Double slit and the eyes.

[Hojo]

@Princess Arabia I am just doing theseus ship with what you can see with light.

You are saying you would still be in a body after light goes away. The physical form of the body is light.

When the sun goes down the physical form of your body starts to blur then dissapears. The same way it does when you stare at someone, then move them to the side of your eye, and then turn your head completely and they turn into nothing. 

That makes your body the sun/light.

Proven by science but not explained by science.

But there is something else there that is not physical because you are still there when physical dissolves.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Hojo said:

Double slit says  when something isn't being observed by the one observer that it stops being itself and desolidifies into a blob of colour or turns into nothing.

Quote

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can exhibit behavior of both classical particles and classical waves (Wikipedia).

Are these similar, or is the text just a blurry blob to you?

[Hojo]

@Carl-RichardWhen you look at it turns into a particle and when you dont look at it it turns into a wave. So they are both it all depends on which one i focus on. My focus is solidifying them into a particle. You can clearly see this in your own point of view. Its not a limitation of your eyes like I said. Science is saying this is happening in physical reality by observers. You are one the only one.

Humans are taking their direct experience and making up a story about eyes and it being blurry, because something is not in direct focus. Its blurry because my pupils are not focusing on it.

No, science is saying an object is literally becoming wavy in physical reality when you are side eyeing it.

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Try looking up:

Copenhagen interpretation, Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation or Decoherence theory.

These will help with a base for interpreting the double slit experiment. They go into this in high school physics, so it might be a good refresher

But again, science is the glass ceiling 

It all implies consciousness directly effects reality. Implies being the keyword there.

[Hojo]

@Carl-Richard

 

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Keryo Koffa]

31 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Carl-Richard

 

Same Energy

Edited June 19 by Keryo Koffa

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Keryo Koffa  Ha ha >.< 

Bit of a WOOSH

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, Hojo said:

@Carl-RichardWhen you look at it turns into a particle and when you dont look at it it turns into a wave. So they are both it all depends on which one i focus on. My focus is solidifying them into a particle. You can clearly see this in your own point of view. Its not a limitation of your eyes like I said. Science is saying this is happening in physical reality by observers. You are one the only one.

Humans are taking their direct experience and making up a story about eyes and it being blurry, because something is not in direct focus. Its blurry because my pupils are not focusing on it.

No, science is saying an object is literally becoming wavy in physical reality when you are side eyeing it.

This is my understanding:

When you put a measurement device at one of the slits (say the left one) and you measure a photon there, you're measuring the photon as it passes through that slit. That photon will travel in a straight line (roughly speaking) and hit the wall as if it's a particle. And if you count up other photons that have passed through that slit, they will create one "spot" on the wall, consistent with the particle interpretation.

But if you don't identify any specific photons and you just shine a beam of light on the two slits, you don't know which photons pass through which slit. And if look at the pattern that all those photons create on the wall, you'll see an interference pattern, consistent with the wave interpretation.

So it's not that you look at it or don't look at it and it changes. It's that you're dealing with two different things. In one case, you're dealing with a beam of light shining at two slits which then hits a wall. In the other, you're dealing with photons travelling from a specific slit to the wall.

You "create" the photons as you're measuring them. Before you measure them, they seem to act like a beam of light; they are a beam of light. And if you measure them before they go through the slits, you don't know which slits they will go through (only probabilistically).

Edited June 20 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

Funny synchronicity: I wrote the previous post while running a simulation of photons propagating through a digital brain atlas with 100 million photons (Monte Carlo simulation) 

Edited June 19 by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

36 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is my understanding:

When you put a measurement device at one of the two slits (say the left one) and you measure a photon there, you're measurng the photon as it passes through that slit. That photon will travel in a straight line (roughly speaking) and hit the wall as if it's a particle. And if you count up other such photons that have passed through that slit, they will create one "spot" on the wall, consistent with the particle interpretation.

But if you don't single out any specific photons and you just shine a beam of light on both of the slits, you don't know which photons pass through which slit. And if you count up all those photons at the wall, you get an interference pattern, consistent with the wave interpretation.

So it's not that you look at it and it changes. It's that you're looking at two different things. In one case, you're looking at a beam of light shining at two slits which then hits a wall. In the other, you're looking at specific photons travelling from a specific slit to the wall. You "create" the photon when measuring it. Before you've measured it, it acts like a beam of light; it is a beam of light. And if you measure a photon before it goes through the slits, you don't know which slit it will pass through (only probabilistically).

Adding onto this, the photons behaving as 'particles' traverse every single possible path.

So not just slit A & B - Its Slit A while also somehow looping through Slit B. Then wiggling through both. Then going on wild, loopy detours. Going to Africa and back. Basically every possible, insane looking trajectory.

Every path has a complex number (probability amplitude) and when you add them all up, then you get the interference pattern.

So the sum of all paths gives you what you actually observe.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

If it helps anyone reading - you are basically looking at not just a photon, but the entire quantum universe. The entire quantum universe as it dreams up infinite routes.

And then that infinite route interferes with itself.

It's not proof we experience an infinite hologram, but it suggests what we see as 'solid' is really a projection of something deeper and more abstract...

Like consciousness

 

[Hojo]

Ok your eyes are double slits. Now what's happening. Theres no such thing as Africa in the double slit it says its not formed. The observer isn't in Africa except by the light that shines through the observers eyes. If you are saying I can stare at my wall and see Africa then it makes sense.

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Keryo Koffa]

30 minutes ago, Hojo said:

Ok your eyes are double slits. Now what's happening. Theres no such thing as Africa in the double slit it says its not formed. The observer isn't in Africa except by the light that shines through the observers eyes. If you are saying I can stare at my wall and see Africa then it makes sense.

There is no light, there are no eyes... 👻

[Hojo]

@Keryo Koffa its just one strand of light thats hitting every surface. The surfaces of objects are light not physical. The physical plane exists inside of a metaphysical strand of light that can't self reflect on itself. But there is still something more there. That is Shiva. That which is not, the one player.

Its like you are in a play and the lights go out the actor is still there and there is qualia of something still there.

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Keryo Koffa]

@Hojo So, light is focus, a medium, context... and then there's the dark, void, the intelligent gestalt,
arranging its own manifestation from beyond the limitations it creates to remix its existence through?

[Hojo]

@Keryo Koffa Kinda yea. I'm thinking if you were born on a planet with no light source what would be happening. You wouldn't even know you exist you would just be qualia experiencing something but it happening to no one like a baby moving around in its mother womb.

I heard that hindu say the first thing that existed was a long form and then Shakti came and make the long form spit out milk. They are describing realities origins of humans come from the qualia of being  inside of a woman's womb . Not like we think, there is a sun the sun heats things up and they start moving. They also say the light is an illusion.

So like imagine you never saw anything completely blind (there is no sun ever its just dark and dark)no identity and living like that. You wouldn't know how big your limbs are or what they even are, it would be a purely random experience.

Like a purely subjective existence with no context.

Maybe the stars are God's cum plasma and we are little blind semens looking into  eggs.

They also talk about snakes alot. Snakes move around like semen. The planet hates snakes except Hindus why?

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Keryo Koffa]

@Hojo Across mythology, the snake can represent temptation/evil/poison (christianity), or discernment/minimalism/cunning (moving without limbs) and poison can be medicine as medicine can be poison (holistic cultures embrace duality). I've also been through some egyptian mythology, ra and set, the tale of an opponent in form of a great serpent propelling the story from the beginning.

Light and equivalent mediums/senses/forces like touch/gravity/repulsion, sound/waves/hearing, smell, taste, temperature, balance, context, they meet as consciousness, am yet to deeply explore the synesthetic overlaps.

I get the consciousness/unconsciousness difference, unknown unknowns, context devoid, memory devoid, veiled existence, as perception has yet to be reflected back or the medium interface for a self to contextualize its awareness capacity constructed, source of awareness, the rawest deepest interface to bind all qualia and its origins, etc. etc.

What is an illusion? A medium you can fully utilize and create any form or story out of, is that an illusion? And if yes, why, and what isn't? If nothing is immutable, for such would necessitate an inability off modification, hence absent reflection to awarize a duality, and implying lacking agency of the ultimate being, then isn't anything an illusion, anything that is a context beyond the valueless infinite potentiality?

[Hojo]

@Keryo Koffa I think i just thought of the answer. To jerk off and use your imagination but not about sex. Jerk off and tell yourself a story thats not sexual while being erect.

Edited June 19 by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 hours ago, Hojo said:

Ok your eyes are double slits. Now what's happening. Theres no such thing as Africa in the double slit it says its not formed. The observer isn't in Africa except by the light that shines through the observers eyes. If you are saying I can stare at my wall and see Africa then it makes sense.

When you think on your thought process, do you understand things better conceptually or in concrete facts? Because the Africa example is a conceptual example.

If you are more concrete in understanding it will be more difficult to understand the double slit experiment, as it is counter intuitive.

[Hojo]

@Natasha Tori Maru I have 0 understanding about anything. My brain works in images flashing in my mind and I try to decipher them. When I read something I don't even know what I just read as my mind does not compartmentalize things. I'll read and stare and a picture will come into my imagination and then words come.

In my original post I was asking a question about whether this is true or not cause I don't know and science never explains it in normal videos. And if you cant explain like im 5 then I won't understand cause I have never read a book in my life. I failed high-school.

But I am hyper logical. I don't want so many words and theories dancing around in my logic. If I look and or read something and no reaction happens in my imagination then I discard it.

If you explained the double slit as there is a man standing looking through a hole and there was light shining through that one hole. And then he turned his head and then the light went through all the holes then I would understand.

But there are 15 million words I don't understand in books thats why I don't read them I don't need these made up words in my head. Scientist have to pretend to be smart so they make up a bunch of stupid words to sound like they are better.

Its easier to understand pictures for me.

If you can explain it to a 5 year old that means you understand. If you cant then you are hiding behind words.

Edited June 20 by Hojo