Not like the other animals...

[kelkel]

Worth it!

Mine surely was.

[charger69]

Labs are great but they take so much time and patience to train

Same with Akitas. Great dogs, but they can get big.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Narkissos]

The thing that astonishes me is how rare it is and why only a fraction of a fraction of a percent, posess this special trait.

It is less apparent now... because humans have bred it out of them.
Domestication meant generations of breeding less desireable traits out.
We basically made it so they just pop out, eat, shit, and die at our hands.

Epigenetic imprints may be the reason why small percentages remember how not to be a 'dumb animal'.

And, I say 'dumb animal' in a facetious manner... because even broken, animals aren't dumb.

...cept chickens.
Fuck chickens.

People may see it as just a random anomaly, instinct, or just a human projecting their own empathy onto an animal, creating something in their mind that really isn't.

It definitely isn't imagined.

What in the hell is it that they have the others don't? A soul? Actual human-like empathy? More intelligence? A combination?

A combination of things, hypothetically.

But.. that's why more meat eaters are leaning towards ethical farming practices.

The shit we eat... they're cognizant.

Pigs. Squids. Octopi. They're better problem solvers than some adults.

And they're delicious.

What is your story?
What do you think it is?

I get along better with animals and kids.

But... i'm a hippie.

I believe in energy, and the interconnectivity of all things.

[Obs]

On that last part Narkissos, (scientifically and mathematically) I believe we are all part of the same self aware self sustaining loop, which is the universe.

I am not a hippie.
Positive and negative energy are real.
That doesn't mean good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people but our lives become the energy we absorb and project.

I really like Chris Langans work. His newest interviews on youtube are great. I highly recommend everyone watch them and ignore the twist the interviewers try to put on what he explains. He is not endorsing or disputing a religion!

He explains it many times but interviewers try to ask things to get him to endorse their beliefs.
His old interviews they tried to paint him as an arrogant Nazi or something. I don't follow anyone, but I like his take on life as we know it.

Sorry for the subject change. Just sharing something that opened my eyes to peoples selfish belief systems.

[Narkissos]

On that last part Narkissos, (scientifically and mathematically) I believe we are all part of the same self aware self sustaining loop, which is the universe.

I am not a hippie.
Positive and negative energy are real.
That doesn't mean good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people but our lives become the energy we absorb and project.

I really like Chris Langans work. His newest interviews on youtube are great. I highly recommend everyone watch them and ignore the twist the interviewers try to put on what he explains. He is not endorsing or disputing a religion!

He explains it many times but interviewers try to ask things to get him to endorse their beliefs.
His old interviews they tried to paint him as an arrogant Nazi or something. I don't follow anyone, but I like his take on life as we know it.

Sorry for the subject change. Just sharing something that opened my eyes to peoples selfish belief systems.

Good post.
Will look into the guy you mentioned

[GirlyGymRat]

Interesting post.

paying more attention to vibrations from people...animals also have vibrations.

Teal Swan YouTube

[GirlyGymRat]

And validation from the universe.....have to be open and receptive to receive...

[Narkissos]

And validation from the universe.....have to be open and receptive to receive...

Agreed 100%

[Beetlegeuse]

Back in the 1920s, when the field of quantum physics was in its infancy, a bunch of pointy-headed physicists came up with the theory of quantum entanglement. What it says, in a single sentence, is that if two quantum particles -- such as photons of light -- are created by the same event and then separated, they will continue to behave as if they were joined, no matter how far apart they might become. Even if they become separated by billions of light years, they will behave as if they were still joined.

That topic was a major bone of contention between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr back in the day. Einstein didn't believe it could happen because he couldn't conceive how it might work unless information was traveling faster than the speed of light, and anything traveling faster than light violated his core beliefs. He disparagingly called it "spooky action at a distance." Bohr didn't claim to know how it worked but he claimed all the peripheral details supported the theory and wrote a paper that included a mathematical proof.

Einstein continued to chop away at quantum entanglement after he fled Europe in the 1930s (to evade the Nazis) and ended up at Princeton University in NJ. He worked with fellow Princeton profs Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen to write a paper that was published in 1935 (known today as the EPR paradox) that alleged to prove entanglement's mathematical impossibility.

The proof of Einstein's genius is that the physical tests to prove or disprove the bat-shit crazy stuff he came up with in his mind wouldn't exist for decades (the latest occurred in 2016, when his theory that gravity traveled in waves -- something he had dreamt up entirely in his pointed little head -- finally was proved). But that also meant that the only people who could possibly evaluate the validity of his theories had to be every bit as egg-headed as Einstein was. So quantum entanglement wasn't "tested" anywhere except in coffee shops and faculty lounges for many years.

Finally an Irish physicist named John Bell -- who was another of those "thought experiment" geniuses -- became intrigued with the entanglement question. You know the story about Einstein writing the Theory of Relativity in his spare time while he was working in a Swiss patent office? Well, Bell's day-job was as a theoretical particle physicist at CERN. If you know anything about science, you know being a theoretical particle physicist at CERN is a damn sight more highfalutin, science-wise, than being a Swiss patent clerk is. Nonetheless, Bell didn't find his day job intellectually taxing enough so he went home at night and did "thought experiments" on quantum entanglement.

Eventually Bell figured out a way to mathematically compare the results of Einstein's anti-quantum model against Bohr's pro-quantum model. Nothing about which was right and which was wrong, mind you, just purely to determine if they would produce the same results from the same input.

And they did not. When starting with identical facts, Bell found the two models would come to different conclusions. And he also computed the dividing line. Short of this line and it can be explained by classical physics. But anything beyond this line only could be explained by quantum physics.

Bell published his proof in 1964 but it languished in obscurity for several years until it was discovered (~1971) by UC Berkley physicist John Clauser, who had a foot in both the theoretical and experimental sides of physics. Bell's paper really blew up Clauser's skirt because in it he saw the possibility for a laboratory experiment -- physical proof -- that would test Einstein vs Bohr. And he and fellow UCB prof Stu Freedman created the first Bell's test experiment based on the use of a laser, a scientific tool that Einstein did not live to see the creation of.

Clauser and Freedman's test results matched Bohr's prediction exactly. Exactly.

That was the moment that quantum entanglement left the theoretical world and entered the physical.

But what their tests didn't do was settle the science, because the technology available to Clauser and Freedman was still limited. There were still no end of "what ifs" to be explored, and the advance of technology inevitably would mean there eventually would be better and more conclusive tests. But what it did do was open the floodgate to proofs of entanglement.



About now you're probably wondering, "Goddam, Juice, what in holy hell does all this crap have to do with cows that won't follow the herd?" Well, as it would happen, the results of Clauser & Freedman's experiments were spotted by a bunch of pot-smoking, acid-dropping, VW-bus-driving San Francisco hippies who were interested in linking quantum entanglement to Eastern mysticism.

What did the Buddhist monk say to the hotdog vendor?

"I want you to make me one with everything."

They called themselves the Fundamental Fysics Group, and there actually were a number of legitimate theoretical physicists among them. One of them even wrote a book you might have heard of, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by Fritjof Capra, who was one of the founders of the Fysics Group.

Capra even had a conversation with Werner Heisenberg (the physicist who experimented with dead cats, not the meth cook from Breaking Bad) and Heisenberg told him he had had this same conversation with Indian mega-genius Rabindranath Tagore while giving a lecture in India, and he and Tagore both saw the connections between quantum entanglement and "cosmic oneness," the "connectedness" of all things. All things. There even was an entire culture that subscribed to it (Hinduism).

Forty years later and there is at least one field where they've stopped worrying about proving whether quantum entanglement exists and started using it to their advantage. Computing.

The irreducible element of computing is the "bit." Each bit of data is represented by either a one or a zero. It's on or it's off, true or false. Except in the quantum reality, where all things are connected, it's both one and zero at the same time. So a bit becomes a quantum bit, or qubit. Link enough qubits and you've got a quantum computer. Classic physics computers gag on fuzzy logic but quantum computers adore it.

So if quantum entanglement doesn't exist, don't tell IBM, because they're already selling a computer based on it:

IBM unveils its first commercial quantum computer

But that doesn't mean testing to "prove" the existence of entanglement is obsolete, or even that it's slowing down. Because better technology keeps coming along making even more definitive proofs possible.

Thus far all of the Bell test proofs have relied on a randomness function, but that represents something of a weak link because man-made randomness isn't and can't be infinitely random. And in the search for the ultimate in randomness, ultimate unpredictability, they have looked to the stars.

The most recent test of entanglement (from observatories in the Canary islands) used the light from quasars that are billions of light years away as triggers. What makes this so close to infinite randomness -- utterly and ultimately unpredictable -- is that the light from those two quasars was launched billions of years ago. 7.8 billion in one case and 12.2 billion in the other. So their state was set billions of years ago but we won't and can't know what that state is until they get here.

You're probably already ahead of me on the outcome of the Canary test, because in this day and age, a test that disproved quantum entanglement (thereby proving the EPR paradox) would be a bigger news item than one that's merely confirmed it for the twenty-leventh time. And indeed the quasar-based test did confirm quantum entanglement.

All that to get to this. At present, science can only come up with two explanations as to why entanglement might (underline might) work. In time others might come to light but at present, with the limits of our imaginations, experiences and technology, there's just the two.

The first was the basis of Einstein's complaint, that information is traveling faster than light. And nobody is peddling that theory, which only leaves the Fundamental Fysics Group's explanation:

It's either that or everything is the universe is connected.

By what, nobody knows. We can't see it, we can't feel it, we can't measure it, ...hell, we can't even prove it exists. But we can observe its consequences. Not unlike gravity.


So we're rapidly approaching a time when science on the whole will reach the same conclusion as those tripped-out San Francisco hippies. Everything in the universe is connected. The cosmic oneness is a provable thing.

[Obs]

Very good post Beetleguese that must have taken some time!

You need to make that a thread seriously so everyone can see it.

I base my studies on philosophical theories and try to prove them wrong.

I said prove them "wrong".

Simply.... 0+0 does not equal everything.

What that means is we all come from one thing.
That one thing is the first "thing" which is every "thing".

Undeniably ee are all connected and from one source.

The universe is self aware and self sustaining.
Chris Langan nailed this down 100% but science dismisses him because he called it "God".

[Beetlegeuse]

Oops. I was mistooken.

You know the old Internet aphorism, "pics or it didn't happen?"



This is a pic of two photons experiencing a moment of no-shit quantum entanglement.

Story here. Paper here. Photo taken using the inequality test dreamt up by the same John Bell I mentioned above.

[Proximal]

BS, that’s a pic of some chick’s lips blowing a kiss.