The Uncertainty Principle - is it real?

The possibilities are real. The information is real, and the physical form is derivative, right?

Well, I think using terms like "form" or even not physical are helpful, but the minute you say something is not physical, some folks start screaming, but the point is a definite form, physical in layman's terms, stems from this possibility state, the design. So the design is first, and the physical state is derivative.

Good point on the plans. Have to pick this up later again when I have time to really think on it.

One interesting thing about this is that the design is actually the fundamental reality, and the physical form is something that is derived and not all the time in existence. That seems to be what QM shows, which in a lot of ways is an opposite perspective of physical reality than the materialist view. If material does not consist primarily in physical form, but a somewhat hidden, always existing design (an information state), then what we see is the long held spiritual view of reality being upheld, imo, by quantum physics.The spiritual view is the physical form is somewhat illusory in one sense: it is not self-existing but derives from the spiritual dimension and realm. The information/energy state that gives rise to physical form matches up well with ancient spiritual traditions whether biblical or otherwise, have told us about the world. It's really a very interesting discovery, and more or less totally unexpected in the scientific community, so much so that often scientists still don't see it. To them, "spiritual" has to be something science can never deal with. The idea of a deeper reality connected to, giving rise to, the physical world, and this deeper reality being spiritual is blasphemous to many of them.Imo, there is mental block over the term "spiritual."

QM does indeed say something about what constitutes matter. In fact, that's what the field is, the study of what constitutes matter, right?And it does involve a different picture than the older perspective most people adopted. In the QM picture, we see an inherent design as fundamental that gives rise to physical form, not the other way around.Also, the concept of space with energy in it is actually fully agreement with the concept of spirituality. Spirituality is not the theory of something purely mental not connected to the physical form of this world, but as a deeper realm which very much defines and rules over the physical form of this world.

Well, consider a sentiment expressed here on this thread. Wheeler has made similar comments as well as others in saying things exist in an inherently undefined state until observed. The undefined part refers clearly physical, discrete form. The potential or possibility state certainly exists. The design exists always, even when the actual physical state is "undefined."It's an interesting topic because clearly these ideas are expressed by prominent physicists, and yet the minute someone says, hey, that's exactly what spiritual mechanics or spiritual theories of reality (if you would) predicts, then all of the sudden the claim is somehow one doesn't understand... But the materialist argument or the impression left with people is that these properties governing matter are actually something that occurs because the matter is there. In other words, the design does not exist without the matter. The physical form is not derived from the design except maybe going back to the beginning of the Big Bang and then it is murky.But in QM, the design gives rise to the present physical form, always.This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 01:55 PM

It's not different than the context I used it in, nor anyone else like Wheeler. There is a possibility-state, not a discrete, single physical form, right?I fail to see how my use of the term "undefined" in quoting Wheeler, in fact, is wrong. Moreover, in the context of this thread, it's pretty clear what we are talking about. Certainly, the information/probability state or whatever you want to label it, is defined, but the physical form is not necessarily, at least not as a single state.The specific instance I recall of Wheeler using the term "undefined" referred to whether a particle was a wave or particle travelling across the universe to us prior to the time of observation, and Wheeler's comment was that it was neither, but existed in an undefined state until observed. The math may be complicated but the idea is not, if strange nonetheless.This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 02:29 PM

I think that says the same thing I am saying although sometimes it seems physicists disagree a little, such as some emphasizing observer participancy and others disagreeing with that. In some respects, I think the issue of observer participancy is another issue, but at the same time, in layman's terms, if true, it activates somehow the wave-function to express a discrete form, right?

But Wheeler and some others claim it not mere measurement in delayed-choice experiments, but rather observation or even the potential to be observed, correct?The way I have heard it is that some physicists thought it was the intrusive act of measuring that caused the wave function to collapse, so to speak, but that the delayed-choice experiments showed that this was not the case, and that the mere potential for observation caused the collapse.On the conscious aspect not necessarily being involved, and this is getting a little off-topic, I recognize that, which is demonstrated with the idea of mere potential for observation. At the same time, there is always consciousness there observing....it gets a little complicated, and generally I have to stop what I am doing to go down this path too far, but I can see where consciousness-based interpretations can be considered a subset of observer-participancy and not necessarily equivalent.

Beautiful story and some good comments....one reason to point out the spiritual parallels is that we as people should be and some are in search for truth, and I think recognizing science is really involving in QM the deeper reality known by religion as "spiritual", imo, is helpful to understanding that truth is found elsewhere and outside of science and has been for a long time, but that science and spiritual traditions are not dealing with separate realities, but science is a more defined area and mechanism for researching reality.But beyond any practical considerations, it is an amazing time for science and religion/spirituality, imo, and the joy and excitement of that alone is worth discussing.I think your emphasis on self-discovery is right or at least needful, but I wouldn't say it is the whole shebang. We still need the Saviour, his redemptive act on the Cross, and God is still both transcendant and immanent. At the same time, Christ within us is the hope of glory.Just as a quick OT comment, I think one can become a spiritual person and not have accepted Christ and that this has happened over and over again with people, and that many spiritual principles in various spiritual traditions are the same, and even that some forms of Christianity in practice are detrimental to continued spiritual development.At the same time, the spiritual man, imo, is knowing Christ without knowing His name, and should recognize His sacrifice and atonement and be "saved", but we're getting off-topic. Suffice to say,the way I see the Christian versus other religions thing is that if a Hindu or Buddhist is in touch with God or the divine, he or she is getting in touch with the One, Jesus Christ.

I think I got it actually, on the experiments, but then again, it took awhile and perhaps I don't really get it completely. It's a difficult topic.This message has been edited by randman, 01-25-2006 12:25 AM