From Helix to Hologram, article

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.ajna.com/articles/science/from_helix_to_hologram.php

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

We are more fundamentally electromagnetic rather than chemical beings. The driver of evolution is not DNA, but even more fundamental quantum mechanical symmetry-breaking forces (King, 2003).

If we drop down another whole domain of observation from the juicy "wetware" described by chemistry and atomic structure, we enter the subatomic realm of quantum physics. At this level the behaviour of matter, both organic and inorganic, is governed not by classical notions of cause and effect or even complex dynamics, but by those of quantum probability. "Something" appears to emerge from virtually "nothing".

which physicists have come to describe as a "sea of infinite potential". They call it "quantum foam", "vacuum potential" or "zero-point energy"; we can call it the "vacuum substructure". Subatomic particles wink in and out of existence on a continuous basis, like some subatomic froth. This "something" appears paradoxically in wave/particle form. This world is not transcendent to matter, but underlies it as a coherent unity.much like ecology underlies biology.

Within this context, some physicists have strongly suggested that the nature of reality is fundamentally analogous to that of a holographic projection. The optical process of holography uses interference patterns. Holography describes transformations of light and optical information mathematically in wave mechanics terms.

[Random_Australian]

1. I'm serious man, why the hell are you posting crap from these sites?

What is the question? What are we supposed to discuss?

I am getting rather snarky, and if your intentions are good, my apologies, but I took a look around that website. It may have a lot on spirituality, but anything that claims to be science in their appears to be complete made-up-out-of-cloth BS. Sorry if you happen to believe it.

What is the question? The controversy? What do you want from us?

P.S. It means we make holographics out of the same stuff the universe is made out of. Funny that.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. A close relative of mine, who has written a scientific paper

with two theoretical particle physicists, who studied and practiced hypnosis for over 25 years, regressed people to past "memories", has patents for drilling tools, who ran an electrical repair shop for the airforce at 21 after getting into the airforce at 17, who is one of the most intelligent people I know, has put me on to this, and I was looking for constuctive criticism. You have supplied the criticism, as expected. Your concern is duly noted.

I am looking for a scientific explanation for the carefully worded teachings of Jesus Christ. He didn't say some of the incredibly revolutionary things he said because he was looking for attention. What was folly yesterday, has become accepted scientific fact today in many instances... I may be going down the wrong road here, but I certainly ain't alone.


PS: Check your grammar. use there instead of their where appropriate.

[Random_Australian]

5. Way too tired, I'm off to bed, but some other day.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Something I found at Amazon, you "may" be startled

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887078649/104-7479541-9947118?v=glance&n=283155

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1887078649.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D., author of "The New Alchemy," "The Spiritual Universe," "The Dreaming Universe," and the national book award winning "Taking the Quantum Leap."
What Mindell accomplishes is breathtaking in its scope, and in its ability to communicate difficult ideas easily in a friendly teaching manner. Using his notes from the course taught for years to students of psychology, his experience as a therapist and physicist, and his clear writing ability makes this book a must-read for students and lay persons interested in the ever-growing field of depth psychology. Mindell sprinkles psychological exercises throughout the text providing the reader with imagined experiences of entering a black hole, appearing in parallel universes, taking the mind boggling quantum leap, and many, many others. It is at once a physics text, psychology text, and a friendly popular read. I highly recommend it.

Amit Goswami, Author of "The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World" and "Quantum Creativity."
Carl Jung predicted long ago that someday quantum physics and psychology will come together. This integration is the most fascinating aspect of the paradigm shift in science right now; however, until now only physicists have written about integrating psychology and physics, but psychologists have been quiet about it perhaps because physics still scares most psychologists. Finally, Arny Mindell, a famous psychologist, has come forward and what a treat his book QUANTUM MIND is. It is about many things you have wondered around this integration, and is so much more. And Mindell makes it all exciting especially when he explores the subject of dreams which is his specialty. If you are curious about science's most important paradigm shift, you will want to read this book and you will deepen your understanding.

[Silent3]

12. This ain't "science's most important paradigm shift"

The possible relationship between consciouness and quantum phenomena is a much-abused idea in the realm of New Age mysticism. There's a tiny core of truth from which a mountain of completely unfounded extrapolation is being made.

We've been over a lot of this here when the "What the Bleep Do We Know?" crap came up in these forums before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=21630

[Random_Australian]

15. Not startled at all. Any questions?

[Silent3]

11. Folly

I am looking for a scientific explanation for the carefully worded teachings of Jesus Christ.

I reject the premise that there's even good evidence that an historic Jesus existed (Jesus could easily be total myth, a much distorted take-off from a real person, a composite of real people, etc.), and I reject that those teachings attributed to this person (real or not) are all that "carefully worded".

Further, what is so in need of "scientific explanation"? Are you starting from the unfounded premise that these teachings are just so very perfect and amazing, and given that premise following the faulty logic that perfect and amazing things demand Big Important Explanations?

What was folly yesterday, has become accepted scientific fact today in many instances

Most of what was folly has remained folly. Most of what has become accepted represents incremental improvement over preceding ideas. Despite the tendency for journalistic and biographical sensationalism which might lead one to believe science is a tumultuous world of radical change wherein yesterday's cherished notions are doomed to become tomorrow's embarrassing naivete, most progress in science is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and the few revolutionary concepts are driven by the data -- long-standing problems and nagging inconsistencies requiring inventive new approaches.

Self-styled "free thinkers" trying to create amazing explanations for contrived problems, problems which aren't well-defined or greatly in need of better explanation in the first place, are not your best bet if you're trying to be on the "cutting edge" or science, if you aren't merely trying to contribute more to the scrap heap of ideas which are born folly and die folly (or which perhaps endure as folly in the fringes, along with plenty of other pseudoscience to which so many people cling).

I may be going down the wrong road here, but I certainly ain't alone.

Seems more like you're wandering in a fog than going down a road. Maybe you'll stumble on something interesting anyway, but your approach isn't the best bet.

You say a very intelligent friend "put (you) on to this" to this stuff you've been posting about. Unfortunately, being intelligent is far from enough to inoculate a person against the draw of mysticism, nor is it enough to ensure disciplined scientific reasoning.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. The folly of Cayce and those who found it

"interesting".

The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce p. 157

>>From hundreds of sensational documents and correspondence that have never before been made public, it is now clear that such luminaries as Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla had trance readings by Cayce, as did engineers at RCA, IBM, Delco, and the president and founder of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Inventor Mitchell Hastings credited Cayce with helping him to develop FM radio. NBC founder David Sarnoff and his family had secret readings. Remarkable technological and electronic designs provided by Cayce in trance are now used in almost every large hospital and airport in the world.<<

[Silent3]

14. The fact that you'd attribute much...

...importance to these personal associations between people demonstrates that you understand very little about the nature of science or the progress of scientific ideas.

Isaac Newton was half scientific genius, half raving mystical loon. It could even be that his mystical side helped his scientific and mathematical side by freeing up his imagination. But it doesn't follow that every idea that Newton ever had was good just because a few important ideas were very good indeed, and it doesn't follow that every possible influence on Newton has to be considered a gold mine for new scientific discovery.

What the hell is it supposed to matter to any of us that Edison and Tesla or anyone else went to see Cayce? Edison wasn't even much of a scientist, more of an occasionally brilliant tinkerer who went through far more bad ideas than good ones, who owed more of his success to industrious effort and a talent for self promotion than he did to having a scientific mind. Further consider that there hadn't been nearly so long a history of putting so-called psychic phenomena to the test in Edison's and Telsa's time, so they'd have had less reason to be skeptical than anyone working in the sciences today.

[trotsky]

16. I'm glad you put "memories" in quotes...

because regression like that couldn't be more bogus. Sorry but it makes someone's scientific understanding suspect when they hold on to completely disproven junk like that.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I'm not really seeing how this relates to Religion/Theology.

I'm wondering if there isn't a more appropriate forum for it.

[Random_Australian]

3. But what forum? The 9/11 dungeon is all I can think of.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Maybe this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=245

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Yes, that one, I was looking for it, didn't see it, and

rather prematurely put it where it doesn't fit.... thanks, will bookmark it and take it in there.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Thanks for the picture.

Now I want one of those for a pet.:P

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Could you just imagine it?? Be bad if they thought a snoring

mouth was a good place to bed down though... heh heh heh.....