[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

I have always preferred the very simple question "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Every intelligent person that I have posed this question to comes up with the same explanation about sound waves would still being generated.. so on, and so on.
I seemed to be either daft, or had at some time in the past, a moment of clarity about the nature of consciousness and reality, cause my answerer now is a resounding no! Not only is there no sound, there is no tree, and no forest, earth or any thing at all. I am not attempting to be fugitive, metaphorical, philosophical or even controversial. I saying this as literality truth. This is a logical fact of reality.

Without an observer. there is no reality whatsoever period.
To me this doesn't even have anything to do with physics its just to me...well... obvious.

There is a mental distrubence where the person who has it think that nothing exists but what he can see and hear and feel. The whole world exists only to the limits of his own perception. I don't think I would go too far in the no observer nothing happens trail. On a more reasonable note, why does the obsever have to be a human? The tree and plants have an awareness and the animals living around the tree certinly do as well. Another thing about the "observer" is that radioactive decay fills the role of observer in places we can't see. I've only read superficially about this aspect but it does allow things that cannot be observed by anyone to still exist.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Life often gets stuck at metaphysical, including quantum discussions, because many people sense something is missing from the existing theory. What is missing is the impact of Hydrogen. If we ignore that affect, what we get is existing wisdom as the base, with many trying to add this hydrogen same affect in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical life force tries to describe an integrating principle that underlies life. That integration occurs at the level hydrogen. The quantum approach is trying to add another layer of affect beyond traditional chemistry, because the rational of hydrogen is missing.

This is way over simplified. If we do an atom count in a cell, hydrogen atoms count for about 60-70%. Just the assumption of 90% water, means 60% hydrogen. If we work under the assumption the hydrogen is trying to gain electron density, out of proportion with the rest of inanimate matter in an oxidizing environment, the cell does exactly that. One may say the DNA is responsible. But the DNA only works because of hydrogen.

This is not needed for the discussion, but I will bring it up for the quantum people. If you look at the hydrogen proton, what sets it apart from all the protons within the nuclei of C, N, O is the hydrogen proton never underwent mass burn. The hydrogen proton contains some additional potential relative to these atomic protons, while also not having any sub-particle changes required due to the nuclear forces. In the cell, we have 60-70% of the atoms with this extra potential energy. One can never get a nuclear reaction, but maybe there is quantum foreplay. I am more concerned at the chemical level, but I thought I would add that.

I think it was Isaac Asimov who proposed an idea that flourine might replace hydrogen in some chemical reactions under very high tempertures. It almost sounds like you are saying the face of God is hydrogen.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

There is a mental distrubence where the person who has it think that nothing exists but what he can see and hear and feel. The whole world exists only to the limits of his own perception. I don't think I would go too far in the no observer nothing happens trail. On a more reasonable note, why does the obsever have to be a human? The tree and plants have an awareness and the animals living around the tree certinly do as well. Another thing about the "observer" is that radioactive decay fills the role of observer in places we can't see. I've only read superficially about this aspect but it does allow things that cannot be observed by anyone to still exist.

If there is an observer there is the observed, if there is no observer there is nothing being observed. It seems to be extremely hard for people to do this. They always do the same thing by placing an observer... usually themselves into the equation, then say, Hey look this is existing and nothing’s observing it!.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

There is a mental distrubence where the person who has it think that nothing exists but what he can see and hear and feel. The whole world exists only to the limits of his own perception.

Why do you think this is about limits of perception? or limits of my perception? This is not about paramaters of anythings perception. Your having trouble getting your head around the concept here.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Why do you think this is about limits of perception? or limits of my perception? This is not about paramaters of anythings perception. Your having trouble getting your head around the concept here.

Nothing exists if you can not observe it? You can't be serious. I guess jupiter doesn't exist when it's out of veiw when it's opposite the sun from us?

[Thunderbird]

This is about the very fundamentals of the universal dualities, or contextual opposites. Without up there is no down. Without positive there is no negative. Without an observer there is nothing observed

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Nothing exists if you can not observe it? You can't be serious. I guess jupiter doesn't exist when it's out of veiw when it's opposite the sun from us?

It seems to be extremely hard for people to do this. They always do the same thing by placing an observer... usually themselves into the equation, then say, Hey look this is existing and nothing’s observing it!.

You just keep putting an observer in and I will just keep cutting and pasting the above post. I do not think you will ever catch on however.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

This is about the very fundamentals of the universal dualities, or contextual opposites. Without up there is no down. Without positive there is no negative. Without an observer there is nothing observed

That's mystical claptrap like saying with out dark there is no light. It's totally meaningless...

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

It seems to be extremely hard for people to do this. They always do the same thing by placing an observer... usually themselves into the equation, then say, Hey look this is existing and nothing’s observing it!.

You just keep putting an observer in and I will just keep cutting and pasting the above post. I do not think you will never catch on however.

Your the one who keeps putting an observer in it. I say everything exists without an observer. You are the one who said with out an obsever nothing exists. You can't have it both ways.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Your the one who keeps putting an observer in it. I say everything exists without an observer. You are the one who said with out an obsever nothing exists. You can't have it both ways.

I think your having a break down