Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 5 Viewpoints)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 5 Viewpoints)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 5 Viewpoints)

Well, we just saw that human beings are consciences. But it seems a bit passive, even somehow opposed to the views of Dr. Robert Anthony. Except we have also seen that we can act by « considering ». And that’s what we will go on considering (examining…). Because the two words almost mean the same thing! To consider, as we have seen is watching the light from the stars. To examine, is rather fetching the light which is deep inside things (ex-a-mining)…

Signification is pointing to what to see!

I probably look heavily stressing on etymology, and I will justify it soon. Because meaning of words have often changed over time and there is a compelling reason to refer to their original meaning.

You’ve probably heard the story of the fool who follows the teachings of a wise man pointing to the moon for his disciples with his finger… and the fool who looks at the finger of the wise man!

If to consider or to examine is to look, for and at, the light, whether towards the borders of the universe or in the privacy of things, we must know where to look, and that’s the usefulness and purpose of words.

When you want your kid to know what a dog is, you show him a dog by saying « dog » so that he associates this noise and this beast.

Regarding the subject of our study, I must draw your attention to what I mean with the words I use. If a word has no meaning, I would avoid using it.

A consideration is what you do by putting the attention of your consciouness on a « thing », any thing. At first, you do not know yet what that thing is, just that you « see » somehing… This is what you do when you are considering successive things without taking care of what they are, in fact it is simply called counting.

You know the names of this series of operations of consideration, these are the names of the numbers: one, two, three, four… The amount (quantity) relates to numbers, that is those which express how many things you have considered, without necessarily being interested in what it is (their “quality”).

You can repeat this action of considering indefinitely.

But we’ll now look at what you consider.

Watch your fingers. They are easily identifiable, at least on their side and their ends because when it comes to their base they are continuing with your hand, and it’s you who decide what limit you consider. If no one is in your room, imagine a visitor. Whether virtual or not, your visitor can also see your fingers. Now he sees them from where he is and therefore the image he has is not the same as you!

This is the issue of the « point of view » when it refers to the place from where you look.

But your visitor can have his own account on the boundaries between your fingers and your hand since these have no visible reality.

And there, it is still a “point of view”, but no more based on « materiality »: it concerns our freedom to see things the way we want.

That led intellectuals to believe that things have only a subjective reality! But to see the fingers, whether we agree or not on the image we have (physically or according to our consideration), it is still necessary that there is a finger to perceive or to be conscious of.

Which brings us to a skid from our reference doctor. That of believing that things exist only if we have consciousness of them.

I believe I understand where it comes from, because it reminds me of the first time I heard of quantum phenomena and « the probability of presence », a crucial concept for our Anthony!

I’ll describe what my teacher explained, adding a little detail that raises a big problem… Imagine (that is to say, consider in your mind, make your picture of it…), a Y-shaped tube. We will empty the air it can hold in order to let electrons circulate. Yes! Because if vacuum is an insulator for the current, electrons roam freely in it, which does not prevent the « scientific » to consider that the electric current is a flow of electrons.

But this is not the time to be sly about this detail…

So install four detectors of presence of our electrons (that is one more than my teacher): one at the base of the Y, one around the fork and one on each branch of the fork of this Y

And send an electron. The fork sensor signals its presence and then we wait for a detector of the branches to tell us where it went.

Between the two, we have no indication of its location.

But the knowing-all-physicist of course will not tell you he does not know where the electron is…

Instead of admitting his ignorance, he’ll bluff you by telling you that the electron has a « probability of presence of 50% » in each branch! You’d never thought of that alone!!!

This is where my fourth detector enters the scene, that of the base of the Y.

Between the passage in this sensor and that of the fork, a physicist should tell you that the « probability of presence » of the electron is 100% in the base of Y. This is much more like a certainty that a probability!

In other words, it is not because we do not detect the electron that it becomes only a “probability of presence”…

And they know it!

Because they use continuing motion sensors in their « bubble chambers » to follow the path of evanescent particles produced by the collisions of the particles they test.

Those bubbles embody the « 100% probability of presence » trajectory of particles they study, and when a record is missing, they deduce that some particle was undetected because its lack of charge or something else, connecting two traces recorded by their cameras…

But the mystery of probabilistic particles actually has fed the delirium of many. Including our doctor.

Others questioned whether a tree falling in the forest made noise if no one was there to hear it. Why don’t they simply put surveillance cameras that will record noise even if nobody (no consciousness) is there to hear it.

Nuts have a fascinating imagination, but perhaps we have other issues to examine.

Which is good, as we will continue in our No. 6!


Les commentaires sont clos.