 | Norman
Allan | |||
| Norman
Allan | |||
 |
Explaining
Almost Everything:
(or Rudolph Steiner's Ear) Pattern and Resonance in the Natural World |
 |
 |
||
| One of the things that needs to be explained is how things are put together and break apart. And the explanations, that so far have predicted how things work, "quantum mechanics", "relativity", and "the standard model", are often counter intuitive - but physics works with and through these systems/theories because they explain almost everything... in the "material world" of energy and matter (time and space? no: these theories offer little and we might have to turn to philosophy to pump up "relativity" and cosmology re time and space). Counter intuitive? That things behave as waves in a field of probabilities before they happen - but when they happen those fields, functions of probability "collapse", and things, matter and energy, are discrete sort of smudgy pixels: smudgy? you can't know exactly where they are and how they are moving; pixels? all radiated energy packets, particles, pixels, "photons" have a "frequency"/a vibratory rate, and their energy is six point six times ten to the minus thirty four joules per second (Planck's constant, "h") times that rate... but we all know that, and Schrodinger's cat... that's how physics explains the world... | ||
| But there are
other things that need explaining - consciousness: living stuff - and
the "biology" of the nervous system, and the biochemistry of
tissues, don't even offer a hint of the essense of living "beings"! Well, here are three images of how the world behaves, when we look carefully, which will lead to understand the substance of living material, "vital energy", and of some of the foundations of consciousness. |
||
 
|
||
| I am inclined to believe that in the famous double slit experiment, with electrons, where, if the wavecicles are not "observed", they go through both slits in a probabilistic "wave-like" manner and generate an interference pattern, but if they are observed they can be seen to go through one slit or the other and the probability wave function collapses, and one sees two discrete bands... that this might be a matter of whether or not something discrete had occured, rather then that something discrete had been observed to occur... so if... | ||
| A Thought Experiment: Probability Wave Collapse In the double slit experiment, if one beamed electrons through the slits at a screen, shining light at the slits and recording which slit the electrons came through, and, before looking at that data, look to see if the result shows two discrete bands or an interference pattern… then… If the result is an interference pattern, you might infer that "observing" with a mechanism will not collapse the probability waves… and that it takes a conscious knowing (not just a potentially conscious observation) to collapse the waves. If the results show two discrete bands (showing that the wave probabilities did indeed collapse), and one then erased the data… that would indicate that conscious observation/knowing is not intrinsic to the phenomenon of probability wave collapse… and might suggest that the wave/particles are waves until something specific happens, but discrete particles once something discrete has happened. Has this been done? |
||
email:normanallandr@yahoo.ca