For me, there is a radical, even if philosophycal, difference between what we can know and what can exist, and the limits of the first shouldn't be assumed as the limits of the second.

Now, even if I am agiant been to picky with words (I just wrote a message toward David Nickol on that) I will have to -mea culpa-: In a quote the word "individualism" is praised, and surely collectivism as "real socialism" performed it is quite perjudicial to spiritual grow. But I can hardly consider "individualism" an acceptable alternative:

"Individualism" can perfectly fit, and often does, with egoism, egotism and the like, and normaly spiritual development, as much as is meant to produce one form or another of personal -and then yes, individual- development, is also meant to increase the capacity of the individual person to care about others.

I know that, today, in general usage of language, there is no difference between "individual" and "personal", and their derivates. Nevertheless, I think in the Christian tradition there is a very important difference indeed: In the development and calrifying of the doctrine -and understandign- of the Holy Trinity, emerged the concept of person as, yes, an individual entity with a unique identity, but also, if not always at least many times, in connection and relation to other persons, each unique in its identity, but similar in its -sorry for the term- essence.

Not to say that the experience of love, in many of its manifestacions, produce both, a depeening of the personal condition of the one who loves, and a greater concern in that person for the loved.

What I try to express is that, since the concept of "person" can embrace both, the individue and his cairng connection to others, and therefore the notion of "community" or "felowship", it sounds more christian to me. even if I have to assume the fact that, in current parlance, there woulnd't be any etihcal improvement on refering to "personalism" instead of "individualism".

And then, possibly, that could be the time for a longer explanation... Maybe?

Well; aren't objects, at the end, electromagnetics waves? Photons are particles and waves, and everything has a vibration, so everything is an "object in motion".

I remember to have read that it had been discovered that after all, even photons had a certain amount of matter.

Now, I apologize in advance if the next feel offensive, it is not my intention, but I can't express it better. I get the feeling that you attach yourself too much to words and their basic meaning, and that is not (at least not always) how language works. The fryar/scientifics used the word "objects", sure. But did he mean the "classic" object, like Galileo and Newton knew it? Or was it a general term for -it is a proposal- "every thing that can be researched", like "every object of research"?

Not only physical entities, materail or not (and look how complicated becomes every thing when we try to avoid every possible confussion or ambiguity with words), but also cultural entities, either concepts or whole civilizations, change, and can be considered "mobile" or "in motion", so that definition could be useful and well done.

Obviously, everything human-made can be improved, and even more obviously I am not trying to convince you to accpet and/or adhere to that deffinition, but only presenting my notion (my conviction if you want) that -and I, again, excuse in advance- find you claims often over critical.

A drink driver, while going home from the pub, hits a man at a crossing. When the drink driver gets his 4x4 into his garage, he realises that the guy is still lodged on the hood of his car, still alive, groaning for mercy..."get me some help, PLEASE!".

In a state of panic, the driver runs into his house and hides for four days, all the while he hears the poor chap crying from the garage. Eventually the noise stops, the guy is dead. Felling bad the drunk driver goes to the authorities. He is charge, it is discovered if he had only got the poor guy hung up on his SUV some immediate help, he'd have been fine.

So, the whole community castigates the Driver, and rightly so, what a ghastly piece of work he is. He had within his means to do something about a life or death situation, but chose do do nothing. What a piece of garbage.

Did you know over 19,000 children die daily in Africa?

Has anyone ever seriously argued a main attribute of God is "niceness" ? nice is a very "squishy" word for God, I can only imagine an ambiguous or lesser God being nice. Unless of course you are talking about a characteristic of Gods work such as nice workmanship on DNA (though I still contend nice here isn't quite "precise" enough)…then I could see an argument for the imperfection/stain of evil on his work, but then you have to deal with argument of a fallen world by man's defiance/rejection of God. And the complications of our limited wisdom of what "niceness" is; thinking we are as wise or wiser than perfect wisdom. God in his "benevolence" told us not to touch the hot stove, we didn't listen, we got burned and still haven't learned. We keep trying to touch it for wanting to prove God wrong/unwise. Thinking he's mean/stupid for telling us what we can't/shouldn't do, or for not stopping us from doing it. Who is he to deny us an experience of life? Why wouldn't he have stopped us from burning ourselves? Why did he create "hot" that hurts? So we devise ways to show we can touch the stove without getting burned. See I have an oven mitt on my hand I'm not getting burned now; see I don't need Gods wisdom, seeing the mark of the burn is our knowledge and remembrance of the event, (thats why we knew to make the mitt) but pridefully ignoring that it was God's wisdom and benevolence that told us what would happen. God's benevolence that allowed us to learn the lesson on our own leading to creating the mitt. All we've done is devise a way to temporarily solve the problem of being burned, thinking ourselves wiser, but in actuality we've only put a barrier between our knowledge and God's wisdom.
-Rob

There are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns, and mistaken knowns, so sometimes you just have to go on faith.
-Rob

OK let me go and think about the delayed slit experiment. It might be awhile !

Hi Michael,
as with the delayed choice double slit experiment above : we can hook any measuring device (Geiger counter included) to record data. We can make this process part of a bigger experiment and the decision to destroy or keep the data will affect the results of the how the matter behaves and is recorded in a later part of the experiment.
The results clearly show this. I would be very open if you could show me that it doesn't. But you must point to an experiment which shows this. Saying a big enough group of particles stops the quantum affect has to be backed up by experiments. Otherwise it has no strength behind it.
As video guy conceded in Susan's first video, entangled particles react instantaneously over any space large or small. Video man brought up the distance of the whole universe.
As my video experiment shows, the turning off of the detectors at the double slits (hence no potential knowledge) changed the way in which the matter behaves. In that case from particle to wave. The detectors were still there. Still it was a large group of atoms which did not stop the matter from acting as waves.
The detectors had to be turned on AND the data had to be available to be viewed by a conscious observer.
I am open to experimental arguments to the contrary. But they have to be based on experimental findings.

Michael, it is definitely not simply a detection device

which causes the difference but a conscious detection (or a potential conscious detection).

It would be amazing enough if it was simply a detection
device. How would an elementary wave/field etc ‘know’ it has entered a Geiger counter and it should start acting like a particle. How does it know the Geiger counter
is turned on? Or if it is working properly?

It doesn't matter if the Geiger counter is turned. All that matters is that it is a big enough assembly of particles that quantum effects no longer are important we can regard it as classical.

Wigner was certainly a great physicist but his concerns go back to the beginnings of quantum theory to a time when physicists where still trying got sort out what was happening.

Sean Carrol uses the model of fields to describe the canvas of our perceptible reality. Others use strings, others 9 or 13 dimensional space folded in on each other, etc.
As an aside these theories are a continuation from the 1740’s with the Italio-Croatian Catholic priest Joseph
Boscovich. He theorised that our perceptible reality was made from atoms containing dimensionless points caught in fields of attraction (and of repulsion at very close distances). He theorised that it was the different
arrangements of these points that led to the different properties of matter, such as strength, conductivity etc.
We know Maxwell read Boscovich, used his terminology and pioneered field theory. We know Faraday read Boscovich, used his terminology and pioneered particle physics.

How the universe behaves with regards to consciousness though is independent of the different models which seek to explain what it is made from. The video of Sean Carrol did not address the consciousness involvement in the workings of our reality.
Whatever is the best model to think about our reality, we know it behaves in different ways, categorised as particle behaviour and wave behaviour. We also know from
the experiments mentioned previously that consciousness plays an important role on whether matter behaves as a particle or a wave,

Michael, it is definitely not simply a detection device
which causes the difference but a conscious detection (or a potential conscious detection).

It would be amazing enough if it was simply a detection
device. How would an elementary wave/field etc ‘know’ it has entered a Geiger counter and it should start acting like a particle. How does it know the Geiger counter
is turned on? Or if it is working properly?

The above experiments provided in previous posts show clearly it is even more than a measuring device that causes particle behaviour. We can set up many different kinds of circuits and make matter traverse it. We can place lots of measuring devices at different parts of the circuit. We can record the data to computer and then decide afterwards whether to destroy or keep the data at different sections.
The results of whether matter acts as a wave or particle always corroborates with what we know (or potentially can know) about the matter beforehand. As I mentioned previously with the quote from the Nobel prize winner Eugene Wigner, there’s no getting around consciousness being at the heart of physical law. The obvious question is why? Which leads I believe to an even more obvious answer.

The best examples of these circuit experiments are with
electron ‘spins’ but I have included a link to a 6 part short video explaining the results of the Delayed choice Double Split experiment. In total, it is a touch shorter than the Sean Carrol video and sets the history and theory in the first 3 videos before looking at the results of the experiment in the 4th video.
I would like to hear your comments regarding the nature of our universe that this (or other experiments provided) shows.
Michael, to say again, the delayed choice experiment clearly demonstrates it is conscious knowledge and not a measuring device which effects how matter will behave.

As a disclaimer, I have no connection with the website
provided nor endorse any other of the material it houses. I’m simply using their videos because of the clarity and thoroughness of the presentation.

http://www.bottomlayer.com/

Down the page. 2nd link titled Video Presentation of
the Double Slit Experiments.