it could be heads/tails or on its side perfectly balanced in between the two "absolute" states,