ElDiablo wrote:I keep observing this thread to see jamest's reply about unequivocally demonstrating his OP but it hasn't materialized.
Am I doing something wrong?
Shouldn't staring at an area of my computer screen and thinking about a possible reply make it come into existence? I would figure that if we can make a whole universe come into existence by opening our eyes, then something as simple as pixels on a screen would be a breeze to conjure up? Please don't say I need to understand computer engineering for this to happen.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
You need to squint up your eyes to form two slits. Just so. All will be revealed!

Evolving wrote:And you have to keep doing it until you collapse.

kennyc wrote:Oh look. We've been blessed with a visit!

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

There's no such word as definitiveness. Do you mean divinity?

DavidMcC wrote:

Panderos wrote:

Thommo wrote:Particles and quanta cannot exceed the speed of light in free space "c".

I seem to remember Feynman saying this ins't really true in QED...?

Two points:
1. What goes for quanta does not necessarily apply to macroscopic objects.

DavidMcC wrote:2. There has never been any evidence even to support Feyman's claim of particles travelling at FTL.

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

There's no such word as definitiveness. Do you mean divinity?

jamest wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

There's no such word as definitiveness. Do you mean divinity?

Definitiveness shows up in the online dictionaries, though definiteness is probably the word to use. Divinity is a word I plan to use on page 33.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

There's no such word as definitiveness. Do you mean divinity?

Definitiveness shows up in the online dictionaries, though definiteness is probably the word to use. Divinity is a word I plan to use on page 33.

Yes. It is all about finding a path to god. But there are an infinite number of paths, and only a tiny fraction lead to god. So to find our path to god we have to first presume god and then work backwards. This is how it is done.

Templeton wrote:Oh please do encourage him...whether you find jamests thoughts right or wrong, at least he thinks...and doesn't just parrot, any idiot can do that...
Without his posts many here would be bored to tears...
Carry on

jamest wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:Just a quickie...

If everything is a wave of indefiniteness until measured/observed, then how do we account for the definitiveness of the observer or measuring receptacle itself? QM cannot cater to the assumed definitiveness of anything prior to a theory in which everything has an indefinite nature. Yet, as it stands, the observer or measuring device HAS to have a definite nature in order to observe/measure the definiteness of quanta from its indefinite nature.

Do you get my drift, or do we need more popcorn?

There's no such word as definitiveness. Do you mean divinity?

Definitiveness shows up in the online dictionaries, though definiteness is probably the word to use. Divinity is a word I plan to use on page 33.

Templeton wrote:Oh please do encourage him...whether you find jamests thoughts right or wrong, at least he thinks...and doesn't just parrot, any idiot can do that...
Without his posts many here would be bored to tears...
Carry on