Noetics

[xxlt]

(06-02-2015, 08:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I won't get into this, I personally believe the spiritual connection is nonsense, but that's just me. What do I know.

What I do believe is that compassion can change things. The will to live, be it because someone loves you and is with you, has an effect on the actual healing process. Whoever gives himself up to the illness is more probable to die. Because of unconscious acts, less attentiveness, less will to really do what needs to be done in order to get well, and so on and so on. But I think that's it.

- But I  really just want to comment on this entanglement thing. Whoever wrote this suggestion probably read something about that without properly understanding it. I don't do either. But the whole idea behind it does not support the idea presented there. To put it short: A certain particle with no spin decays in two particles with spin. Now since the overall spin has to remain the same, these two particles have one "up" and one "down" spin, which sum up to zero spin - like the initial particle had. Now the trick is, and that's what all this entanglement is about: The spin of the two particles resulting from the decay stays undefined. Undefined until ONE particle is "forced" to decide for a definite spin value (by a specific measurement). And when this particle "decides" on its spin, the other particle immediately has a definite (the opposite) spin, too. Immediately, and even if they are in a long distance to each other. This way - by forcing one particle to decide on its spin, therefore having an immediate effect on the other particle, whereever it might be -, information transfer can be achieved that beats the speed of light barrier.

That's it. That's what's to that whole entanglement thing. I am not a big fan of taking such findings and misuse them to support some metaphysical beliefs. What seems to be the case here.

Thanks for a thoughtful response. I respect your contempt for the spiritual, and share it to some extent. I find your reading of the material as trying to make a spiritual case interesting. I did not read it that way. I thought it was more intellectually honest - just probing the realm of intention, healing, etc without making a spiritual claim - or atleast not in the sense of a religious connection. I am fascinated that you believe in compassion and intentional power, but found the case IONS is making for it to be defective. I don't understand your spin story, and won't pretend I do. I never studied physics. But I think you are saying the science to non-science connection is defective. Interesting, again, since the IONS founder was a wicked smart scientist (astronauts are pretty sharp dudes, are they not?) Thanks again for responding - since you seemed disinclined to by saying "I won't get into this..." - and if you want to flesh out your thoughts some more I imagine it would be interesting.