The light is in our eyes...

So a PHYSICAL light waves / photons

create METAPHYSICAL images?

I would be interested in how that works

You see with OBJECTIVE light waves / photons

which somehow turn into METAPHYSICAL images

which are outside OBJECTIVE experience

hence you cannot experience them

At least when I read Alice in Wonderland I know it's a great work of fiction

What I just posted above may be

the METAPHYSICAL equivalent of a work of fiction

Any thoughts posters?

A new genre of stupidity?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no problem with the term meta-physics, such as an inherent latent potential.
Example: If I look at a mountain lake I see water and the measurable way it behaves by its wave functions. If I stick a light bulb in the water it does not magically light up (no electricity)

However the water in a mountain lake has an inherent latent potential of being able to exert a kinetic force, which can be converted via turbines into electrical power, such as river dams with turbines and generators and then provide electrical power for our light bulb to shine brightly.

Thus a mountain lake has latent potentials for uses other than just being a lake. If this potential is not used it remains as a latent meta-physical potential of the lake.

Potential = that inherent but latent meta-physical ability which may become expressed in physical reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It has

Potential Energy if its positioning is right

It does NOT have potential metaphysical energy

Apart from nothing metaphysical exist in the real physical world it boggles my neurones

Potential
having capacity to develop into something in the future

ie sometimes which does not exist now but might exist later

Metaphysical
something that is outside the physical

ie does not exist in the physical world

Energy
ability to perform work

ie does not have a physical presence

that

Potential Metaphysical Energy

with 3 strikes against it has any chance of

being something which exist in the real world and can do something

Alice in Wonderland is looking more like the biography of a believable Alice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I quoted you.

 

where?
nice dodge... eh.. "tracing light back to see the image... I mean what you are trying to suggest here is nonsense...
here I'll post the image you posted again just for the record
I've taken a copy just to remind me of this conversation later....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not trying to suggest it; that's simply how it works.

BTW, that's not my image; I simply Googled it.

Granted, it could be more clearly worded, but most people grasp the concept intuitively.

If you are interested, I can go into it in further detail. Let me know.

 

Potential is my favorite word. After reading analyses of Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, the concept and definitions of the word potential are logical theory, in All worlds, because it can be (and is) used in the physical world as a specific expressed measurable value and in the meta-physical world as a variable latent ability which may or may not become expressed as a measurable value.

An example:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

OK, now pull the molecule apart, until the atoms no longer touch. ....Is it still water ?....No.
But, potentially all three atoms retain the ability to form water, no matter where they are located in the universe.
In comes Probability. The farther the atoms are separated from each other, the less probability exist of their combined expression of their potentials to form water in reality.

In comes Patterns.
If the atoms are moving in a direction of intersecting paths, the state of probability changes to the Implicate. The mathematical expectation of a specific event, that these atoms will arrive at the same time and place and will join to form water. (determinism)
This is how we could predict Higgs.

Given this scenario, among all the variables was a single common denominator, the latent potential for hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form water.

As a concept, one can say that "all things are preceded by Potential, a timeless latent ability to become expressed in reality from implicates formed by a mathematically causal imperative."

It is a common denominator , a universal potential.

It requires only mathematical consistency which allows for the implicate to become expressed in the explicate world and it must also have been mathematically implied that the BB would happen. The Potential (in this case energy) for that event existed before the event.

I find *every* definitions of the concept and use of *potential* fascinating when viewed from that perspective.[/quote]

 

I agree and that's why I said "meta-physical potential", a latent ability (not energy, in this context)

The above will explain my thoughts better, hopefully.

 

According to who and what published peer reviewed paper?

"Tracing a light ray".... hmmm weird idea that one.....

 

I sort of understand and thanks for further explanation

My explanation to you and others about my post

I think my brain works different

I only think that because I frequently have to explain to friends what I mean as they frequently have to explain what they mean

Just as frequently we find we really do mean the same thing and are talking in agreement

The word metaphysical bothers me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears those who use it (in your context it's fine) are saying

It's metaphysical and your to dumb to understand

OR

When they say metaphysical it sorta sounds scientific like respectable

OR

Saying metaphysical is the Abracadabra which brings the non existent into existence because it has a name

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I sort of understand and thanks for further explanation

My explanation to you and others about my post

I think my brain works different

I only think that because I frequently have to explain to friends what I mean as they frequently have to explain what they mean

Just as frequently we find we really do mean the same thing and are talking in agreement

The word metaphysical bothers me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears those who use it (in your context it's fine) are saying

It's metaphysical and your to dumb to understand

OR

When they say metaphysical it sorta sounds scientific like respectable

OR

Saying metaphysical is the Abracadabra which brings the non existent into existence because it has a name

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As layman, all I can say that I like David Bohm's arguments and their implications. And his qualifications are impeccable. I believe the deBroglie/Bohm "Pilot Wave" theory is widely accepted in the sciences. His mind and knowledge has many Bohmian Mechanics proponents, by respectable scientists.
Einstein was on of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

 

No. The molecules will stay apart until and unless they are given enough energy to recombine.

 

According to established mainstream science. If you'd like to challenge that, there's a forum for it.

It's not weird to anyone familiar with optics.
As I said, you really need to brush up on this stuff to talk about it.

 

Did you stop reading there?
And I was not talking about molecules, but molecule constituents H and O which will retain a latent ability to combine into water molecules, regardless of how far they are apart. The probability that they actually will is almost zero, true, but they retain the latent ability regardless.
And if they exist in large numbers, the probability that H and O will bond increases until the probability becomes very high and a mathematical implication emerges, predicting that H and O will meet and form a water molecule.

The evidence for this probabilistic function is abundant in the universe. Many planets have snow/ice, or water, or water vapor. To me this proves the proposition that H and O have an inherent latent ability to combine and form water molecules anywhere in the universe. These atoms "like" each other.

 

perhaps a distinction between a human seeing and a human designing of applying computer graphics needs to be drawn.

Are you suggesting that in normal vision humans trace light?

"In physics, ray tracing is a method for calculating the path of waves or particles through a system with regions of varying propagation velocity, absorption characteristics, and reflecting surfaces. Under these circumstances, wavefronts may bend, change direction, or reflect off surfaces, complicating analysis. Ray tracing solves the problem by repeatedly advancing idealized narrow beams called rays through the medium by discrete amounts. Simple problems can be analyzed by propagating a few rays using simple mathematics. More detailed analysis can be performed by using a computer to propagate many rays." wiki
​

It is amazing how you seem to so readily confuse categories (context), shifting from actual human sight to computer design techniques, to physics methods then claim that I am the one confused.

Too eager to shoot me down is my guess...and doing science and yourself a great dis-service whist you try...

oh and don't worry I can be shot down but you need to do a lot better than that.

 

How else would we know where it came from?

 

indeed... good question... in fact it is the very question asked in the OP...

How long would it take to trace light rays as proposed by DaveC from a star, say, 100 light years away? Do you see the problem?

 

Look up new words

UNDERKASTUMBLE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We can't track distance that far away, we track the angle at which the light strikes our retina, which gives us the direction look in. What we see is the source where it was 100 years ago.

We can track the sun with sundials, by the angle of the shadow which will always be off by 8 minutes (time)