Awakening of the Observer in Physics by Amrit Srecko Sorli

[deleted]

Eckard,

I am the same anon, sorry but i don't care to leave my name.

The present does not consist of attoseconds. An attosecond is a measurement of time i suppose. I agree with Amrit that time is a measurement of change or movement in space. But the present is nothing to do with movement in space. The present is infinite, eternal, and immeasurable. You could say that it consists of no attoseconds, or you could say that it is made up of an infinite number of attoseconds. Both statements would be correct, i believe. For me, the present consists only of consciousness. It has no relationship with what we call time. Really, what we call time is only past and future. Because in the act of measuring, it no longer exists!

Your statement about the past being connected to cause and effect - this is only true when you believe in cause and effect, and think of the present in terms of time. To me there is no single cause of anything. Everything is interconnected to such a degree that nothing can be 'singled out' as a cause. What is the cause of me typing this? Is it my idea about time? My education caused this? My parents? Their parents? The culture that my ancestors came from? Did the keyboard have any part in this cause? The materials that made this keyboard? The sun that is the source of the energy that created these materials, created my fingers and my thoughts? - Everything is the cause of everything else. This is the truth.

You asked if a bird has consciousness. Of course, it does! Everything has consciousness. There is nothing else but consciousness. Sure, varying degrees of consciousness, but nonetheless... and actually birds are much cleverer than we give them credit for. They are able to do many things that we can only dream of. Opening nuts is nothing for them... Humans are meddling fools compared to the wisdom and perfect intelligence of nature.

With respect

[deleted]

Anon,

You wrote:"An attosecond is a measurement of time i suppose."

I quote from a paper by Amrit:

It can be said that certain physical phenomena are timeless, since no measurable

time (no run of clocks) elapses for them to happen. For example in the article entitled Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium by Eckle et al, a conclusion is drawn that "an electron can tunnel through the potential barrier of a He atom in practically no time" (14).

This reminds me of Nimtz and a recent comment by Zeh on one more sensational claim if I recall correctly also by Eckle. An attosecond equals to 10^-18

seconds.

Cobuild defines: "Your consciousness is your mind or your thought."

From this I conclude that except for exotic persons like Penrose c. has nothing to do with physics: "the scientific study of forces ans qualitiessuch as heat, light, sound, pressure, gravity, and electricity, and the way that they affect objects."

I do not hide that I also feel embarrassed by utterances like:

The gulf between science and spirituality is diminishing.

... bridging science and meditation

Eternity is contained in NOW. (I, Eckard B., understand what Amrit meant)

Conscious observer is the future of physics

People all over the world voted my essay because it is a brake-through in physics.

My essay is OK ...

My essay is of high quality.

Experiencing in linear time is result of inner time that belongs to the mind.

(Amrit overlooks that our inner time adapted to rotation of the earth, not the other way round.)

I agree with the comment by Jonathan Dickau.

Eckard Blumschein

Consequences are immense.

[deleted]

Eckard,

You are stuck in old paradigm. Sorry, to say so, but it's really true. The world is changing very fast now. Old paradigm liked categories, fragmentation. Separation. As long as you look at the world as a lot of separate 'things' in space, you will never understand. New paradigm says that all is one. Sure, there are many varieties, shades, colours, wavelengths, vibrations, etc, BUT all are united somehow, and intrinsically share the same essence.

To me, your quoted 'definition' of physics is so out of date that it's funny. "the scientific study of forces ans qualitiessuch as heat, light, sound, pressure, gravity, and electricity, and the way that they affect objects." You will spend your whole life studying this, and die a frustrated man, really. There is no truth in this, there is no joy.

Science is the search for underlying reality. Spirituality is the search for the experience of this reality. Hence my statement "gulf between science and spirituality is dimishing". This gulf is only in our perception. Don't be embarrassed. Just examine sincerely your ideas and see from where your embarrassment comes.

Finally, if you think that consciousness has nothing to do with physics (even in your narrow definition), how do you explain the placebo effect?

[deleted]

Anonymous,

Since English is the fourth language I learned, I appreciate your understandable style. If I look back upon my life, it's sometimes with a sense of shame.

I recall Stane Metelko who came from Ljubljana to Magdeburg, once upon a time. My boss asked me to help Mr. Metelko to write a dissertation. "Please do just reformulate what he wrote into understandable German". I was educated to help, and I did my best. Mr. Metelko came with a comparative study of a well known variant A and a variant B. In the end, I convinced him that B was wrong. Dr. Metelko was so kind surprising me with a little gift. My boss was invited to publish something.

For this and other reasons I might be biased. So you might judge yourself: "Conscious observer is the future of physics.°

°My essay is of high quality."

"Consequences are immense."

Isn't such style an embarrassment for FQXi?

With pleasure I will reply to what you wrote:

Claiming the truth is not my style. I agree that no effect has a single cause. Look at the family tree I used for illustration in my M291. However I disagree with your at hoc statement that everything is the cause of everything else.

"Science is the search for underlying reality."

-- By reasoning.

"Spirituality is the search for the experience of this reality. Hence my statement "gulf between science and spirituality is dimishing". This gulf is only in our perception."

-- Really?

Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

Dear Eckart Dear Anonymous

My essay is based on elementary facts not on mathematical formalism and so I say is of high quality. Physics is based on experiental data, math description is only a support.

Consciousness is a basics frequency (this is only a thesis based on Penrose research) of quanta of space QS. QS change electrical potential from positive to negative in a Planck time. QS are noncreated units of energy. Their basic frequency is consciousness itself.

When we will discover more of QS we will be able to create electric polarization of QS and so produce energy out of space. Tesla was searching on that.

With being able to change density of quantum space we will also rule gravity. About density of quantum space and gravity see my articles on vixra.

Has birth consciousness? Yes birth has consciousnerss. All that exist has consciousness. Man has a great potential to discover consciousness, to become "Conscious Observer". My work is about that. Might be mistakes in it. Important is general direction is rigt.

yours amrit

[deleted]

Isn't this pretty similar to Einstein's utterance "time is what clocks show"?

Yes, division between time and clocks creates misunderstanding that time is beyond clocks run. "Clocks show other systems motion, behaviour". If Einsten would clearly declaire that time/clocks run is a reference system only, a lot of throuble would be saved.

Why I say "immence

[deleted]

Why I say "Consequences are immence".

I spend two yers in Asia talking with different "enlightened" people. All report that time is an illusion, that they live in eternal now and here. Are this people mad or there is some "scientific value" in their experience. I discover it is. These people step out of "inner neuronal time" with "awakening of the observer". Buddhist teaching is based on "conscious observer".

Sure "inner time" is formed on the day/night, on earth rotation.

Steping out of iner time is an immence experience. Physics has potential to integrate this experience. Physics is the same all over the world. "Conscious observer" is the scientific basis for planetary civilization. Conscious observer is behind any religion belief, national or ratial indentification.

"Conscious Observer" is the best physics can give to the world to raise peace and harmony on the planet.

yours amrit

[deleted]

Eckard:

"Spirituality is the search for the experience of this reality. Hence my statement "gulf between science and spirituality is dimishing". This gulf is only in our perception."

-- Really?

yes really! Experience means whole thing. Not just reasoning, thinking, analysing, rationalising... but also feeling, perceiving directly, being conscious and AWARE of. Mind can only take us so far, because it is very limited indeed. To experience this reality we must transcend mind. And I think you said in a previous post that consciousness is mind and thoughts - note that it is not. Consciousness is far far greater than mind.

For me the day is coming when all Scientists are spiritual and all spirituality embraces science.

But if you don't agree I am interested to hear what Spirituality is in your opinion?

[deleted]

Dear Amrit,

You wrote:

Penrose reminds me a bit of Lighthill. Both British mathematicians are/were perhaps excellent in mathematics rather than physiology. I did not read "The Emperors New Mind". However, Lighthill was definitely wrong with his energy transfer from base to apex of cochlea.

Would your musing be still valuable if it did not at all relate to brains of animals?

Incidentally, you certainly meant bird when you wrote birth.

It would facilitate everybody's understanding if you did reveal what QS stands for.

Did you achieve anything in excess of Penrose's ideas?

Uncle Al persistently demands to perform a comparatively simple experiment.

What experiment would you like to be performed in order to confirm your ideas?

I doubt that speculative physics can immediately raise peace and harmony.

Someone said the world would be better without a Teller Ede. Edward Teller was indeed difficult when his daughter asked him: "If you are hating all people this includes you too?" and he replied: "Yes I hate myself too".

I was among those who might have survived because WW2 was over in Europa before the first bombs were built.

Peace is not available without serious effort.

Regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckart

peace = sonsciousness

yours amrit

[deleted]

conscious observer = consciousness

Through every scientist eye is observing the same consciousness. Mind is between paerception and experience as a kind of filter. Conscious observer is fully aware of that. Conscious observer experiences universe as it is: "Ding an sich", would say Kant.

yours amrit

[deleted]

Hi Amrit. Do you not agree with the following? How do your see your essay as being consistent or inconsistent with the following please?

Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience in general.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

Also, how do you account for the following:

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.

3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Now, also consider the following:

These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

[deleted]

Dear Franck, you say: Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience........I do not get that realy. Could you explain.

yours amrit

[deleted]

Time is a Measuring System Based on Light SpeedAttachment #1: Time_is_a_Measuring_System.pdf

[deleted]

Dear Amrit,

We use the Earth`s duration of rotation, as the primary measurement baseline in establishing our units of duration, such as hours and weeks.

In my post on September 10th, I said, "Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing."

While our planet rotates in timeless space, it`s rotational motion has ceaseless affect on our environment! The motion is real, it`s effects are all encompassing. We use this same motion, as the measurement baseline for our time keeping. Given the constant overwhelming affect of rotation on our planet, it`s understandable that conscious inhabitants would elect to assume time is passing, rather than duration is elapsing.

We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present. While it seems difficult to disprove time exists, it is possible to prove it`s unnecessary, and not foundational.

It`s possible to explain the nature of time in terms of rotation, duration, and consciousness.

In my post on the thread of my essay, in the nature of time essay contest, I said, "A kind of proof is available in the fact that we are engaged in an essay contest about the nature of time, in two thousand and nine. This strongly suggests that no one has ever found a shred of evidence that time exists."

Yours,

Jim

[deleted]

TIMELESS UNIVERSE

here is my research proposal

yours amrit

http://www.linkedin.com/newsArticle?viewDiscussion=&articleID=99889563&gid=2615569&trk=EML_anet_nws_c_ttle-cDhOon0JumNFomgJt7dBpSBA

« Previous Page