Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics

Unread post by junglelord » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:23 am

William A Tiller's book: “Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics”, where ample demonstrations are given where the experimenter has a robust influence on the outcome of the experiment. ... wnload.pdf
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics

Unread post by rjhuntington » Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:37 am

Thank you so much for posting the link. This is truly blockbuster information. Some of us have no doubt been aware of or had hints of this sort of thing in their own experience but never had the wherewithal to quantify the effects with specialized equipment and formal protocols. What brilliant experiments! This is really a breakthrough in physics and will open up an entire huge field of investigation. Very exciting stuff.
Last edited by rjhuntington on Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:22 pm

Re: Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics

Unread post by Journeyman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:47 am

It's something I have pondered over for years - we have numerous examples where an experimenter has produced results which are then 'falsified' by followers of a different view who fail to get results. (talking here of honest followers, not those like MIT who cheated to falsify the Cold Fusion results of Pons & Fleischman)

I think it was in SciAm I saw a survey of fields of Science where they looked to see who had taken into account the effects experimenters have on their results & it turned out the one field that NEVER did double-blind experiments & NEVER took into account possible experimenter effects was Physics - from which the idea had come in the first place.

In the much derided 'soft' sciences like psychology, the news was taken to heart & double-blinds were quite common, but the harder sciences were so convinced they were superior to any such anthropomorphic influences they never bother with such caution.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest