-DivinityHow do you know you don't create or maintain the stability of the table with your thoughts? (Recall what can happen when you take DMT - materials can appear to 'fall apart').
To argue this we'd get into a long tangent about what thoughts are and what a table is, so let's try not to dwell on this.
However, fundamentally, the answer is that I do not. If I want to explain why the table retains its particular arrangement of continuous objects then I must attempt to do so via the scientific method. I define my terms and hypothesize (distance, object, table, atom, etc. etc. whatever). I theorize (I am physically connected to the table by a rope or chain or w/e and can pull on the atoms of the table or otherwise influence the table by manipulating my own atoms). I define whatever manipulation I think is necessary to perform this action as "thoughts". Then I explain why the table remains together by showing an example of a person influencing a table via these ropes or chains (or whatever physical intermediary I hypothesized). The final step of the scientific method is discussion and acceptance/rejection. I reject theories at this point on two grounds:
1) Another theory explains the same phenomena with fewer/simpler assumptions (simpler hypothesis).
2) Another theory explains more phenomena with the same assumptions/hypothesis.
I will have to somehow explain why, when I put a drink on the table and come back, the drink didn't fall through as the table fell apart. I will also have to explain why comets and asteroids nobody has ever seen or contemplated pelt the earth regularly.
-DivinityIf the table is within your realm of experience, I'm confident you created the table. Similarly with all the situations/events in your life. That's the purpose of consciousness - to co-create/bring forth the material from the non-material.
So all the stars in the sky don't exist until some astronomer sees them? Did the planets in our solar system not exist before a person spotted them? What about rocks at the center of the earth that nobody has any clue about, are they waiting for someone to contemplate them to pop into existence? If an asteroid nobody has ever seen or contemplated intersects the earth's orbit, will it go right through the earth?
-DivinityYou seem very hung up on structured definitions, which is almost impossible in a quantum universe, I would think, but is a requirement for mainstream physics.
Quantum IS mainstream physics, and they thrive on avoiding consistent and rigorous definitions like the plague. Quantum is a discipline that accepts and even demands contradiction as the norm. In science, our definitions make or break our argument via the scientific method.
-DivinitySo what they do is invent or make phenomena up to explain what we witness because they lack understanding.
It's worse than this. They have no idea about even the most basic aspects of physics. At the same time they claim immense knowledge because they've developed mathematical correlations to quantitatively match each observation they've made so far! They have counted live/dead deer in every possible way, from every possible angle, and in every possible forest. But they still cannot tell you what kills the deer, or even what a deer is.
-DivinityI understand your example above but cannot explain why they are inseparable other than the structure does not permit the ball to escape. I'm not sure what that has to do with the backwash of all existence, i.e. aether.
The reason you cannot explain is because you are subconsciously trying to integrate contradictions. The proponents of the "quantum universe" view this as the status quo and would have it no other way, it allows them to seem smarter to laymen who are not as thoroughly involved in contradiction. They get to make fun of the laymen for raising such "trivial" matters. Young scientists these days are raised on contradiction and paradox so that they can hardly function within the scientific method. This washes over into the mainstream public, who are basically brainwashed to accept whatever the scientific authority says. Regular people just assume they are too stupid, that pointing out a blatant contradiction is trivial. Almost all of us are brainwashed on equations, if the scientist can write an equation to match the experiment surely he understands it! No, he just counted some deer.
- Div quoteTo make a long story short, after six years of research, I had publicly reached the conclusion that there is an aether, and that aether is composed of subquantum particles,
If the aether is just a bunch of particles, why is it so special? Newton proposed light was a stream of particles and all of quantum is based on particles! Discrete particles just bounce off each other i.e. diverge, and there cannot be consciousness or life in a divergent universe as I have explained a bit back.
-Div quotesmaller than the Planck length, perhaps even infinitely small, perhaps in several layers of ever smaller sizes. Then I realized that an infinitely small mass is not constrained to light speed, since the considerations of relativity theory do not apply to an infinitesimal mass.
Infinitely small eh? Infinitely small either means it doesn't exist or means we need to increase the power of our microscope. If it exists it has shape and we can draw a picture of it or make a model of it, no matter how small it is. The only way for relativity to not apply to an "infinitesimal mass" is for the mass to be zero! The author is using "infinitely small" and "infinitesimal" to cover up what he actually means, a particle with zero mass! A blatant contradiction.
- Div quoteBy this, I came to realize that the quantum property of "non-locality" is caused by superluminal transports of these infinitely small particles, where the informational content of the "quantum field" is carried by the vehicles of the subquantum particles.
Again, infinitely small is either "nothing" or means it's a lot smaller than something else. Since the author proposes it has 0 mass he makes it clear he means "nothing". The author has created a Theory of Nothing. A common practice in modern physics, especially quantum field theories.