Dispelling Ignorance and Untruths - A Case Study of Baguamonk1's Posts

[The Muid]

From the description Bong Sau gave of the Uncertainty Principle I interpreted it as further proof of the great power of the mind. We know for a fact that mind influences matter now, from science and certain people know from experience. As you stated then the mind influenced a small particle; a highly trained mind can influence the physical world, some can even create miracles. Sifu explains this in his books.

Oh, just wait til you hear bout the Principle of Entanglement. This is the basis of Quantum Computing - computers that are billions of times faster than modern computers with millions of times the storage and only the size of your thumb!!!!

Basicall it works like this, modern processors work by transistors that regulate the flow of current. Anything above 3 Volts is a 1, anything below is a 0. The smallest transistors that we have are currently in developement - 30 nanometres, I think. The processor of the computer I'm using is 65 nanometres and anything over a year old is 90. Quantum computers work by
having atoms do this. An atom can be a 1, a 0 or BOTH at the same time! This is what gives them the huge speed, they literally work at the speed of light (well, very, VERY close to it). Now, these computers are in developement. Normal 128 bit encryption, which would take my very up-to-date computer about 100 trillion years to crack, can be cracked by these quantum computers in seconds - but only if no one is looking at them! When they are observed, the atoms, which were both 1 and 0 at the same time, collapse into a state of being one or the other. Thus the computer slows down and becomes an egg timer.

This principle really blew my mind when I heard about it! Here's a good run-down on it: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement


Well, sorry for goin off-topic,


All the best,



Diarmuid

[beggarsu]

Hi all,

I'm just gonna further clarify the Uncertainty Principle for ye as (I haven't read the whole thread, but) it seems important to the arguments here.

I'm not fully sure, but I think this principle is applicable to other particles.

Although many do not know this (all mathematical physicists and mathematicians should, but most of them do), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is actually a mathematical (therefore not necessarily necessitated by empirical observation, which was how it historically arrived in quantum mechanics, but rather necessitated by mathematical fact) inequality in the sub-branch of Integral Moments in the subject of Fourier Analysis. In quantum mechanics, it is applicable to any particle that can be classified as a "quantum mechanics particle" in the theory. One can look up the details for such a qualification from the internet and other resources. In it's mathematical root, it is interesting to note that this can be applied to any class of calculations that can be split up into a "phase space" and the "time space" in fourier mathematics analysis. What this suggests is that one can make similar conclusions in modifications to the theory. For example, in principle this splitting up of domains into "phase space" and "time space" is just a taking from a x-y-z-t space into considering the relationships x-y-z and t seperately. So for instance one can go about relabeling and reworking the theory to study implications for x-t-z and y spaces. Imo, although this is only opinion without me supplying all the details from my personal mathematical doodling, such "uncertainty" inequalities can be derived for phenomenon in other situations such as analyzing history. Specifically, an "uncertainty" relation can be derived that implies that the more facts an observer knows about their current point in time, they must have less factual information about what happens in other points in time such as past or future in the observation they made on the world. The more factual information they acquire in a observation about some other point in time like past or future they have, the less true is the information they can possibly acquire in that observation of their current point in time.

Aaron

[The Muid]

. . . So, was I right or wrong? All that just went Air france

[beggarsu]

Dear TheMuid,

My post wasn't specifically geared at you or what you said. I was merely adding some information about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle I have come across in my interests. If you are refering to if Heisenburg's uncertainty principle is applicable to other particles, then yes you are correct. The vast majority of particles physics is interested in are qm particles (hence heisenburg's uncertainty principle is directly applicable). A number of particles are also not qm particles. For instance, particles some physicists look for that may be of 0 mass (it violates the zero-point energy axiom for a qm particle) would not qualify for being quantum mechanics particles, so Heisenburg's uncertainty principle would not be directly applicable. However like I said, similar inequalities can be drawn up that pretty much say the same thing as Heisenburg's uncertainty principle that would be applicable to such a 0 mass particle. A similar analogy is how in classical physics, a particle does not have a discrete, but continuous energy spectrum (violation of quantized energy postulate of a qm particle). So of course Heisenburg's uncertainty principle is not applicable here. But any physicist would verify the prescence of fourier analysis in all classical physics. Although this is ample reason to make the implication, it certainly is so a fact that the relevant fourier moment inequalities can be come up with that say the same thing as Heisenburg's uncertainty principle for such classical physics particles (I think it is noteworthy to recall planets can be treated as particles in classical physics).

Aaron

[beggarsu]

You're saying, what exactly? Are you agreeing with me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is relevant?

Dear Bong Sau,

Imo, this wasn't the right conclusion to make from the fact that Sifu Anthony pointed out. Rather the implication that I think should have been made is that a respectable Physicist to have verified the Qigong experiments to have been scientific and within significant bounds of acceptance of the results (that Qigong did the things proposed in the experiments).

[beggarsu]

Actually I believe that Heisenberg said that you cannot predict where an electron will be at any given time.

This is true from my understanding of quantum mechanics and historical developments. But I think the reason for why he said this is important. Many people think there is a difference between classical physics probability and quantum physics probability. Actually, there isn't. In classical physics we do not know the result of something if we don't have all the information about all the forces involved. If we knew about all the forces involved on a roulette ball as it went around the wheel, it is actually elementary to know where it would end up. And actually there were was some success of doing this by intelligent people who used electronic equipment to get relevant initial conditions to time-evolve the equations of motion and get satisfactory results. From when I last followed the development, this became unpopular not because of the unpredictability etc of where the ball would end up. Rather it was due to inability to conceal such equipment in a casino since using computers electronic equipment etc is illegal in a casino and also the poor quality of the equipment that had to be used (easily heated up or broke in the areas that had to be concealed, such as having to stand on the device in one's shoe). The reason fundamentally to the argument between Heisenberg and Einstein was Heisenberg really meant in quantum mechanics that all properties (forces and other information relevant to dyanmics) could not be known, to make a future prediction. Einstein thought this was merely a present fault, and that of course one could know all the forces acting on a qm system. If somebody could know all of the forces on a qm system, it would be simple to predict a future state in such a way to properly violate Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. A very simple reason that explains this is the fact that all probability distribution functions (including probability distribution functions in quantum mechanics) come from deterministic events. If there were not a way to construct such probability distribution functions (deterministic events), there would not be the mass of calculations in quantum mechanics textbooks that have given reliable predictions of real performed experiments that give the verification of quantum mechanics. So in my interpretation of the historical developments, I don't believe Heisenberg necessarily meant you cannot predict an electron's future position, but that you can never know the relevant information. If you knew all the forces on a system, I think any physicist would have to concede that by principles of physics (namely the basis of time evolution of equations of motion), it isn't even a question if you can know the next time increment state. Hence if you know everything influencing an electron's position path, I believe Heisenberg would say of course you would be able to calculate what it's future position would be. Basically, Heisenberg's objections are extremely realistic. Taking Belle's experiment or Belle's inequality for example, this result would imply that to have the necessary information governing a particle's, such as an electron's, position, you would need a instrument that measures all properties of everything in the universe, to as much accuracy as the prediction you wish to make, at an instant of time. Then you could make an excellent prediction of where the electron would be the next time step. Many classical physicists would equally love such a machine because it would insert numbers in their calculations where they too also used to have probability distributions.

Aaron

[beggarsu]

Dear all,

My past few post may have seemed tangential and getting off topic. But I am very grateful for the opportunity the developments in this thread have allowed me to show an importance of qigong and parallel with science and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and hence get a bit back on topic of this thread of dispelling untruths of many people's understanding of qigong.

Although the theoretical machine proposed in my last post seems to present a realistic impossibility, this highlights a uniqueness of qigong. A quick comparison of some of the long continuous lines of qigong (lineages) containing the knowledge of past masters and much useful information with the recent, much much shorter, and discontinuous developments and knowledge of science gives an immediate conclusion of which is more capable of providing more accurate predictions.

[mping]

a bit off topic

I guess most regular people don't ever understand that all the physics models are just empirical models based on experience, and that are true only until the next theory arises. That is happening since the dawn of times, a classic example would be newtonian physics doesn't work on an atomic scale. The current state of physics pretty much sums it up, with multiple string and superstring theories. On my opinion physics is just one way of explaining things. In history, lots of physics rules considered as "true" are constantly being dismissed.

For instance, in regards to quantum entanglement there is an experience where 2 entangled particles were sent to 2 distant villages. When one particle moved, the other moved the opposite way in such a small fraction of time that the information needed to go from one village to another would be traveling at much much higher speed than the speed of light. Check for instance: http://www.eu.socialtext.net/wired-m...es_communicate
or this:

http://www.eu.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?why_is_fundamental_physics_so_messy

Oh, and I think the Heisenberg principle was about the position and the linear momentum, which is just a little bit different...

Sorry for off-topic, it happened because I like physics

[The Muid]

No illiterate farmer needs to wait for proof of gravity from the nonetheless great scientist Sir Isaac Newton before they know that an apple falls earthwards.Do you love your loved ones ? Do you need a randomised double blind cross over scientific study to know that ( conducted perhaps by a loveless scientist )?

Gravity was there even before modern science .
Truth was there even before modern science or pre-renaissance science.
In fact modern western science does not know everything about the human being or the world and the latest science of quantum physics declares that experimental results varies depending on the mind frame of the observing scientist.

If you are egocentric , you see your self-importance in all things.
If you are humble , you are able to consider a bigger picture of you and others.
If you are totally selfless , you see the Truth .

Modern science is a valid tool but it does not represent the truth or is the only paradigm in life.
Any wholesome scientist needs the realm of experiential Art to bring the realm of Science to the next renaissance.


Proof of breath ? Just breath .
Proof of love ? Be loving .
Proof of you being alive ? Continue living.
Proof of death ? Wait for your turn, this is 100% guaranteed to come , unless God changed the rules.
Proof of chi kung ? Go chi kunging !

WOW, can I just say what a fantastic argument that was (found it on page 12). Great arguments. You totally owned that guy!!!



Best to all,

Diarmuid

[Bong Sau]

They don't seem to work. Certainly not. They don't remove the illness, they just mask it. And given the awful reports of addictive and suicidal results, I certainly wouldn't call that an effective medecine.

Uh, do you have any experience with this?

I do. I represent people with all kinds of psychotic symptoms. These people cannot function normally and sometimes they will kill themselves.

By my definitions, the ability to function normally and a substantially reduced possibility of suicide represents substantial success.

If you don't believe me, experience someone with this kind of problem while they're taking their meds, and then when they stop.

[Bong Sau]

I still see much of this discussion as a debate as to how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

I've seen Dr. Yang's talk on Taiji. Dr. Yang was a physics professor, I believe.

He talks about:

Power = I squared X resistance

(sorry, don't know how to do super here)

and

potential difference = I X R

If you want to increase power, increasing I is more efficient because it is squared and resistance is not.

I is Qi. Internal styles work on increasing I via concentration.

According to Dr. Yang, Qi is the connection between mind and action. In Western science that would be nerve fibers and bio-electric energy.

Hard styles go about it the opposite way by developing techniques first, and then eventually developing the mind and Qi. According to Dr. Yang, these are just different paths to the same end.

Relating this back to the original topic--gangbanging of Baguamonk--it still rubs me the wrong way. He may very well have found another path that leads him to the same place that you all think you have found. Sorry, but I don't know. You don't know.

Perhaps it's not how many angels dance on the head of a pin after all? Nor is it about Chi, nor Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

At the end of the day here perhaps it's more about testosterone?

If so I respectfully suggest that you might get a better rise out of the Neanderthals over at Bullshido.

[Luo Lang]

Originally posted by Bong Sau:
I do. I represent people with all kinds of psychotic symptoms. These people cannot function normally and sometimes they will kill themselves.

May I ask kindly ask you of whom you are the representive of? I can't see any details about you. I am sure there is a reason for it, but you seem to be be a capacity in your area, so why do you hide yourself?

[Antonius]

Hi Bong Sau,

Relating this back to the original topic--gangbanging of Baguamonk--it still rubs me the wrong way. He may very well have found another path that leads him to the same place that you all think you have found. Sorry, but I don't know. You don't know.

Gangbanging? Oh please.

I'm sorry that it rubs you the wrong way, but I disagree with your conclusion, and that may very well be the crux. I agree that there are many different paths to the same place, but I don't agree that Baguamonk is on a path leading to the same place as ours. Specifically, I don't think he has much internal development.

You say that I don't know, and it's true. I don't know for sure, but I can form an opinion based on the evidence he provides us with his own words. He could be totally misrepresenting himself here. He could also be a 12-year-old girl. After all, these are just words on a screen. But if what he says is an accurate description of his experience, then I have a pretty good idea about his internal development.

An analogy might be helpful. I've tasted a durian. If a guy on an Internet forum describes the taste of a durian, and the description is totally inaccurate, then I'll know that he hasn't actually tasted a durian. It's obvious to me. But if a third person reading the forum also hasn't tasted a Durian, then it won't be obvious to him.

Perhaps the reason this thread rubs you the wrong way is because, ultimately, you don't believe what I'm saying. Perhaps you assume that all internal martial arts are on a similar path. The sad truth, whether or not you realize it yet, is that many, many so-called internal martial artists, even those with decades of training, have little or no experience of internal force.

Best regards,

[Bong Sau]

May I ask kindly ask you of whom you are the representive of? I can't see any details about you. I am sure there is a reason for it, but you seem to be be a capacity in your area, so why do you hide yourself?

I am a lawyer. I'm not hiding anything. I'm having a discussion.

[Bong Sau]

Hi Bong Sau,

Gangbanging? Oh please.

I'm sorry that it rubs you the wrong way, but I disagree with your conclusion, and that may very well be the crux. I agree that there are many different paths to the same place, but I don't agree that Baguamonk is on a path leading to the same place as ours. Specifically, I don't think he has much internal development.

You say that I don't know, and it's true. I don't know for sure, but I can form an opinion based on the evidence he provides us with his own words. He could be totally misrepresenting himself here. He could also be a 12-year-old girl. After all, these are just words on a screen. But if what he says is an accurate description of his experience, then I have a pretty good idea about his internal development.

An analogy might be helpful. I've tasted a durian. If a guy on an Internet forum describes the taste of a durian, and the description is totally inaccurate, then I'll know that he hasn't actually tasted a durian. It's obvious to me. But if a third person reading the forum also hasn't tasted a Durian, then it won't be obvious to him.

Perhaps the reason this thread rubs you the wrong way is because, ultimately, you don't believe what I'm saying. Perhaps you assume that all internal martial arts are on a similar path. The sad truth, whether or not you realize it yet, is that many, many so-called internal martial artists, even those with decades of training, have little or no experience of internal force.

Best regards,

Of course I too could be a 12 year old girl.

I can only tell you that I am not a 12 year old girl. Then, you are correct. You have to decide whether I have actually tasted Durian.

Actually I have no idea what Durian is, so you've got one on me there.

The truth is neither happy nor sad. I have been honest with you in telling you that neither my martial arts experience nor knowledge are anywhere near the equivalent of yours. However I my life experience and limited martial arts experience tells me that martial arts must be about the same as any other human activity. That is, it varies from individual to individual, and it is all over the map.

I'm sorry for the use of the word "gangbang". I am a lawyer and sometimes I tend to argue more aggressively than is necessary.

And "rubs me the wrong way" is probably too harsh a phrase. This isn't the first time I have said this to you. Actually, Sifu Anthony, I'm just trying to take this in and sort this out.

Baguamonk seems to me to be quite knowledgeable. I don't really understand what you have against him and perhaps I never will.

One thing I do understand, too, is that the people who have attained the kind of internal development that you're referring to, those in the top 1%, spend a lot of time doing it--a lot more time than I would ever have.