The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
So, statements tend to be true and yet, we tend to be misled since we cannot let go of the need to imagine anything as an object. FOR EXAMPLE, reality is immediately associated with all of the objects we recall as being reality and we are done with and cannot remotely comprehend the next quote even before we can read it:
“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a ‘mental’ construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: ‘The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.’” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, “The Mental Universe”; Nature (436:29,2005)
The mental Universe, NATURE Vol 436:7 July 2005
“Shut up and calculate”
… OR …
No, be still and contemplate. The new physics, QBism offers a way to put yourself in the picture. Personally, I choose to believe that I can make my own reality if only I can remove from me the conditioning of this culture.
Ought we believe that a chance as a probability is actually completely determined? For instance that any particular chance really is on a “bell curve” of “normal distribution” of random outcomes… that in fact there is no real chance occurrence.This seems so consistent that once educated, most believe there is underlying deterministic law governing individual occurrences of an event.
So, chance is regarded as inconsistent with causal determinism and with physical or mechanical determinism.
In his lecture at Zurich in 1922, Erwin Schrödinger argued that the evidence did not justify our assumptions that physical laws were deterministic and…
View original post 402 more words
Lily Lau said:
Thanks for this lovely share 🙂