re to Leon/Dallas . . .
Nov 17, 2002 02:40 PM
by Mauri
The complete original of the following post is on
Theos-1, Nov 16
In the Theos-1 version of this post I asked Gerald: could
you kindly please update me, Gerald, if you have
changed your mind and prefer not to be quoted in some
ways, places? He responded with: <<Mauri, as long as I
am quoted properly and given credit for what I actually
wrote, you (and anyone else) can quote me on other lists
all you want. Jerry S.>>
On Theos-1, Somebody wrote: <<< >>> (I don't have
Somebody's permission to quote)
Gerald responded: <<. . . this experiment was done
many years ago with photons (which are chargless, not
protons which have a positive charge). It was discovered
that with a single hole, the photons acted like particles
and produced a single dot on the plate. But with two
holes, the photons acted like a wave and produced a
wave pattern on the plate. The big question that has not
yet been answered is, How do the photons know in
advance whether there will be one hole or two, and how
can a photon be both a particle and a wave? This is the
quantum expression of the basic duality of matter. The
standard answer from the Quantum experts is "Matter
behaves differently according to how it is observed."
Somebody: <<< >>>
Gerald: <<This is also a fallout from quantum physics,
and is called the many worlds interpretation. The
mathematics of quantum physics suggests that all
possible worlds are existing simultaneously, but that we
only observe one. Few experts buy this, but it does
explain the math.>>
<<<< >>>>
Gerald:<<<Photons have the ability to be either a wave
or a particle. But only one can be observed at the same
time. In the same way, the quantum wave function for
any subatomic particle contains an almost infinite set of
possibilities, but when that particle is observed there is a
collapse of the wave function, and one and only one
condition is actually observed (called a quantum state).
This suggests that the world of the quantum, the
foundation of our universe, is probabilistic, containing
lots of possibilities, and that it is our observations of it
that forces it into one and only one state or condition.
For example, an electron is actually a wave that is
scattered around an area, and only becomes a particle
located at a specific point in space when we observe it.
Carrying the above over to Theosophy, we find that the
alayvijnana is filled with possibilitites, but that each life,
an observable expression of it, will contain one and only
one possible set of karmic factors. And we each have the
possibility of being born male or female prior to rebirth,
but birth itself will be only one or the other. And thus
rebirth is a collpase of the alayvijana into a specific
human being. Jerry S.>>>>>.
================
I'm wondering whether/how "Leon, Dallas, etc" (or
"some ULT'ers," say, as per possible tendencies to
hypothesize along those lines, words . . . ^:-) . . . ?) might
interpret those kinds of concepts (as per that quote from
Gerald) in terms of such as esoteric/exoteric,
dualistic/non-dualistic . . . ((Those quotes and dots were
kind of meant to suggest, "I seem to think," that in my
attempts to sort of round things off---ie, without getting
too too silly along the way, maybe ^:-)--- and in my
attempts to make things somewhat more nicer and
presentable, maybe---and "more understandable," as
well, say, even . . . [if possibly at the expense of cutting
off some corners, or somebody's corners . . .] . . . BUT
(not to mention: but/"but") since, as I tend to see it, there
are "corners" and "important corners" out there,
apparently, well . . . {ie, seeing as "exoteric/esoteric"---if
seen rather selectively/exclusively---?/"?"---in the
linear/logical dualistic terms of "important/more
important"---might present some apparent
complications---even confusions, in some quarters,
maybe?--- as possibly from the direction of such as
"Leon/Dallas, etc", say, as per numerous past instances
on these lists [[or "is it just me"?]]. . . well . . . so . . . ^:-) .
. . what can I say . . . }))
Speculatively,
Mauri
PS In Leon's case, what with his beard, hat, and . . .
well, it occurred to me that if he ever gets stumped, he
might come across something like : <^\:-|> . . . maybe .
.. ? But for all I know he might be left handed, among
other things
PPS Hey, Gerald, mind if I post this post on Theos Talk,
because I think you used what Leon might call "the
laguage of this age," and I'm wondering how/whether
"Leon, Dallas, etc" (or "some ULT'ers," say, as per
possible tendencies to hypothesize along those kinds of
lines or words . . . ^:-) . . . ?) might interpret those types
of concepts (as per that quote from Gerald) in terms of
such as esoteric/exoteric, dualistic/non-dualistic . . .
((Those quotes and dots were kind of "meant to suggest,"
"I seem to think," that in my attempts to sort of round
things off---ie, without getting too too silly along the way,
maybe ^:-)--- and in my attempts to make things
somewhat more nicer and presentable, maybe---and
"more understandable," as well, say, even . . . [if
possibly at the expense of cutting off some corners, or
somebody's corners . . .] . . . BUT (not to mention:
but/"but") since, as I tend to see it, there are "corners"
and "important corners" out there, apparently, well . . .
{ie, seeing as "exoteric/esoteric"---if seen rather
selectively/exclusively---?/"?"---in the linear/logical
dualistic terms of "important/more important"---might
present some apparent complications---even confusions,
maybe?--- as possibly from the direction of such as
"Leon/Dallas, etc", say, as per numerous past instances
on these lists [[or "is it just me"?]]. . . well . . . so . . . ^:-) .
. . what can I say . . . }))
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application