I personally do not find any evidence that supports the suggestion of Quantum Physics supporting a notion that we are all one. Quantum Physics is not understood. The observations do not lend enough evidence to support why we observe that which we do.

Therefore, it is a incorrect assessment to suggest that it supports itself, let alone anything else.

Allow it to support itself, then we may be able to build upon it.

Until then... we know nothing but what we think we are observing. Seems more like psuedo-quantum twistics to me.

Nice statement. If I understand a small bit of quantum stuff correctly the very act of observing, changes the observed phenomon.

Thus making it nigh unto impossible to actually measure/understand/control our universe.(for us at least)

I personally do not find any evidence that supports the suggestion of Quantum Physics supporting a notion that we are all one. Quantum Physics is not understood. The observations do not lend enough evidence to support why we observe that which we do.

Aye but if the foam is true than the number of possible universes exceeds the number of people that have ever or will ever exist.

Therefore you are god. I am god. each in our own universe. (but there is allways something greater)

It's not necessary to understand quantum mechanics fully to know that there can be no definite boundaries between things, and that's all we need to know to know that all is one.

If there can be no definite boundaries between things, then there can be no true seperation of things. Thus all must necessarily be one.

Moreover, even General Relativity had given us hints to this before quantum mechanics confirmed it. Albert Einstein showed that matter and energy are the same thing and can be trasmuted into one another. He also showed us that time and space have a similar relationship and can also be transmuted into one another.

A woman by the name of Emmy Nother then came along and showed that Time and Energy are two sides of the same coin too! Thus there is only one thing, spacetime-energy/matter.

It's all the same stuff. And it's all conserved meaning that it can't be created or distroyed except by the quantum field itself which bring us full-circle back to quantum mechanics.

The real question though is that if all isn't one, then what are all these separate things? And where do they exist?

That's the other thing that people don't seem to realize about Einstein's General Relativity. In Newton's day everything was considered to exist "in space". But Einstein says no. We don't exist 'in space', we are a manifestation of spacetime.

This distinction might seem trival to a non-scientist, but mathematically it paramount, because it gives space and time substance, where in Newton's world they had not substance.

A better way to explain this might be through the use of the following analogies,...

In Newton's model of the universe, Space and Time were backdrops like the stage of a play. Then energy and matter were the players who played on this stage.

In Einstein's model of the universe there is no stage at all. All that exists are the actors. Spacetime, and Energy/matter.

And, of course, Emmy Nother showed that Time and Energy are two sides of the smae coin. So there is no stage, and there is only one player. The player is both actor and stage.

We may think that this is beyond human comprehension. And perhaps it is for laymen, but the point it that it all makes sense mathematically. And mathematics is something that some humans can indeed comprehend.

But just because they know something about how the stage and the actors work, they still have no clue what production company is behind the movie.

The thing that I don't truly understand is why someone would object to everything being one. What would be the benefit of that point of view?

What would be gained by thinking that everything is seperate and exists in it's own individual right independent from all else?

Seems to me that would be extremely problematic especially on a philosophical level.

What is gained by having everything seperate?

In my opinion (and my opinion does not matter) but I believe that we are all connected as one ~~and yet we are individuals and may remain individuals ~~if we so choose, after we leave this reality of space-time.

We can become more, and part of a larger conscious being, by combining with others, or we can individualize our different aspects and by dividing ourselves into many individuals and focusing on certain things we wish to experience or create.

None of these states of individualization or combining are permanent commitments. Some individuals prefer being part of a larger individual and some chose to wander.

There is no division of things on the quantum level. Atoms constantly come and go from your body and from all bodies and they enter other bodies. Every time you breathe in and out, atoms come and go from your body-universe.

Atoms, are said to be the building blocks of matter and they are largely composed of empty space. They are like tiny solar systems surrounded by their own field.

Our solar system is surrounded by its own force field, and as it travels through space to its new position in the galaxy, that force field deflects many things that come at it from outside.

I don't know the point of this post, so don't ask. LOL

JB

So? What is your point?

Are you suggesting that a person ONLY thinks in words, or that a person who does not speak yet, (a toddler perhaps) does not think at all?

It's not necessary to understand quantum mechanics fully to know that there can be no definite boundaries between things, and that's all we need to know to know that all is one.

I made the point... perhaps you missed it, you may want to re-read, or read this twice so that you do not miss it again...


To those who asked about my statement of thoughts being the unspoken language of the thinker...

I understand that people also mentally envision full mental pictures and the like... symbols, etc...

If one wishes to convey that thought to another person in order to explain the thought...

How do they do that? They speak in words, after translating their thoughts into words so that this can be done. Words can contain much more meaning within an individual than just a single definition... they also represent entire sets of memories, depending on the trigger which brings on the unconscious contents.

Anyone who knows different languages will find themselves thinking in the language of the place that they find themselves in at the moment.

Thoughts are unspoken language.

"If one wishes to convey that thought to another person in order to explain the thought..."

A person is not God in any way whatsoever .
All reality points to this .

Please explain what you mean by "all reality points to this."
How does all reality point to this? How do you define god? What is god to you?

Did you create me ?.
.

- no but if you keep it up she might "CRATE" you and ship you back -

Ship me where ?.

Did you create me ?.
.

So your point is that thoughts are unspoken language?

I don't see how that can be the case. Of course I have always understood language as being a communication between people. Unless people can read each other's minds, as in having telepathic communication, I don't see how thoughts can be called a language.

I am thinking that people don't need to "explain" their thoughts because nobody knows what their thoughts are, therefore there is no need to "explain" them.

I think I would have used the word "express" their thoughts, since their thoughts are unspoken and people can't read their minds.

And how do they do that? You conclude they do it with words.

That is one way to do it. But there are many other ways.

1. Body language
2. Pictures
3. Movies
4. Actions

So thoughts can't be a "language" unless they are expressed in some way. Unless you have a different definition of what a language is.