Can Man Create By Want & Desire Alone, Or Is The Stuff Already There?

I think therefore I'm hungry?

While it is well documented that the nature of the universe depends greatly on how it is observed (wave-particle duality), there are still several predicted particles and phenomena that remain directly unverified despite science's best efforts (Higgs boson, gravity waves, etc...) This is kind of like asking why you always find your keys in the last place you look (because you stop looking as soon as you find them). The act of looking did not create the keys, only made you aware of their presence.

However, I am not opposed to the idea that God created the universe in a form that was intended to be understood by the human mind. Then the question becomes "did He know from the moment of creation how we would want to understand the universe, or does He just make it up as we go along?"

May be getting to late for this sort of philosophy!

I worked that angle over also; Do not have terrible concept things with a God creator. But after being around for a while and understanding what mere human flesh, bone, and brain are capable of:

Why not go for broke? Do we have to draw lines about this stuff? Does one thought drown out the other, or are we open to really figuring out the relationship thing?

I Dun know about the Matter & thought kinship, is it anything like the old "Chicken & Egg" thing?

That's like saying, "people started noticing gravity when Isaac Newton pointed it out".

That's the whole point of "discovering". You cannot discover something that doesn't exist. Not seeing something doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist, only that it hasn't been discovered yet.

Can I have the 64 dollars? I've been wanting to buy this neat little...

Ah.... you must want & desire the $64 it will then appear!

Yup that is how it was described.

I thought we were on Schrodinger's list. Now we move silently on to Descartes?

Did not fix on that, my exploration is always open-ended. I find these free flowing ones cover better ground, it just mite wag the other way again.

I aint ever going to get to the end of my trail, but seeing how the thinkers think will open up new ways for me to explore.

Just don't fence me in, and I dont dig box boundaries either.

In the past I have used the word serendipity for such occasions. It happens at all levels. The Gardener, mechanic, inventor, captain, pilot anyone open to the way, will find what is laying on it.

Will power is not the thing that controls or implements it. Gold is there were you find it. Even if you are not looking for it. An unsolved formula is still in the head of the person sitting in a bar and you meet him/her and it all becomes so clear. No information technology could have instigated this. You could have met them anywhere and sometimes a wrong turn can be just what one needed.

To include "God" into the equation is just another name for the same thing. Gutt feeling, Instinct. The more one knows the more one becomes serendipitous or at least prone to have contact with matter at all levels. If our brains are smart enough to understand or grasp things, that are for every one to see, then nature has the same right to do so. To change or not to change is not a question but a most loved reality.

Mind over matter any day. Ky.

Thank you for this appropriate analogy.

Robert Heinlein wrote a fiction book titled The Number of the Beast. The premise was the existance of "fictons." The concept of a ficton was that if a person in one dimension imagined something and wrote it down as a story, it would be created in another dimension. So with a fancy multdimensional craft, you could visit a universe where "Alice in Wonderland" was reality, or the "Star Trek" universe, or the "Gulivers Travels" universe.

Excellent book...

Sounds like the wishful thinking of some author where fidctional writing would have some substance associated with it besides the mere entertainment, a want for a real impact on the world.

170-odd years ago there were cartoons published showing people travelling in horseless carriages (propelled by solid fuel and steam, according to the cartoonists of the time - they were getting close!). An extraordinary engineer with the surname of Brunel created daring bridges, and a ship made of iron that was stronger and bigger than any vessel that had ever been built before, making the planet a lot smaller as a result of its operation; others followed. Students of birds and inventors persisted with the idea of heavier-than-air flight, exploration of near-space, and placing humans upon another heavenly body and returning them safely. 40 years ago the creators of Star Trek came up with the concept of a pocket communicator; now a large percentage of the planet's population has at least one, it would seem. A manned return trip to Mars is on the brink of becoming both feasible and attractive. Wormholes have been shown to be feasible though outside mankind's ability to create - at the moment. Likewise with warp drive.

Are discovery and creativity merely two branches of the same thing?

Are the above further examples of mankind's ingenuity - an ability to work an idea, a concept through to the point where it is manageable and useful, an ability beyond comparison with any other known species?

Engineering is in there somewhere!

Good topic!

Exactly. Engineering is the process of merging science and art (creativity). The Buck Rogers jetpack was the stuff of wild science fiction until the Space Shuttle program made it reality. What can be achieved is limited only by our imagination and our understanding of the universe, which, in turn, influences our imagination. I have no doubt that the wildest writings of science fiction will one day be reality, in one form or another.

A premise of mine on thought and creation involves pattern recognition. As long as the documented and or the lore of the thing is recorded in a way that it can be casually accessed then that idea will become the foundation of new ideas and their growth is assured.

When a Political or Religious or Barbarian horde comes along and trashes your library and murders your blacksmith who learned it from his pappy or guild you will get that end of the world stop, requiring re-invention.

This other stuff in my question involves whipping up that complex signature; tiny little partial from scratch. Can we do it just once, or is the discovery & measuring procedure for mathematical variances in particles so accurate that we can nail it down with just a few tries??

I Dun know how good are we? I am meaning form both sides, measuring for the "IT" and or thinking the "IT" thing into existence?

Ok - re-narrowing the discussion scope to the discovery of elementary particles, I guess I'm not comfortable with the thought of "willing" them into existence. What would the "desire threshold" be? One scientist wanting it badly enough? A general consensus that the particle probably exists? Does a core group passionately believing equal lukewarm reception by the greater community? Does a "desire wave" form and propagate to bring the particle into existence? Or is a higher power sitting in judgement of the merits of the desire? (I'm not trying to poke fun here, just trying to quantify the hypothesis.) I'm no particle physicist, but from what I remember from school and have followed in the journals, particle discovery has been very methodical and linear. (Jorrie, correct me if I'm wrong.) Wave/particle duality was indirectly observed from unexpected experimental results, then verified through direct experiment, not first conceived through desire and then found. Just like catching a glint of metal from the corner of your eye causes you to look more closely for your keys. Or maybe you find something completely unexpected. The Lego brick I stepped upon on my way to the head last night was certainly not placed there by desire, and I can indirectly infer that my son has a new set of Lego's. Gravity waves (and by extension gravitons) have not been directly verified by experiment, but have been indirectly observed by the interaction of light and stellar masses. True, one of the hallmarks of a successful theory is the ability to predict a previously unobserved effect, but I believe that is an indicator of understanding, not desire.

Time's up - I think I'm beginning to ramble...

Yes I know of that indirect threshold of measurement; or witnessing of and event.

From the corner of my eye I once caught a UFO shape in the edge of he radiant light from the SUN. Of course viewed form my single angle and judging from the brightness of the SUN it cannot be taken or witnessed or verified as an actual object that I have seen.

So to my best experience I cannot say I have ever seen an UFO. Nope to me they do not exist. YET. The creation tangle in the micro cosmos is quite interesting.

I Dun know if you can call it a "Desire Wave" or just placing the matter in the desired configuration through an engineered knowledge of how it should look and a great bit of will. Willpower.

Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power

This is a tree falling in the forest with no ears to hear it question.

Was North America here before Columbus or even the migrating Indians?

I think the answer is yes, we are just learning how to "see" the things around us and understand some of the meaning as we "grow up", so to speak.

I would like to suggest, if you are involved with something after a while you develop that mysterious thing a 6th sense. I worked in a power station for 20 yrs, and learnt when on the control panel, that if you got the urge to check something, you went and did it, no questions ask why? So I would think that when your cousin and co-worker put there heads together, that old 6th sense starts popping suggestions, that tempts one to seek further, after all, they do appear to be logical?

Regards JD.

Nicely stated. I too have experienced the "sixth-sense" sensation on projects I've spent a great deal of time on. I trust it implicitly.

In my earlier career I did quite a lot of technician work along with the electronic engineering work. After spending some time with a circuit I could sometimes find and repair them using just moments for analysis. Facing different problems required no longer time periods to reach the solution. The 6th sense part might be right. Does it encompass only those objects we are familiar with???

When my youngest was in her middle school days; she could walk into any store that carried clothing that she liked and absolutely every time pick out the most expensive thing in the shop, or the total sum of my allowable expenses for that day.

She never missed, is that a 6th sense of just female wizard stuff I Dun Know??

"After spending some time with a circuit I could sometimes find and repair them using just moments for analysis."

In some places I have worked, there is no analysis involved. Just go up and turn the machine on - Voila! Then it is called "the laying on of hands"!

But on to the topic at hand. I Kant imagine that my observation collapses the waveform into reality (or can I?)!

Hey Genius; did you ever spend any time in the trenches as a Technician.

If you have not, just why are you blowing smoke rings???

Say something like how you have worked with talented people and express your observations about their talent.

Show us what you have got.

I do not know if its sixth sense or if its that your so damm familiar with the machine that when it start to react and people don't even notice it, but you get a sense to look at something in the machine and not really knowing what, just looking and then discover a problem.

I have experience that more then once. But tht "feeling" to check out something is very hard to ignore.

I have been there.

But maybe is it's your subconscious learned from experience.

I have told people I managed, that your worst experience is your best. Even though it may not seem like it at the time.

One of my earliest jobs was as a maintenance engineer in a punch-press operation; mostly WWII era and earlier equipment. After about 18 months, I could tell how any particular machine was running just by walking by and suggest setup changes to the operator (or schedule maintenance) before a real problem manifested. I don't think it's paranormal, just sub-conscious.

you said it,

each machine has a personality, and the one that reconized it is the one that works on it the most.

And as far as operation it. the good operator, the machine itself is just an extension of him.

example;

hear that vibration on head 4..........starts at 9,000 rpm and goes away at about 10,500 rpm.

they don't hear they actually feel it.

I used to tell the operators (and the department heads) that they were using my machine. If they listened to it and took care of it, we (the machine & I) would never let them down. The operators usually looked strangely at me and the dept. heads could get pretty indignant sometimes, but after I worked the "magic" a few times, they were all ready to take me seriously. Only drawback is that the operators stopped thinking for themselves and started calling for even the smallest problems ("ON" switch, anybody), but it really was a relatively small price to pay.

"but after I worked the "magic" a few times, "

I have seen these people, I have appreciated their instincts instead of being arogant about it.

Arrogance was never part of the situation (I was using "magic" in the 6th-sense context of this thread). I was stepping into a culture that had a "run it as hard as possible until it breaks, curse at it, and fall over from sticker shock at the repair bill". My directive from top management was to change the culture and instill PM programs. If I had been arrogant about it, I never would have earned their respect enough to convince them that I had a better way. I never dismissed their observations as trivial or invalid, and in fact listened to them far better than anyone ever had. Even when they called me to fix simple problems, I never belittled and in fact used it as a learning opportunity and had the operator work through the troubleshooting sequence with me. I have always and will always value superior practical experience over formal education.

CSM Engineer,

I meant by your comment "and the dept. heads could get pretty indignant sometimes," with the dept. head being arrogant, more times than not they can be displeased with something they do not have a clue about.

But if you want to be arrogant about it, thats fine. I worked with operators like that also.

This doe'snt really apply but its simuliar. I believe Yogi Beara said. " its not bragging if its true".

understand?

phoenix911

My apologies. Thanks for clarifying. I know I'm sensitive about being called arrogant; it's one of the engineering stereotypes that I work very hard to avoid. While I recognize the value of a good "smack-down" occasionally (usually directed toward upper-management trying to second-guess something they don't understand), It's just not part of my personal style. With respects to Yogi, I like to just let my results speak for themselves.

I think my dept heads were more put off by the idea that I considered the machines to be "mine" instead of "theirs." As I have gotten older and wiser(?), and started working in larger and larger operations, I've started trying to instill a sense of machine ownership in the operators (still taking the dept heads out of it) and cultivate the 6th-sense directly in them. In my opinion, the guy at the control panel should be the unquestioned authority on that machine. Seems to be working; ask me in another 20 years and I'll probably have another way to do it!

Again, my apologies and thanks for the discourse.

easliy misunderstood, apologies not required, but is appreciated.

This what really happens , superiroty complex develops with mastering something and it tends to eat away , predictions start to fall off , loose all the senses , let alone the so called 6th sense , CSM Engineer put it well initially but lost the rythem

When you train the operator in that way they will surely anoy you calling for simplest of operational errors actually they start fearing , we to utilised such tactics initially but it was hectic when our installations grew quiet in numbers

he did have one good point, and that is listening. holding the operators hands, no.

but I think he may have mean't working together, moreso.

You are right on the money:

Through sheer laziness and lack of interest in the job in those days I programmed my nerves and subconscious do do the work while I was thinking about other things, or nothing. That programming became automatic over time and I ceased to think of troubleshooting as work at all. Bet it did look like magic to the unwashed, it sure was not troubleing me at all.

I think I called it putting the body on "automatic pilot" and just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

thats good people actually taking an interest in their work.

My thing then was R&D. the production stuff was wanting.

So why waste time and effort and brain cells if it was not required?

I got it right fast and repaired fast and passed everything that was handed to me into production, What more is required in that position? Nothing to my estimation.

I often dream of a temporal shift of all the subatomic particles that compose my body to the mid-1980s, so i can invest in microsoft. Why does this never seem to happen? Do i just need to concentrate more on that concept?

Your poor little brain doesn't put out enough energy to accomplish it. A few of your neurons landed back in 1985, but other than a bit of brain damage, you're stuck here with the rest of us.

By the way, does anybody remember the numbers for tomorrow night's lotto?

One possibility for this "6th sense" is that subconsciously our wonderful minds are still at work. A certain set of conditions existed (on the instrument readings or some other input) that broke thru to our conscience mind so we felt we had to do or check something.

Right ,even though 6th sense itself a mystery , when you get carried over rigorously through something you start predicting , i too used to service electronic instruments some years ago , and concentrated so heavily searching for defective components that after a while i used to direct my juniors for specific replacements without even knowing the fault of the instrument as a whole from phone.same thing happened when i switched my job for marketing , we used to do cold calls , arrange seminars, meet every possible client ,started marketing aggressively , after breaf period , we could predict coustmer requirement in perticular region without even knowing latest developements in that regions , possibly close all deals in one go. this is experiance all about , certain students interested in perticular subject tend to overtake there teachers to gain there extraordinary status .. genius . ohh this topic is going somewhere to phsycology paradigmas

As you get older, one develops all these strange ideas, some times one thinks they are their own, in fact properly not, and properly not the first to think of it? But my take on the 6th sense is that it is an survival mechanism that we inherited, the ability for the mind to remain aware of whats going on around them while focusing on the task at hand. And that part of the mind does not make the conscious mind aware unless there is a need, I think it can amass a great deal of knowledge, and that it sometimes can nudge us into awareness, but the reactions of flight or fight I suspect to be the main purpose of the 6th sense.

Regards JD

The 'Literal' word, "Everything", is already here. Sometimes Science simply stubs it's toe on it.

KennyT

I do see the thrust of the thread...the way particle physics retreats to smaller and smaller particles...

A bit like those fractal pictures...regardles of how close you zoom in they still look the same!

Couple that with our subcoscious desire which makes us interpret the data towards our desired outcome......

I sometimes jokingly say that all Integrated circuits are just blobs of black plastic...they only work 'cos we expect them to work!

Del

Would you say a theory of Kaos.

Regards JD.

The purpose of the thread is actually seeking to find whether the Physicists among this group have ever observed this phenomenon. Just possibly they could supply input on the observation of this from an objective viewpoint.

I am quite literal, when not joking; seeking pleasure, listening to loved ones. If I ask a question I am seeking knowledgeable input to base forward thinking upon.

Scientific observations are now impacted greatly by our new Human / Machine interfaces that we have not had previously. In some of my posts I seek input on the effects of that new interface level.

Back when electronics consisted of discrete components I observed that those who understood the Physics of that world were wizards compared to those who did not understand so much.

Now that the human / machine interface has blurred and babies can safely operate fairly complex machines the level of understanding has changed and those who can "Find the On Switch" consider themselves lords of the universe.

Go Figure. So I do explore this new understanding and seek answers to where this un founded greatness springs form. Gotta give em credit though as the interface blurs the gadgets are getting smarter.

Hi Dbdwoods...

"He has stated that when they all get something new figured out and they get their instruments calibrated for that new particle, well pretty soon one of them starts showing up."

Well, obviously, this happens because these particles exist... There are so many other particles that scientists would like - so much - to exist (like gravitons or Higgs particles) but they cannot observe them and prove their existense... So what you said ("Can the will of man influence the creation or the appearance / occurrence of matter or atomic objects; that did not exist before the idea came to one of those geniuses???") I don't think that it's valid... This opinion means that human's mind have the ability of the cration of "something" from "nothing"... This is against the laws of physics (and if sth like that happens, it seems that the humans are a kind of "little gods")... We are part of the nature and we are constructed from the same matterial like everything else in the Universe... I don't believe that we are gifted with sth really special... We are just inteligent creatures and nothing more...

This whole idea reminds me the official interpretation of Quantum physics: As you probably know, it claims that in the quantum world (i.e. a particle) all the possible quantic states coexist in the same time as long as we don't make an observation... But when an observation (from a human observer) take place all these "possible states" (or "virtual states" if you like) are wiped out except one (the one which is observed)... This is mentioned as the breakdown of the superimposed quantic states... This idea gives the sense that the human consiousness is sth "very special": it can influence - at least - the subatomic matter and the quantic phenomena... I don't think that this is what really happens... (I won't go on with this, as the issue of the interpretation of the Quantum physics is out of topic)...

G.K:

Thanks you for your answer however:

You have some pretty good arguments but the very literal question of an observed or act of creation is blurred by your statement if "I don't think that it's valid" Whether Human minds can create something form nothing is the point. Just stating that this is not so, without proving it is something a politician might do. An Engineer or Scientist just might say either "I have never ever observed or herd about another observing or recording this, or just say "I Dun Know".

The "Laws of Physics" are being invented all of the time. And who said the last guy got em all right anyway? Those laws are as mutable as any other human made law. Sometimes we get it right, and some of the time the political correctness of it's expression nullifies it right off the bat. ( Hey Einstein, got it all wrong, they are publishing that fact all of the time now. How many of the present set of laws are based on his work? ) ( A curiosity on that point is "What if a few people subscribed to a different "Belief Pattern" How might they deal with the physical environment? How might their experiences and observations differ from a person who subscribed to the set of Laws? ) You do know the Human mind is not a casual tool; it's got some real horsepower when put to the test.

Also not to be pulling your chain so much, but just believing in something does not make it so.

I am trying to be a little hard line on answers because seeking that actual solid gold hard fact is what scientific exploration is all about.

I Dun know how others conduct their exploration of the Universe, But I'm seeking "Just the Facts Mam, Just the Facts"

Hi, again, Dbdwood... You said:"( Hey Einstein, got it all wrong, they are publishing that fact all of the time now. How many of the present set of laws are based on his work? )"... Who says this???... many scientists tried to prove that Einstein was wrong but nobody succeeded to do so... Although his theories (S.R. & G.R.) are not the "absolute, unified theory of everything", if we discover such a "unified theory",this should "contain" (for sure) his S.R & G.R. theories (which means that S.R & G.R. would result from this "unified theory")...

Now about our issue: Let's say that a scientist make an experiment in which he expects to find a new particle... This particle will prove his new theory (and he will become famous and rich)... So he desires (with all his heart) to observe this particle... Because of this, his mind "produce" this particle (and he is so happy about this)... Afterwards, another scientist repeat exactly the same experiment... He has developed an opponent theory that claims that such a particle doesn't exist... His desire and belief for the nonexistense of this particle will lead to a different result of the experiment: he will not observe such a particle... So, what's the general result???... Who is right???... Are there any objective reality???... or anyone of them lives in his personal, subjective reality???... (moreover what happens if these two scientists make the observation of the experiment together, at the same time???... the one would see the particle and the other would not???... is it a "ghost particle"???... is there any particle afterall???...or, maybe, the "stronger" mind (or the "stronger" desire or belief) will win leading to a corresponding result???... Does this make any sense???...)

Afterall, is there any objective reality out there???... Of course... While driving our cars will all agree that the traffic light is i.e. green and not red... Could you imagine what would happen if any of us would see the light as he wishes... Chaos......

"Afterall, is there any objective reality out there???... Of course... While driving our cars will all agree that the traffic light is i.e. green and not red... Could you imagine what would happen if any of us would see the light as he wishes... Chaos...... "

Being colorblind (red-green as luck would have it) I can personally attest to the hazards of this! My subjective reality is different than the objective reality. (Again, perception is only truth, not reality.) I have researched this extensively with the theory in mind that colorblindness exists in the brain and could be "reprogrammed". Prevailing medical opinion is that it physically exists in the structure of the eye, but I have not been able to find the hard data to support that. The search goes on...

As for the rest of the post, you have illustrated the dire importance of independent verification of experimental results. Nothing in the scientific world is "real" until at least two labs say it is. Remember cold fusion? (I won't mention the poor chaps names, they've taken it on the nose enough, but the lesson is a valuable one!)

In a general way I agree with you CSM... Fortunately the brain of (almost) all people have been "equally programmed" to interpret the different wavelengths of the light as colours in the same (or similar) way... So, no chaos in the streets... ...

"Nothing in the scientific world is "real" until at least two labs say it is."... and I could say that sometimes even this is not enough... Complicated and difficult experiments (especially in physics) need to be verified by even more lab teams (concerning the results)... The repetition of the results is the key... (i.e. S.R. and G.R. has been verified again and again through many different experiments from lab teams allover the world during many decades)...

However the reality is here despite our personal desires... In my lab when I see on the osciloscope a specific signal, everyone else see the same signal also... When I design and built a circuit on the bench is working due to the laws of physics and not because I want so... It just works whether I'm in front of it or not... It, also, works when it is produced in large quantities... And everyone else agree that it works... (on the other hand, a bad circuit will never work no matter how much I want to)...

"... Fortunately the brain of (almost) all people have been "equally programmed" to interpret the different wavelengths of the light as colours in the same (or similar) way... So, no chaos in the streets... ..."...at least not away from where I'm driving! You're lucky you drive half a globe away from me!

I agree (although I think Del would not; I believe I have read where he has written that circuits are just blobs of plastic that work because we expect them to!). In the red/green light example, the wavelength can be measured and numerically agreed upon despite what either of our eyes tell us. That is the reality arrived at independently from the "truth" of our perceptions.

Think of this, we say what we "perceive" as red because when we "percieve" that wave lenght, some one tells you it is named red. I do not know if, when you see that wave length you "perceive" it the same as I do. But we both know what we do "perceive" is red, is of a certain wave length and is not blue.

That is exactly what I have been struggling with while trying to decipher the mechanism of color blindness. It seems that it should just be that simple; regardless of what "color" my brain sees at that wavelength, I learn to call it red. But then why should colorblindness exist at all? Is it a form of learning disability in the brain? Does the physical structure of the eye just not differentiate the two wavelengths? If so, why those two wavelengths? They're not all that close together, yellow/orange are much closer and I have no problem with those, nor have I ever heard of someone that does. I have heard of red/blue problems. My personal experience leads me to believe the problem lies in the brain, not the eye. The colors look different to me when placed directly next to each other, but looked at in the absence of the other, my mind just draws a blank, or makes a random choice. That's why I believe it is a form of learning disability that could be trained out. The one piece of evidence that contradicts this is the test most doctors use to determine "color deficiency". The clusters of small colored dots that have a shape within the pattern. Both red and green are there at the same time for my brain to process, but the picture just looks like noise to me. It's very puzzling to me and from what I can find on the subject, not well understood. Probably because it's not a critical problem. Research on cancer is just time and money better spent.

Color blindness is the result of the cones not functioning properly and the wave lengths are not translated into a signal to the brain, thus, you do not perceive that wave length. However, the rods are for black and white and the red wavelength is perceived as light. I have over I hope I did not mex up the cones and rods, I am not a biologist, just an old Army medic from the Korean era who was responsible for giving color blindness test at one time..

Yes, I have read that explanation. What puzzles me about that is that I don't perceive those colors as grey when I look at them. Is my brain tricking me to believe color instead of grey because that is what I'm expecting? When and how was that pattern established in my brain? Why, as a child, did I not just learn that that shade of grey was called "red" and still perceive the grey? Or am I not understanding the functional interaction of the rods and cones? (And yes, I believe you have the rods and cones correct.) And while red is a primary color, turning to green, I perceive yellow and blue just fine (I think). Why should green give me problems? Especially so specifically confused with red. I realize that I'm probably asking questions that require years of work gathering field data and designing lab experiments to record the normal and abnormal eye's perception of specific wavelengths. Maybe there's a government grant in here somewhere...

I once had a draftsman who could not see the normal checker's colors, especially red, with one exception, he could see yellow or any colors mixed with yellow in shades of gray. Now we used green to "remove' an item, so he could see that as one shade of gray and red was replaced with orange to indicate the replaced item for that which was greened out, which he saw as another shade of gray. The yellow was for items that were correct and he could see that just fine. I had to have all my checkers use those colors for his work unless we had someone else scrub his wosrk for him. However, we usually had the draftsman scrub his own work so that he could learn from his mistakes. And of course, there are times that checkers can be in error, too, so the drafter and checker can back-check/cross check one another.

Not that is interesting! I've never encountered a case where some color and some grey was perceived. I have read cases where only B,W, and grey were perceived. Both would be consistent with "faulty" cones in the eye.

blindness of any kind, as well as deafness, are debilitating problems. I am a Network Administrator for http://www.deepspace2.org/. We have many blind and deaf trapped in the deepspace of their disability.

G.K:

A petty good train of thought there, in the Einstein thing I have seen it a few times that his work was proven wrong. Probably now that "Dark Matter & Energy" have made their apperance in the weight calculations. Dont think he alowed for them.

Aside from that your train of thought agout the scientist wishing for fame and glory makes the thing happen. Cool thinking but;

Using the parallel experiemts and the his belief in the "nonesistance" of the thing ( Hey that works, just look at our helath coverage and care standing world wise) So thnking negatively works, nothing gets done leaving the empty set. Pretty good but not valid for this experiment.

What if that scientist who was successful and got his new partical in the books was set up for a proof positive experiemt?

Just put his feet to the fire and make him discover one right after the other. That is the Part B: of the base line of the question repeatability. So what if he can just keep cranking them out each and every time he is asked to show one.

Would that be proof enough? I mean who cares if aonther person can do it or not? You have an instrument there which can see it and record it's presence

I would say selective memory is an important factor. The one time you wish for an outcome and it happens you will always remember. The thousand times you wish for something that didn't turn out you soon forget.

Most interesting question, Philosophy 101. Isn't my thought question of a little earlier related? How does one measure non-existence? Or rather, how do we know that the speed of light is the ultimate limit of the speed of anything if we cannot detect it? We do perceive it, i.e., warp speed, but can we achieve it by mind alone. Wishful thinking? Science fictions writers (me included) dream up many things that never happen. Perhaps it takes a collective mind to equal God? Again, philosophy 101.

A point in fact our perception is a most important facet of the exploration. I have been waiting for some advanced thinking on the point. Philosophy 101 aside, the observed fact mentioned seems to take a different path.

The expressed question does the human mind posses the juice to create just one tiny distinct particle with a distinct signature. The signature of the particle is then dually measured, or recorded by the newly invented measuring device.

Problem on that point is that my cousin said that when they go seeking the next particle, and the next one, they find it each and every time????

Where I mean where in the realm of scientific exploration does that happen??

I have learned many systems; busted my rear end with late night shifts getting it right. My exploration of the Universe follows the same path, keep trying till you get it right.

Just who says the Philosophers of that famous course 101 got it right??? We are discovering new paths all of the time why I mean just why is that one so solid? Einstein has been proven wrong, who is the next guy to fall? Might be that 101 course, beats me I Dun Know?

I just love playing "Devils Advocate" on thinking patterns, and working the thought out. My own dark side I guess.

Sounds like good science to me. Hypothesis based on sound observations, guiding design of experiment to verify initial hypothesis. Your cousin has a good track record and uses the scientific process correctly. Fact is, there are plenty of other proposed particles that have yet to be verified, despite our best efforts. Super-symmetry predicts more than twice as many particles we have cataloged remain undiscovered. No, I don't believe the human mind (singly or as a collective) has the power to alter amend the nature of the universe. The power to alter perception, yes. But perception is only truth; perception is not reality.

Great answer:

See there you used that phrase that to me is always always the un-ravel point of truth. "I Believe" as an argument killer just does not bring it home for me.

But thanks for your observation and thoughtful train of response.

Ah, but "I believe" is just another way of saying "I hypothesize" and an integral part of the scientific method. In short, the evidence presented thus far does not support a hypothesis of the human mind being able to create elementary particles that did not previously exist. Truth is only perception and belief, not reality. Truth is philosophical, not scientific. I realize that we're having a discussion that steps back and forth across the line between physics and metaphysics; between verifiable fact and faith. Show me more evidence beyond your cousin successfully applying the scientific method and I will gladly revise or flat-out reject my hypothesis.

However, your interpretation if my statement "I believe" as a statement of faith, not hypothesis, should not be looked upon as an argument killer. Your initial question was metaphysical and solicited opinions of the same. In such context, faith is all there is. One opinion should never be intend or taken as an argument killer.

Well placed indeed . now does inventions mean discoveries than , like invention of airoplane( humans desired to fly ) was observations done on birds that were able to float in air maitaining air pressures around there bodies , is it obeservations that suppose we treat truth and creat something to reality , please correct me if i am wrong sir , personelly i feel it is already there , it is just curiosity and desire to get there rather than requirements , your hypothesis is encouraging

You are getting close:

The stated question plus clarification are both right on the line. However the proof of the exercise which is to solisit proof positive on one side of the line or the other side of the line. Nothing else however finely described and hypothesized answers it.

Nothing lese answers the question and just fills up the space with conjecture.

We are not even going to that fount of all arguments and seeking the "Truth".

Can we mankind ajust real stuff atomic level or not? This involves creation, bringing it from somewhere else, influencing the recorder, and even having shch a finely tuned sence of knowlege that you get it right all of the time.

So still seeking the truth and only accepting a fact. "Just the facts Mam, Just the Facts".

"However the proof of the exercise which is to solisit proof positive on one side of the line or the other side of the line. Nothing else however finely described and hypothesized answers it."

The problem is that on the metaphysical side of the line, unprovable faith is all that exists, and on the physical side of the line, there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis that mankind can create at the atomic level (other than influencing state by observation). Bring me more factual evidence and we can adjust the hypothesis accordingly.

Actually the problem was presented to me years ago, and re introduced once since then.

I have been seeking the answer, do not remember ever saying that I had one ounce of data backing one point of the other. I have been trying to spike the negative side when stated without proof, because that is a lousy way to win.

So there you are your arguments have been full and quite informative. Just lacking the facts I guess, kinda like I am. However I am still young and full of the Vim and Vigor of youth. I guess just possibly with time and experience that actual proof might show up. You never know what might materilize if you put your mind to it? I dont.

Appreciate the discourse, mighty nice of you to spend the time:

Any time! And thank you, I don't get many opportunities to stretch the mind this way!

Yeh:

Forgot to say "Cool Byline"

Hi CSM... "Fact is, there are plenty of other proposed particles that have yet to be verified, despite our best efforts. Super-symmetry predicts more than twice as many particles we have cataloged remain undiscovered."... I agree... I have presented the same argument in my post #29...

And as I mentioned in post #2...not a convenient fact to consider in the discussion I suppose...

Yes indeed both of you have presented this fact, I just do not have a real good answer for that and blending it into the discovery discussion as a point to ponder is something to do now?

So Gentle people, there are indeed many more particles left to discover. Their proposed existence might be setting up the level of expectation that matches the question of this thread. Can man create them.

In keeping within the limits of the question do you think that the pre knowledge of the particles and their expected atomic weights being mapped out already makes their discovery pre destined? The most excellent scientists and Engineers that will build the discovery / recorder machine will by necessity be looking at their profiles as they create this machine.

Does the creation of the Recording / Testing machine in turn assure that the particle exists? Just wondering along that line of thought???

It occurs to me that the same claims can also be made at the other end of the scale. When Hubble first flew, it let us look further into the universe than had ever been accomplished, and gives us hints of still more. Was it all there before we looked? When James Webb flies, it will extend our perceptions orders of magnitude beyond Hubble. What will we see? Is it there to see right now? Or only when the first image is beamed to an Earth-side monitor? No matter how far we look, will there still be more to see? Both on the cosmic and sub-atomic ends of the scale. Is the real lesson here that we will never know (or, perhaps, be allowed to know) the limits of the universe? Are we pursuing this quest out of some perverse sense of hubris? After all, what are the practical applications of a particle who's existence is on the scale of 10^-23 seconds? Or mapping vast regions of the universe that do not even contain gas clouds? Perhaps the answers we seek lie somewhat closer to home.

As far as a practical application of this immensely expensive effort, there is a new equation to be formed concerning energy and matter. At least there should be.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are now said to exist. They did not exist 50 to 100 years ago I guess???

So combining the existence of this matter and energy with the energy and matter that we do know, there should be a new equation coming out that takes into account how the Dark matter/energy sums up with the stuff that we measure today.

Nature does follow amazing paths to the truth. Could be old "Darth Vader: using his bad side of the force is a real way things will go with the stuff?

A joke here you bet.

"Dark Energy and Dark Matter are now said to exist. They did not exist 50 to 100 years ago I guess???"

And that's the fundamental problem - the negative can never be proven. A guess is all there will ever be.

As far as the new energy-matter equation, my impression it that the goal is to describe all forms of matter and energy. If knowing the bounds of the universe is impossible, the equation can never be written. Is believing otherwise a sign of this hubris of which I speak?

It is hard to work the Dark Metter/Energy angle, but it is quite a new way to not win or loose but to project that perception of knowing what it should be but not quite getting there.

Kind of like the "New Math" that my kids brough home many years ago. From my perception I knew math. By the rules portrayed in that book of theirs my technique was out of date.

If someone starts using that Dark energy in their calculations to show where energy is going, or comming from I am going to sure examine it and experiemt if that is laid out in any way.

How would you figure a new energy equation taking that now believe to be there but at present unmeasured quantity???

Perhaps we see time the way we do because of the structure of our brains. Occasionally, our minds may hiccup (other end), and we accidentally remember the future.

Part of the original question was:

So the 64-dollar question is:

Can the will of man influence the creation or the appearance / occurrence of matter or atomic objects; that did not exist before the idea came to one of those geniuses???

The answer to this must be NO. What you call a hiccup is really a planed decision on natures behalf. Remember the ants? the need to get to the sugar makes things happen. Forces are in place to guard these matters. They can and will be successful in their aim if the need is only strong enough and the financing becomes irrelevant.

and we accidentally remember the future.

I thought you knew that there was no future as there is no past, its only the now. That is the moment we make discoveries. It's a pity that the original post has whizzed out so fast. It was very informing overall. It was pleasure Mate.

It is Melbourne Cup today so I gotta get dressed and do the thing. You have a good one too...... Ky.

The answer does not "must be no." That was said with religious ferver... Would you have been twiddling a box of matches at the Inquisition of Galileo? And if so, where did the matches come from?! How did you get matches in the 17th century?!!!

I think you got some explaining to do mister!

Sorry vermin

I know that the answer must be YES but so far no bloody body has proved it. It's all a bit of waffle to me. It is fun some times a must agree, but the original post was aimed at being answered. I did my best suggesting that the answer as always is ( I know you are going to imply religious tendencies) nature its self. I have not made myself clear enough in my earlier posts about the factor time. Evolution will get us to invention. It always has. Like the mum of us all.

Every one here calls me Ky, like the sky without the s. It's my real name and I don't like being called mister. I am a real good bloke, but nobody can prove it.

I hope I have explained enough and we can bring this matter to a conclusion.

Gold is there were you find it mate.

Got to get dressed. Ky.

PMSL!!! I was just messing with you!

But the more you read about quantum physics, the more you start feeling a little like Alice through the looking glass (sans the drag). There's a lot of really odd things happening in quantum physics that do not even comfort the proponents of quantum physics themselves, because it leaves even them shaking their heads!

I'm beginning a quantum experiment of my own - I'll be shooting a laser down a length of fiber. This fiber goes through a 50/50 splitter. One leg of fiber is going through a polarization device used for fiber the other does not. I'm looking for entanglement. If the photons (or at least a percentage of them) are entangled, changing the polarization on one fibre leg should make some of the photons on the other fibre leg change their polarization, as well.

While I love Relativity and all the other science based around the Universe, quantum physics seems the only route to me that goes to the heart of what is reality. I doubt it will allow us to make green hippopotamuses, but it is the one branch of physics that inadvertently has lead us to examine where the experiment begins and the experimenter leaves off.

Go to the CERT particle accelerator in France and see what they come up with. It was just announced that "heavy" aluminum and "heavy" magnesium have been produced by inserting extra neutrons into the nucleus of those respective metals. It was brand new atomic weights never before seen but does lead to the speculation that such "heavy" elements do exist somewhere in the universe. It is not that they do not exist in the minds of the scientist, but rather, they have not been seen before. BTW, they are stable, too.