That was quite a fairly good link you provided, thanks. I am not as knowledgable as I would like to be on physics but I am seeing it as an important area recently. I am impressed by @Enriques ideas, though I find them hard to grasp.

I was just reading a bit earlier that William Reich adopted a holographic understanding.

misusing quantum phenomena outside of fundamental physics — 180 Proof

Sounds like me. :up: I went to Google on "Holographic Universe" and "Books" and I found a bunch. If you were to not care about the possibility that I might be compounding my own stupidity, or if you were to simply trust my ability to dip my toe, is there a book you would cite as the best the opposition currently has to offer? (I like hard copies to curl up with).

randomly summoned — Noble Dust

Yes. I am the sorcerer, you are the demon.

Actually, I just wanted to say hi.

All I can recommend is

An Introduction To Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe by Leonard Susskind & James Lindesay.

Caveat: "Here be equations!" Not a physics textbook but not a layperson's pop-sci read either. Go slow, bite-sized chunks, only 200pp. Definitely not "new age" woo-woo bs.

Also, I've started it a few times, skipped around some, never got through it. I'm a RQM groupie anyway. :smirk:

I am not sure why it bothers you that Fritjof Capra combines quantum physics, metaphysics and Taoism. — Jack Cummins

Taoism and physics are two different kinds of things. Apples and oranges. Electrons and summer squash. Galaxies and love. Taoism is metaphysics. It says nothing about the world, it only describes how we talk about the world. It's not right or wrong. It has no truth value. Physics is... physics. It describes the behavior of the universe and it's parts. It can be right or wrong.

Taoism and physics can be similar metaphorically, which is interesting. Unfortunately, it makes it tempting to mistake a figure of speech for reality.

I have so many books which I am reading at the same time. — Jack Cummins

I currently have three books in my kindle queue that I bought based on recommendations of people here on the forum in the past few weeks. That doesn't count all the others further down the list.

Go slow, bite-sized chunks, only 200pp. — 180 Proof

Thanks, will do. It's in my cart and when the wife hits "send" I will have some taffy to chew on.

Taoism and physics are two different kinds of things. Apples and oranges. Electrons and summer squash. Galaxies and love. Taoism is metaphysics. It says nothing about the world, it only describes how we talk about the world. It's not right or wrong. It has no truth value. Physics is... physics. It describes the behavior of universe and it's parts. It can be right or wrong.

Taoism and physics can be similar metaphorically, which is interesting. Unfortunately, it makes it tempting to mistake a figure of speech for reality. — T Clark

:100: :clap:

The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. — Laozi

If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman

I am wondering is what bothers you is the possible idea of hidden reality, or realities, beyond the manifest world? — Jack Cummins

Forgot this in my last post.

I don't believe there is anything hidden. It's all out there for us to experience. Alan Watts wrote that the only mysteries are things we have hidden from ourselves. Here's my favorite quote. I haven't used it here in the forum in almost a week. Franz Kafka:

There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman

I don't understand the how of quantum mechanics, but I completely understand the why. It's just because.

@Jack Cummins :up: Yeah, like chess, all the moves and matches are completely obvious and yet "hidden" only by the players from themselves.

That's accepting, not understanding.

That's accepting, not understanding. — 180 Proof

I think most of the goofiness I've seen around the subject of quantum mechanics comes from failure to accept it, not failure to understand it. I'm not quite as smart as Feynman, but I can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in my head at the same time without whining or exploding.

Well, the 'scientific attitude' is not to accept what you don't understand until you understand it iff what you have come to understand is (probably, provisionally) correct.

Well, the 'scientific attitude' is not to accept what you don't understand until you understand it iff what you have come to understand is (probably, provisionally) correct. — 180 Proof

Worth discussing, but this is the wrong thread.

I can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in my head at the same time without whining or exploding. — T Clark

:100:

I am not really in favour of talking about non tangible worlds. I am just looking at a Ralph Metzner's 'Opening to Inner Light: The Transformation of Human Consciousness', in which the author looks at the various metaphors which are common to most traditions. These include awakening and seeing beyond illusion. For example, in some traditions there is the idea of maya, or illusion, especially the idea that, 'Absolute beingness, is real; all else is illusion, mirage, flickering shadows, dreams.' However, Metzer sees this as a metaphorical way of seeing. Perhaps, all we have within any philosophy is metaphors and models as a means of trying to view our experiences, as we oscillate between the mundane or mystical interpretations.

Perhaps, the idea of the 'hidden' is metaphorical or symbolic.

I'll investigate but my filter for the extraordinary claims all too often made by misusing quantum phenomena outside of fundamental physics consist of works likes those of the late, eminent, particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger, particularly his book The Unconscious Quantum reviewed here. I'm quite skeptical as it is of the terms like "entanglement" and "superposition", "energy fields" and "non-locality" that you're using — 180 Proof

From the article you linked to: “If mvd (mass*velocity*distance) is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically. According to Vic, the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."

I agree that neurotransmitters and their diffusion or transport probably taking place at hundreds of miles per hour is not likely to be involved in the superposition effects I'm proposing, which seems obvious from the fact that medications targeted to modify their concentrations do not produce hallucinations like LSD, psilocybin, etc. But molecular complexes amounting to systems of standing waves, or entangled superpositions in terms of individual wavicles, will have negligible velocity according to that definition, so perhaps the mass and distance values can be much larger. These basic standing waves amongst certain classes of biochemical arrays in cells may blend with global electromagnetic fields of the brain and body arising from nervous tissue etc. to produce a hybrid coherence field of extremely intricate complexity. This could be sufficient to generate the basic sensory field of perception.

It should also be considered that cytoskeletal fibers may fix biochemical pathways in very specific orientations, thus conserving energy with extreme efficiency, so from the emerging quantum cell perspective h could generally be much more resilient to velocity than models based on traditional solution chemistry suggest.

I'd have to get into the mathematical details to prove this, but using intuition, what else could qualia be besides compound wavelengths, a subjective "color" or more precisely a wide variety of quantum resonances?