• Victorie
    How does one explain 'quantum jumping', a phenomena I am not well-versed on in the definitive manner but rather the experiential manner, to one who is not up-to-date with the modern studies of quantum mechanics/supernatural phenomena/what-have-you.

    As a newbie to the philosophical community, a lifetime member of the 'metaponderings' club', and a newly attached partner to an (disappointingly) abstainer of philosophy, I have found myself not only unsuccessfully debating the possibility of comprehending AND navigating the theorized 'multi-verse', but also cornered into a position that can easily be mistaken as "stupid" due to my lack of "lower-level science to back it up."

    I am what my professors consider an "unconventional student"; I have a "firm grasp on higher concepts without the foundation knowledge to back it up". I am unable to communicate in collegiate terms, and I am frustrated.

    And guidance, terminology, and links to scholarly resources would help immensely.
  • SophistiCat
    If you are thinking about something along the lines of jumping from world to world, like in Philip Pullman's The Subtle Knife and various other books and films, that's the realm of fantasy fiction. The real-world quantum mechanics is both more complicated (you can't really grasp it without those "fundamentals" in place) and more mundane.
  • mcdoodle
    Welcome, Victorie. I am an ungifted amateur when it comes to physics, so physicsworld.com is one place I go when more sciencey people here succeed in bamboozling me with stuff beyond school physics. Here's a 100-second video about regular scientific quantum jumping, for starters.
  • Rich
    Quantum does not have to be confusing or strange if you stick with the concrete and avoid all science fiction.

    Quantum are just waves of energy that perturbate so at times they seem like particles. Just look at the ocean and you'll see quantum in macroscopic form - continuous, ever changing, and flowing with forms within forms within forms.

    The above is roughly the De Brogie-Bohm interpretation. Now the further question is: What is quantum. This is a further philosophical question. Bohm suggested, and I agree that quanta is consciousness. Bohm's model is a bit more intricate with an Implicate and Explicate Universe.

    The above is concrete and real. Beyond this there are other interpretations that I find unnecessary or insufficient, but it is a matter of taste. One can enjoy life dealing with the mathematics of the thing, but for me mathematics is an inadequate tool that hinders, but it is each person's choice. If one is interested in understanding more about life, evolution, and creative intuition I would recommend Bergson before I recommended quantum, though there is insignificant difference between the two.
  • Victorie
    I am unaware of the context for 'world to world'. I am I guess referring to 'raising conciousness', which I have found to be synonymous with 'quantum jumping'.
  • Victorie
    I agree with your comment about mathematics being an inadequate tool that hinders. When trying to explain this 'meta' concept to a concretely-mathematically-minded other, his argument was that it is not tangible (which I disagree with but could not provide evidence of), to which I disputed his view by pointing out that he had no concrete evidence of atoms existing, he simply was told that they do, yet still believes in atoms, therefore his 'tangible' argument was null.

    I have found that the philosophical, scientific, and 'hippie' communities all have explained or titled my experience in their own respective forms, yet somehow it has not quite gained unifying acknowledgement, therefore sounding 'crazy' to any one individual of a single community, defining by way of the other communities (i.e. telling a scientifically minded individual that it was raising of the levels of conciousness). This is what I am so frustrated with.
  • Rich
    No reason to be frustrated. ☺ I've found more kindred spirits in artistic communities - but never academia which is a totally different space. No one with non-mainstream views can survive or will be allowed to survive in academia.
  • Victorie
    Speaking of, I just completed the World Religion portion of my Landmarks in Humanities class, and have answered a LOT of my previous questions.
    And as you pointed out, I have to agree, although I would still apply it to all of the respective communities.
    In my original discussion, I was continuously dismissed as 'sounding too much like religion', therefore not worthy of their interest to debate. As someone who has admittedly been ignorant to religions and their makeup, constructs, origins, etc., I saw his point yet feverishly denied the comparison.
    Upon this current chapter I found several connections that help me refine my verbal execution of my analysis of my personal experience. Of course, these connections (i.e. Neoplatonism; anticipating a mystical union between individual soul and the 'One' or Ultimate Being, achieved only by ascent through a series of levels or degrees of spiritual purification) still do not provide the mathematical or scientific data to support my attempt at explanation against a rigid mind
  • Rich
    As you may realize, philosophy has nothing to do with science and mathematics but for economic interests both of those disciplines rule the roost and thought with it. You do what you have to do to leave academia behind and then you b do what is most important - live your life so you are true to yourself. I found and continually find academia barren of interesting and original thought. Fundamentally, it is laziness but more than that everyone is scared.
  • Victorie
    I have found academia to be just that as well! Everything I can manage to come across and explore deeper generally leaves me feeling empty-handed. It's so disheartening. I am finding it all-too-common that I am considered the unintelligible one while another is seemingly only reciting information without actually comprehending it. For now I will be backing off of trying to enter dialogue on the 'bigger' ideas until I can do so efficiently. Any suggestions on improving exhaustive detail recitation??
  • Rich
    The only thing you can do with academia is listen carefully and regurgitate what they are saying. The more accurately you mimic the better off you will be. They love it.

    For your own personal development, study the arts (outside of academia). There you will meet creative people who are much more in touch with the nature of nature and the nature and of life. Far more interesting conversations will ensue. Accept academia and particular academic philosophy for what it is - discussion of ideas that are 100s and 1000s of years old, over, and over and over again, as well as complete acquiescence and subservience to the science and medical industries.
  • TimeLine
    As a newbie to the philosophical community, a lifetime member of the 'metaponderings' club', and a newly attached partner to an (disappointingly) abstainer of philosophy, I have found myself not only unsuccessfully debating the possibility of comprehending AND navigating the theorized 'multi-verse', but also cornered into a position that can easily be mistaken as "stupid" due to my lack of "lower-level science to back it up."Victorie

    Hey Victorie, welcome to the delightful world of the multiverse :P

    I am curious as to whether you are searching for philosophical or scientific answers as I am more than happy to chat with you about both. The philosophy of cosmology brings a joyous twinkle to my eye and a good resource to start with can be found here. For more science, it really depends on the theory but I am a giant fan of inflationary cosmology but there are many others to consider. Here is a list to consider.

    I don't have many people in my life interested in science so if you want to 'metaponder' the subject more, please feel free to do so here and I would be happy to respond.
Add a Comment