Quantum reality

Catchy title, don’t you think?
I don’t know if the term exists, or not, but if it didn’t, it does now.

We are what we believe.

Quantum physics notes (incredulously) that sub-atomic particles behave differently, depending upon who is examining them, and what those different people expect to see.
There is talk, in religion, of every being having a piece of ‘God’ within them. Created in ‘God’s’ image.
Some take this to be the soul. While the more foolish believe that it means ‘God’ looks and behaves just like them.
But whatever it is, it probably has – in some measure – the ability to create.
People create things, all the time. Well, some people.

Apply this to political ideologies, and you get people creating realities, based upon what they believe.
Conservatives subscribe to a far different reality than Liberals.
So which is actual reality? Is there one?

Conservatives, by nature, prefer to work with what they see as manifest reality, and operate within its ruleset.
They are consequence-based, so this follows.
Whereas Liberals, by nature, prefer to subscribe to what they prefer, whether it is reasonable, sustainable, or not.
If it sounds good, to a Liberal, he adds it to his view of reality, and to what he believes.

You will hear conservatives speak of the way things are.
Whereas liberals will speak of how things should be.

It always amazes conservatives, that liberals can not see reality.
It always amazes liberals, that conservatives can not see ‘the obvious’.

Perhaps we need some concept of ‘God’ in order to put our own power to create, into a constructive context.
Because, without that, we create alternate realities, willy-nilly, with no thought to the consequences.
These alternate realities, being so often at odds with each other, and with the base reality, itself, can lead, and do lead, to enormous problems, down the road.

I lean, of course, to conservatism. Although I am not a conservative as most people think of that term.
Because conservatism does its best to hold on to what worked, and what currently is working, rather than dream up ill-considered ‘change’ for the sake of it.
Whereas liberalism (read leftism) while initially looking good, always (always!) leads to disaster, and historically to millions of deaths, when it arrives at the communist stage.
Which may be good, if population-control is your thing.
But very bad, if you feel human life is sacrosanct.
And even worse, if you find yourself, personally, on the wrong side of it.

Quantum Reality.
Whatever reality you subscribe to becomes the only one. For you.
A good idea, perhaps, to spend time discovering what reality actually is, rather than subscribe to cleverly-disguised imitations, that, sooner or later, turn into nightmares.


  1. Anonymous says:

    » leftism) while initially looking good, always (always!) leads to disaster, and historically to millions of deaths, when it arrives at the communist stage.
    Which may be good, if population-control is your thing.
    But very bad, if you feel human life is sacrosanct.
    And even worse, if you find yourself, personally, on the wrong side of it.«

    In Soviet the killings often targeted good people like “kulaks” and polish intellectuals in the Katyn massacra. It was much more immoral than the holocaust, which in fact left the ashkenazi jews with an average IQ of 115 (meaning it was a moral holocaust unlike in Soviet.)

    Quantum reality is wierd to understand for our three dimensional brain, which is geared only to understand Newtons physics intuitively.

    There is not much we can learn from quantum mechanics except we are confirmed in the assumption, that the apparent physical world has more to it than it seems. It’s a world far away from the human world of understanding and phenomenon.

    1. crow says:

      We can learn not-much from the quantum reality?
      On the contrary: merely considering it, detaches our minds from their daily routine, and introduces an element of wonder and magic.
      Here is stuff that is so different, and so unexpected, that it reminds us of our own fallibility, and the tenuous grip we have upon balance.

      I find the notion of sub-atomic particles exhibiting consciousness rather exhilarating, not to mention embarrassing: if they can manage it, maybe we – as whole galaxies of these particles – should try a bit harder to do the same.

      1. Anonymous says:

        Exactly. Like when we think of the wast epochs of the past, f.e. about the dionsaurs of Tertiary time or any other distant world, our own existence is set in relief/perspective.

        »sub-atomic particles exhibiting consciousness«

        How is that? I heard about the randomness and interconnectedness, but never conciousness.

        1. crow says:

          It has been noted that their behaviour suggests something like consciousness, or awareness.
          Whether it actually is, or not, is difficult to ascertain.
          But the very idea is one I find both astonishing, and wondrous.
          In fact I am quite sure it must be true.
          I can see no reason for it not to be.

    2. Esotericist says:

      Leftism kills off all the smart people and leaves the stupid.

      1. Time Curator 23 says:

        Rightism can do the same, when it (often) serves leftism’s changes.

        The left overthrows an original natural right rule of an intellectual elite with a, say, a new unnatural left “rule” of a financial elite.

        Rightism (often) merely keeps said left in power.

        Precisely this is the great challenge of Rightists today.

  2. Borborygmus Ontovore says:

    This article refers to a common misconception (popularised by Deepak Chopra and others in the New Age movement) about one possible interpretation of results acquired through experiments conducted during the 1930s, rather than the actual content of the interpretation. Actually, The Copenhagen theory only suggests that the properties of subatomic particles are interdependant (the observer effect), and that the attempted measurement of these properties causes interference, changing said properties. Schrodinger’s cat was employed to illustrate the observer effect that occurs between particles – not to imply that our observations define reality.

    Having said that, there is something to the idea behind this article, (that dominant leftist ideologies rely to a great extent on the false legitimacy offered by the above mentioned misconception, as if to say leftism is “clinically proven”. It may also explain why this misconception has become so popular).

  3. Doc says:

    Your definitions are right on… I always say liberals set about destroying things because they can see it isn’t what they want. Of course after it’s destroyed, they have nothing that works to put in its place… Sums up what is going on in the US perfectly – the complete destruction of a super power. Of course, today I wouldn’t even put us as a mediocre power… I’d have to say we are an impotent power at best…

  4. NotTheDude says:

    You will never get everyone to agree on the same reality. But you can steer them to a similar one so that they dont disagree too much. Surely every human society that has ever been and worked for long enough to be deemed ‘Sustainable’ (as is the modern popular term) was a different flavour of the same set of rules and truths?

  5. NotTheDude says:

    My main problem with Monotheism is that it says that there is one ultimate cause of all things, some form of ‘The’ God. When you trace back the relationships in Nature all the way back to the laws of Physics you see that scientifically they are all ‘Gods’ that work together unknowingly but independent of each other in that (I suppose) they are their own ‘beings’ that just be. Just be. Not sure if I’m making sense and I don’t know I’m right but I just said it.

    1. crow says:

      It’s a peculiarly human trait to assign ‘laws’ to phenomena that exist and function quite happily without them.
      Nature ‘works’. But humans find discontent with this. They must ‘understand’ it all. And so explanations and theories are postulated, that may, or may not, be anything to do with the reality of what is going on.
      Periodically, these accepted ‘laws’ become untenable, in the light of new evidence, and the process starts over.
      It’s a recipe for madness and delusion.
      The contented human is the one who observes what-is, arranges himself so as to not be in conflict with it, and lives his life in accordance with everything else in nature.
      He slowly spins around the galactic core :)

      I probably didn’t understand what you were getting at, but that is not likely to matter, much. Here we are, once more, commenting.

      1. NotTheDude says:

        That is true also and we will never know it all. Even if we did we’d just deny it or ruin it somehow. We want knowledge to have power over rather than to coexist in harmony with I guess.

    2. Vigilance says:

      Monotheism in general sees these “laws” as aspects of the Absolute. In neoplatonism, the Nous is the first emanation of God. It is the divine intellect if you will, anyway, it functions to describe God. As it turns out, to do that requires tons of different forms. So what we are observing in nature is the result of the Nous and the Soul acting out this process. Likewise for humanity. We source the Soul which taps into the Nous. Likewise, the Nous taps into God. From this chain of inspiration we create. It goes without saying that it is totally possible to circumvent this process and focus only on the material “aspect” of God. Then of course, we end up with the lowest quality of creation because our source is the lowest emanation.

      1. crow says:

        I have a feeling there is something profound in that, but it is elusive.
        Experience tells me that we need no go-between, to be one with the divine. But in order to do this, the material has to be suspended. Thus deep meditation. No body, no mind, equals oneness with divinity. For a few, anyway. For the rest, death serves just as well.

        1. Vigilance says:

          To your last statement. We used to call those “few” kings.

          1. crow says:

            If that was humour, it was good :)
            If it wasn’t, it was still good.

        2. Lisa Colorado says:

          My belief right now is there isn’t an us that is separate from the Creator. What’s being created and what’s doing the creating are just two different perspectives on what is one whole entity. So my religious theory is that the title of God is not very useful anymore–it leads people to make excuses because there’s wiggle room between me and God. But if I am one unit of the creative, I need to try and create peaceful but decisive and responsible actions, starting with what I generate in my own self.

          1. crow says:

            Interesting perspective.
            My own is close to that.
            Except there is a separation, if there is one.
            There is no need for one.

            One may contribute, or one may behave as a separate individual, and contribute nothing. Create, or consume.
            Free will, and all that.
            We see many more consuming than creating.
            One may wish for balance.
            But – in practical terms – only for oneself.

            1. Vigilance says:

              Brahman / Atman

              I’ve been told there are two selves. Not sure if it is true but it sounds more reasonable the less I think about it and the more I think about thinking about it.

          2. Esotericist says:

            At the very least, it’s a good way to spend our lives trying to rediscover the God in everything.

    3. thordaddy says:

      My main problem with Monotheism is that it says that there is one ultimate cause of all things, some form of ‘The’ God. — NotTheDude

      I don’t get this? Should “monotheism” mean something different in order to be a solution?

      I think what you are saying is that you are troubled by the thought of a Grand Creator of All Things?

      Why does this trouble you?

      Are you a believer in SELF-creation?

  6. Vigilance says:

    Perhaps the human needs to be like the tree. With roots planted in the material existence and leaves to soak up the divine illumination as the branches(mind/will) reaches onward towards the heavens. I’m sure there is a better way to word that metaphor.

    1. crow says:

      It sounds very good, to me.

      1. Time Curator 23 says:

        Indeed, Vigilance, as you enter deeper into your journey you shall find that there is no difference between the material and the spiritual, between the worldly and the heavenly. As above, so below.

  7. thordaddy says:

    We shouldn’t underestimate the powerful influence of the drawn conclusions and outright assertions made by the theoretical physicist in bolstering the “reality” of radical liberation.

    Both at the quantum foam and the universe-wide view is the idea of absolute “radical autonomy.” The fundamental assertion of the theoretical physicist is “something from nothing,” i.e., a SELF-creation. The universe does not need a Creator because it created “itself.” In the quantum foam, “reality” is a UNIQUE universe-wide material configuration called the “now.” It constantly changes to a new “now.” Now. Now. Now. What is interesting is that when the theoretical physicist gets his universe-wide view, he sees “nothing” other than OTHER universes. This fits nicely within the framework of modern science and its inability to “see” UNIQUE one time phenomena (think of its dismissal of conception, miracle, grace, resurrection… All unique one time phenomena, objectively unobservable).

    So at the quantum foam, the theoretical physicist “sees” something come from nothing forming a unique one time material configuration called the “now,” but then pulls back to get an absolute universe-wide view AND CANNOT “see” the entire “now.” In fact, he can not “see” anything of the “now.” He “sees” nothing with his universe-wide view BECAUSE he CANNOT, as a modern scientist, observe unique one time phenomena such as a single universe in whole consisting of a unique one time material configuration called “now.” Instead, he “sees” multiverse, i.e., he “sees” redundant SELF-creation.

  8. Time Curator 23 says:

    Great article Forest.

    Conservatism’s primary weakness is that, too often, instead of protecting what works, it simply protects the present, whether it works or not.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.634 seconds