Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a very cursory education in quantum physics (a couple of courses in grad school).
That is kind of the basis for this premise: We are all expanding the universe all of the time with our thoughts, words, and deeds.
I don't know enough science to describe the process adequately - I just know I have "realized" this, especially related to the internet.
All of these ideas that are permeating our consciousnesses and taking us to the next edge.
It's really exciting.
I think you could say that we are all "social influencers," because we are constantly creating with our thoughts, words, and deeds (and influencing each other in the process).
I have a very cursory education in quantum physics (a couple of courses in grad school).
That is kind of the basis for this premise: We are all expanding the universe all of the time with our thoughts, words, and deeds.
I don't know enough science to describe the process adequately - I just know I have "realized" this, especially related to the internet.
All of these ideas that are permeating our consciousnesses and taking us to the next edge.
It's really exciting.
I think you could say that we are all "social influencers," because we are constantly creating with our thoughts, words, and deeds (and influencing each other in the process).
Expanding one's consciousness, perhaps. Expanding the universe, not so much.
You have to understand from a quantum physics perspective.
Which you admittedly don't.
All you have is a desire to shoehorn your personal beliefs into some vague and inaccurate idea of quantum mechanics that you have, when the theory itself says nothing, zero, zilch, nada on what you're proposing.
All you have is a desire to shoehorn your personal beliefs into some vague and inaccurate idea of quantum mechanics that you have, when the theory itself says nothing, zero, zilch, nada on what you're proposing.
It's unfortunate that I, personally, do not have the scientific knowledge to be able to explain and back up the theory I have proposed. I think I set that out in the OP. That does not relegate the theory to garbage - there are others who could explain it. I am just suggesting it here as an idea to consider.
It's unfortunate that I, personally, do not have the scientific knowledge to be able to explain and back up the theory I have proposed. I think I set that out in the OP. That does not relegate the theory to garbage - there are others who could explain it. I am just suggesting it here as an idea to consider.
What relegates the theory to garbage is the absence of any sound argument.
You see, for this to be a sound 'realisation' your premises must be true and they must necessarily lead to the conclusion.
How do you demonstrate the truth of a claim? Well, the truth of a claim is not impacted by who might or might not understand or explain it. To demonstrate the truth of a claim one needs to evidence it. Invoking quantum physics is not evidence. You might as well be invoking interpretive dance. Here, not only do you not have any evidence but to say there is evidence in quantum physics is misleading for there is nothing in it that even remotely deals with your 'realisation'. I am not saying that quantum physics will never approach that subject but that at this point in time, you'd have more success in getting answers from interpretive dance.
As for the premises leading to conclusion, we already know of at least one hypothesis that attempts to explain expansion of the universe, this means that even if your premises were true they would not necessarily lead to your conclusion.
What I suspect you're doing is relating your flights of fancy to quantum physics because you've heard of how trippy and spooky some of its ideas are, but that is hardly the nature of quantum physics. So, until you can present a better argument than someone who's had one toke too many, I'd say garbage is where this 'theory' belongs.
Last edited by Itzpapalotl; 12-21-2019 at 01:10 PM..
There have been books written on the expansion of the universe. The theory is well-known in some circles.
What has been discussed as the Universe expanding is also negated in other circles relative to the orbit dilation of the galaxies. That said, neither has anything to do with our 'feelings' as you stated - you are interchanging the idioms i.e. 'universe expansion' vs. 'expanding one's consciousness'.
What relegates the theory to garbage is the absence of any sound argument.
You see, for this to be a sound 'realisation' your premises must be true and they must necessarily lead to the conclusion.
How do you demonstrate the truth of a claim? Well, the truth of a claim is not impacted by who might or might not understand or explain it. To demonstrate the truth of a claim one needs to evidence it. Invoking quantum physics is not evidence. You might as well be invoking interpretive dance. Here, not only do you not have any evidence but to say there is evidence in quantum physics is misleading for there is nothing in it that even remotely deals with your 'realisation'. I am not saying that quantum physics will never approach that subject but that at this point in time, you'd have more success in getting answers from interpretive dance.
As for the premises leading to conclusion, we already know of at least one hypothesis that attempts to explain expansion of the universe, this means that even if your premises were true they would not necessarily lead to your conclusion.
What I suspect you're doing is relating your flights of fancy to quantum physics because you've heard of how trippy and spooky some of its ideas are, but that is hardly the nature of quantum physics. So, until you can present a better argument than someone who's had one toke too many, I'd say garbage is where this 'theory' belongs.
Thanks for the lecture.
I have an advanced degree, so I know a little something about backing up claims with data - the issue here is that this is not a scholarly forum, and I am just SUGGESTING an idea for consideration. If it does not appeal to you, feel free to scroll on.
I personally cannot stand people like you who shut things down and put on acts of superiority.
Have a good day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
