Joerie, joerie, botter en brood,
as ek jou kry, slaat ek jou dood

Monday, January 15, 2018


The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

Nobody understands what consciousness is or how it works. Nobody understands quantum mechanics either. Could that be more than coincidence?

"I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem."
The American physicist Richard Feynman said this about the notorious puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics, the theory physicists use to describe the tiniest objects in the Universe. But he might as well have been talking about the equally knotty problem of consciousness.
Some scientists think we already understand what consciousness is, or that it is a mere illusion. But many others feel we have not grasped where consciousness comes from at all.
The perennial puzzle of consciousness has even led some researchers to invoke quantum physics to explain it. That notion has always been met with skepticism, which is not surprising: it does not sound wise to explain one mystery with another. But such ideas are not obviously absurd, and neither are they arbitrary.
For one thing, the mind seemed, to the great discomfort of physicists, to force its way into early quantum theory. What's more, quantum computers are predicted to be capable of accomplishing things ordinary computers cannot, which reminds us of how our brains can achieve things that are still beyond artificial intelligence. "Quantum consciousness" is widely derided as mystical woo, but it just will not go away.
Quantum mechanics is the best theory we have for describing the world at the nuts-and-bolts level of atoms and subatomic particles. Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.
When this "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science: that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us. If the way the world behaves depends on how – or if – we look at it, what can "reality" really mean?
Some of those researchers felt forced to conclude that objectivity was an illusion, and that consciousness has to be allowed an active role in quantum theory. To others, that did not make sense. Surely, Albert Einstein once complained, the Moon does not exist only when we look at it!
Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works.
Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?
These ideas are speculative, and it may turn out that quantum physics has no fundamental role either for or in the workings of the mind. But if nothing else, these possibilities show just how strangely quantum theory forces us to think.
The most famous intrusion of the mind into quantum mechanics comes in the "double-slit experiment". Imagine shining a beam of light at a screen that contains two closely-spaced parallel slits. Some of the light passes through the slits, whereupon it strikes another screen.
Light can be thought of as a kind of wave, and when waves emerge from two slits like this they can interfere with each other. If their peaks coincide, they reinforce each other, whereas if a peak and a trough coincide, they cancel out. This wave interference is called diffraction, and it produces a series of alternating bright and dark stripes on the back screen, where the light waves are either reinforced or cancelled out.
This experiment was understood to be a characteristic of wave behaviour over 200 years ago, well before quantum theory existed.
The double slit experiment can also be performed with quantum particles like electrons; tiny charged particles that are components of atoms. In a counter-intuitive twist, these particles can behave like waves. That means they can undergo diffraction when a stream of them passes through the two slits, producing an interference pattern.
Now suppose that the quantum particles are sent through the slits one by one, and their arrival at the screen is likewise seen one by one. Now there is apparently nothing for each particle to interfere with along its route – yet nevertheless the pattern of particle impacts that builds up over time reveals interference bands.
The implication seems to be that each particle passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself. This combination of "both paths at once" is known as a superposition state.
But here is the really odd thing.
If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.
The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."
If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window.
And it gets even stranger.
If nature seems to be changing its behaviour depending on whether we "look" or not, we could try to trick it into showing its hand. To do so, we could measure which path a particle took through the double slits, but only after it has passed through them. By then, it ought to have "decided" whether to take one path or both.
An experiment for doing this was proposed in the 1970s by the American physicist John Wheeler, and this "delayed choice" experiment was performed in the following decade. It uses clever techniques to make measurements on the paths of quantum particles (generally, particles of light, called photons) after they should have chosen whether to take one path or a superposition of two.
It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon's path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference.
It is as if nature "knows" not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.
Whenever, in these experiments, we discover the path of a quantum particle, its cloud of possible routes "collapses" into a single well-defined state. What's more, the delayed-choice experiment implies that the sheer act of noticing, rather than any physical disturbance caused by measuring, can cause the collapse. But does this mean that true collapse has only happened when the result of a measurement impinges on our consciousness?
That possibility was admitted in the 1930s by the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner. "It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness," he wrote. "Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics."
Wheeler even entertained the thought that the presence of living beings, which are capable of "noticing", has transformed what was previously a multitude of possible quantum pasts into one concrete history. In this sense, Wheeler said, we become participants in the evolution of the Universe since its very beginning. In his words, we live in a "participatory universe."
To this day, physicists do not agree on the best way to interpret these quantum experiments, and to some extent what you make of them is (at the moment) up to you. But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.
Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.
What if, Penrose asked, there are molecular structures in our brains that are able to alter their state in response to a single quantum event. Could not these structures then adopt a superposition state, just like the particles in the double slit experiment? And might those quantum superpositions then show up in the ways neurons are triggered to communicate via electrical signals?
Maybe, says Penrose, our ability to sustain seemingly incompatible mental states is no quirk of perception, but a real quantum effect.
After all, the human brain seems able to handle cognitive processes that still far exceed the capabilities of digital computers. Perhaps we can even carry out computational tasks that are impossible on ordinary computers, which use classical digital logic.
Penrose first proposed that quantum effects feature in human cognition in his 1989 book The Emperor's New Mind. The idea is called Orch-OR, which is short for "orchestrated objective reduction". The phrase "objective reduction" means that, as Penrose believes, the collapse of quantum interference and superposition is a real, physical process, like the bursting of a bubble.
Orch-OR draws on Penrose's suggestion that gravity is responsible for the fact that everyday objects, such as chairs and planets, do not display quantum effects. Penrose believes that quantum superpositions become impossible for objects much larger than atoms, because their gravitational effects would then force two incompatible versions of space-time to coexist.
Penrose developed this idea further with American physician Stuart Hameroff. In his 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, he suggested that the structures involved in this quantum cognition might be protein strands called microtubules. These are found in most of our cells, including the neurons in our brains. Penrose and Hameroff argue that vibrations of microtubules can adopt a quantum superposition.
But there is no evidence that such a thing is remotely feasible.
It has been suggested that the idea of quantum superpositions in microtubules is supported by experiments described in 2013, but in fact those studies made no mention of quantum effects.
Besides, most researchers think that the Orch-OR idea was ruled out by a study published in 2000. Physicist Max Tegmark calculated that quantum superpositions of the molecules involved in neural signaling could not survive for even a fraction of the time needed for such a signal to get anywhere.
Quantum effects such as superposition are easily destroyed, because of a process called decoherence. This is caused by the interactions of a quantum object with its surrounding environment, through which the "quantumness" leaks away.
Decoherence is expected to be extremely rapid in warm and wet environments like living cells.
Nerve signals are electrical pulses, caused by the passage of electrically-charged atoms across the walls of nerve cells. If one of these atoms was in a superposition and then collided with a neuron, Tegmark showed that the superposition should decay in less than one billion billionth of a second. It takes at least ten thousand trillion times as long for a neuron to discharge a signal.
As a result, ideas about quantum effects in the brain are viewed with great skepticism.
However, Penrose is unmoved by those arguments and stands by the Orch-OR hypothesis. And despite Tegmark's prediction of ultra-fast decoherence in cells, other researchers have found evidence for quantum effects in living beings. Some argue that quantum mechanics is harnessed by migratory birds that use magnetic navigation, and by green plants when they use sunlight to make sugars in photosynthesis.
Besides, the idea that the brain might employ quantum tricks shows no sign of going away. For there is now another, quite different argument for it.
In a study published in 2015, physicist Matthew Fisher of the University of California at Santa Barbara argued that the brain might contain molecules capable of sustaining more robust quantum superpositions. Specifically, he thinks that the nuclei of phosphorus atoms may have this ability.
Phosphorus atoms are everywhere in living cells. They often take the form of phosphate ions, in which one phosphorus atom joins up with four oxygen atoms.
Such ions are the basic unit of energy within cells. Much of the cell's energy is stored in molecules called ATP, which contain a string of three phosphate groups joined to an organic molecule. When one of the phosphates is cut free, energy is released for the cell to use.
Cells have molecular machinery for assembling phosphate ions into groups and cleaving them off again. Fisher suggested a scheme in which two phosphate ions might be placed in a special kind of superposition called an "entangled state".
The phosphorus nuclei have a quantum property called spin, which makes them rather like little magnets with poles pointing in particular directions. In an entangled state, the spin of one phosphorus nucleus depends on that of the other.
Put another way, entangled states are really superposition states involving more than one quantum particle.
Fisher says that the quantum-mechanical behaviour of these nuclear spins could plausibly resist decoherence on human timescales. He agrees with Tegmark that quantum vibrations, like those postulated by Penrose and Hameroff, will be strongly affected by their surroundings "and will decohere almost immediately". But nuclear spins do not interact very strongly with their surroundings.
All the same, quantum behaviour in the phosphorus nuclear spins would have to be "protected" from decoherence.
This might happen, Fisher says, if the phosphorus atoms are incorporated into larger objects called "Posner molecules". These are clusters of six phosphate ions, combined with nine calcium ions. There is some evidence that they can exist in living cells, though this is currently far from conclusive.
In Posner molecules, Fisher argues, phosphorus spins could resist decoherence for a day or so, even in living cells. That means they could influence how the brain works.
The idea is that Posner molecules can be swallowed up by neurons. Once inside, the Posner molecules could trigger the firing of a signal to another neuron, by falling apart and releasing their calcium ions.  
Because of entanglement in Posner molecules, two such signals might thus in turn become entangled: a kind of quantum superposition of a "thought", you might say. "If quantum processing with nuclear spins is in fact present in the brain, it would be an extremely common occurrence, happening pretty much all the time," Fisher says.
He first got this idea when he started thinking about mental illness.
"My entry into the biochemistry of the brain started when I decided three or four years ago to explore how on earth the lithium ion could have such a dramatic effect in treating mental conditions," Fisher says.
Lithium drugs are widely used for treating bipolar disorder. They work, but nobody really knows how.
"I wasn't looking for a quantum explanation," Fisher says. But then he came across a paper reporting that lithium drugs had different effects on the behaviour of rats, depending on what form – or "isotope" – of lithium was used.
On the face of it, that was extremely puzzling. In chemical terms, different isotopes behave almost identically, so if the lithium worked like a conventional drug the isotopes should all have had the same effect.
But Fisher realised that the nuclei of the atoms of different lithium isotopes can have different spins. This quantum property might affect the way lithium drugs act. For example, if lithium substitutes for calcium in Posner molecules, the lithium spins might "feel" and influence those of phosphorus atoms, and so interfere with their entanglement.
If this is true, it would help to explain why lithium can treat bipolar disorder.
At this point, Fisher's proposal is no more than an intriguing idea. But there are several ways in which its plausibility can be tested, starting with the idea that phosphorus spins in Posner molecules can keep their quantum coherence for long periods. That is what Fisher aims to do next.
All the same, he is wary of being associated with the earlier ideas about "quantum consciousness", which he sees as highly speculative at best.
Physicists are not terribly comfortable with finding themselves inside their theories. Most hope that consciousness and the brain can be kept out of quantum theory, and perhaps vice versa. After all, we do not even know what consciousness is, let alone have a theory to describe it.
It does not help that there is now a New Age cottage industrydevoted to notions of "quantum consciousness", claiming that quantum mechanics offers plausible rationales for such things as telepathy and telekinesis.
As a result, physicists are often embarrassed to even mention the words "quantum" and "consciousness" in the same sentence.
But setting that aside, the idea has a long history. Ever since the "observer effect" and the mind first insinuated themselves into quantum theory in the early days, it has been devilishly hard to kick them out. A few researchers think we might never manage to do so.
In 2016, Adrian Kent of the University of Cambridge in the UK, one of the most respected "quantum philosophers", speculated that consciousness might alter the behaviour of quantum systems in subtle but detectable ways.  
Kent is very cautious about this idea. "There is no compelling reason of principle to believe that quantum theory is the right theory in which to try to formulate a theory of consciousness, or that the problems of quantum theory must have anything to do with the problem of consciousness," he admits.
But he says that it is hard to see how a description of consciousness based purely on pre-quantum physics can account for all the features it seems to have.
One particularly puzzling question is how our conscious minds can experience unique sensations, such as the colour red or the smell of frying bacon. With the exception of people with visual impairments, we all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation and there is nothing in physics that tells us what it should be like.

Sensations like this are called "qualia". We perceive them as unified properties of the outside world, but in fact they are products of our consciousness – and that is hard to explain. Indeed, in 1995 philosopher David Chalmers dubbed it "the hard problem" of consciousness.
"Every line of thought on the relationship of consciousness to physics runs into deep trouble," says Kent.
This has prompted him to suggest that "we could make some progress on understanding the problem of the evolution of consciousness if we supposed that consciousnesses alters (albeit perhaps very slightly and subtly) quantum probabilities."
In other words, the mind could genuinely affect the outcomes of measurements.
It does not, in this view, exactly determine "what is real". But it might affect the chance that each of the possible actualities permitted by quantum mechanics is the one we do in fact observe, in a way that quantum theory itself cannot predict. Kent says that we might look for such effects experimentally.
He even bravely estimates the chances of finding them. "I would give credence of perhaps 15% that something specifically to do with consciousness causes deviations from quantum theory, with perhaps 3% credence that this will be experimentally detectable within the next 50 years," he says.
If that happens, it would transform our ideas about both physics and the mind. That seems a chance worth exploring.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017



December 14, 2017

Our intuition develops when we are babies, long before we are indoctrinated into Newtonian physics – which largely prohibits us from understanding the quantum world. Ironically, one of our first intellectual abilities – intuition – may be one of the greatest forms of intelligence we will ever experience in a “grown-up” world.
In the quantum world, there are no “positions” nor “speed.” These are classical, mechanical terms for a world that doesn’t really exist. Yet, as tiny babies we understand how things work without having a clear grasp of certain intellectual realities.
Psychologists Susan Hespos from Northwestern University, and Renee Baillargeon of University of Illinois found that this physical intuition kicks in as early as two and a half months, and other scientists think that intuition is probably present from birth.
Gerd Gigerenzer, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, argues that intuition is less about suddenly “knowing” the right answer and more about instinctively understanding what information is unimportant and can thus be discarded, but even if we have intuition at birth, one could argue that we have yet to develop the intellectual capacity to learn which information can be discarded.
Yet innate notions, plus “elaborations” born from watching and interacting with the world, add up to a sort of “naïve physics” that we all grasp before having a single physics lesson.
Max Born, who received the 1954 Nobel Prize for his contributions to the foundation of quantum mechanics, felt that our minds just weren’t up to the task of “intuiting” quantum physics. As he wrote in “Atomic Physics,” first published in English in 1935,
“The ultimate origin of the difficulty lies in the fact (or philosophical principle) that we are compelled to use the words of common language when we wish to describe a phenomenon, not by logical or mathematical analysis, but by a picture appealing to the imagination. Common language has grown by everyday experience and can never surpass these limits.”
Aristotle’s 2,300-year-old theories, in which heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and objects in motion ease to a stop unless you keep pushing them have been our assumption until now, but in the quantum world there is no friction. Objects can appear and disappear merely with our observation of them.

Some of Our Biggest Life Decisions are Based on Intuition

The fact that our minds have evolved past avoiding being eaten so that we can also appreciate a great symphony or a breath-taking sunset might also account for the development of our intuition – or be explained further by quantum consciousness.
Gerd Gigerenzer, author of the book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, says that he is both intuitive and rational. He states,
“In my scientific work, I have hunches. I can’t explain always why I think a certain path is the right way, but I need to trust it and go ahead. I also have the ability to check these hunches and find out what they are about. That’s the science part. Now, in private life, I rely on instinct. For instance, when I first met my wife, I didn’t do computations. Nor did she.”
In fact, some of our biggest life decisions are based on a “hunch” and not some Newtonian calculation of reality. And that hunch is often extremely successful at telling us what to do in many varied, hands-on, real-life applications. Why?

Quantum Computing Merely Mimics Quantum Intuition

It all makes more sense once we understand the latest research into quantum computing.
Regular computers use bits for processing. Everything is either a 1 or a 0, and from this foundation all letters and numbers can be created, and mathematical and logical problems solved.
When an atom replaces the bit, however, a 1 or 0 can be both a 1 or 0 at the same time. This means that complex mathematical calculations which might take millions of bits, and take up tons of storage space in a regular computer, can be compacted and done simultaneously, thus freeing up memory, and performing calculations at an unbelievable speed. However, out innate intuition may work in the very same way – tapping into the Quantum Intelligence that permeates all things.
If the Universe is indeed fractal, and connected and holographic, it would mean that a single atom contains the information of every Universe.
Since we are nothing more than a compilation of atoms (the wave-particle phenomenon notwithstanding) then we can tap into a quantum information/energy field. To use quantum computing terms, we could intuitively process large pieces of information or complex information in the blink of an eye because we are utilizing this field rather than some clunky 1s and 0s.

Physicists Use Human Intuition to Develop Better Quantum Computing

Interestingly, and quite a slap in the face to Max Born who proposed we were incapable of quantum intuition, physicists recently used human intuition and intelligence to create a better quantum computer.
150,000 people played a game called Quantum Moves several million times to help physicists to best determine real-world questions in their field.
Just playing a game, players solved real research questions in quantum physics, and found solutions that were better than trained physicists or state-of-the-art algorithms could find.
That’s worth a moment of reflection.
While this proves human intelligence is still better than AI, it also suggests that intuition is likely derived from the quantum field, of which we are all a part.
About the Author
Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. PriceNexusAtlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She has been invited to appear on numerous radio shows, including Health Conspiracy Radio, Dr. Gregory Smith’s Show, and dozens more. The second edition of her book, Pharma Sutra, will be released soon.
This article (Why Your Intuition May Be the Highest Form of Intelligencewas originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Christina Sarich and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017


Beste Hendrik

(Ek haal jou skrywe aan die einde van die brief aan.)

Aangesien ek nie oor 'n Facebookblad beskik nie, het my goeie kameraad my goedgunstiglik oor jou besondere skrywe op die GRENSOORLOG/BORDER WAR 1966 - 1989-blad ingelig.

Aangesien ek verder minstens tien jaar ouer is as jy, het ons SAW-betrokkenheid nie presies dieselfde verloop nie, maar tóg naby genoeg dat ek met jou kan identifiseer, veral met verwysing na 101 Bn - ek is in 1977 saam met sersante Selwyn Gray en Lawrie Evans van 2 Regiment Algoabaai op "afgedeelde diens" na die oorspronklike 1 Owambo Bataljon gestuur om die eerste inname Owambos by die opleidings- en administratiewe basis in Ondangwa op te lei.

Al wás die meeste Owambotroepe (waaronder die latere genl Karel Ndjoba) daar vir die geld, was die vordering wat ons binne enkele weke met die "rou Owambos uit die bos" gemaak het, fenomenaal.

Aan die einde van die 3-maande kamp het ek, terug in die "States", tot die regsberoep toegetree as staatsaanklaer in Port Shepstone en ses maande later as prokureursklerk by die firma Van onselen & Lewies op Potgietersrus - die twee beste prokureurs waarmee ek in my lewe te doene gekry het, maar baie kort na die aanvang van my klerkskap het ek besef dat dit in die regsberoep primêr oor geld gaan en dat die res bysaak is.

Terwyl ek my prinsipaal bygestaan het in 'n saak van onwettige jag deur 'n polisiesersant in die landdroshof op Messina, het ek besef dat ek moes ontsnap aan dié situasie en aangesien die werk wat ek by 1 Ow Bn gedoen het vir my só sinvol was, het ek kortdiens aangesluit op voorwaarde dat ek teruggaan na 1 Ow Bn.

Ek is einde-1978 terug na Ondangwa, maar intussen het 1 Ow Bn se naam verander na 35 Bn. Gelukkig was maj Willie Snyders, wat nou kommandant Snyders was, nog steeds die bevelvoerder.

Hulle kon my ongelukkig nie weer as instrukteur aanwend nie en ek is na die operasionele basis te Omahanene gestuur waar ek as KSM waargeneem het onder bevel van kapt André Meier.

Gedurende 'n "plaaslik-georganiseerde" operasie (ek dink dit is "Ops Baksteen" genoem) het die 2ib, luit André Scholtz, my in die Suide van Angola met sy "ge-gyppo-de" outomatiese R1 in die regter bo-arm en in die maag geskiet.

Terwyl ek in die ou 1 Mil was, het ek aansoek gedoen vir 'n oorplasing na militêre inligting, maar dis geweier "aangesien my fisieke toestand nie na wense was nie" - as gevolg van 'n grootliks verlamde linkerbeen kon ek nog nooit weer sedert 1 Julie 1979 hardloop of draf nie...

My lewe was in 'n warboel en ek is van 1 Mil af terug na my ouerhuis in PE waar ek ek my klerkskap by die Jodefirma Burman, Blumberg & Saks voltooi het en is later in Pretoria as prokureur toegelaat.

Ek is in 1981 met my (Suid-Afrikaansgebore) Vlaamse meisie van universiteitsdae getroud en in 1991 het ons ná FW de Klerk en die Nasionale Party se verraad teenoor die Afrikanervolk (ernstig teen my sin) uitgewyk na Vlaanderen met ons drie seuntjies van 1, 2 en 3 jaar, met dien verstande dat ek "in 'n oogwink terug sal wees, die dag wanneer ek 'benodig' word.
Ek het my vrou gewaarsku dat dit waarskynlik binne ses maande sou wees...

Inmiddels is al drie seuns al "huisuit" en het ek al oupa geword en nog steeds word ek nie "benodig" nie, maar my lewe hier was hoegenaamd nie sinneloos nie.

Ek het híér agtergekom hóé rég PW Botha en Magnus Malan was oor die "totale aanslag".
Dit was nie net 'n totale aanslag teen "Blank Suid-Afrika" en die Afrikaner nie, maar weliswaar teen die gehele blanke ras.
Suid-Afrika was die eerste proeflopie vir 'n latere globale aanslag wat vandag wêreldwyd in alle felheid gevoer word.

Om tot hierdie insig te kom, was ek egter verplig om 'n hele paar "seders in Waterkloof" te laat val en 'n klompie heilige Kaapse koeie te slag.
Só het ek tot die besef gekom dat die Afrikaner sélf deel is van die BMWS: Bedrog, Misleiding, Wanvoorstelling en Swendelary waardeur die destydse Boerevolk se aartsvyand, te wete die Britte, deur middel van hulle geheime agente, Louis Botha, JBM Hertzog en Jan Smuts oorgegaan het tot die kunsmatige skepping van die Afrikanervolk om die Boerevolk finaal te vernietig en sy plek in te neem.

Indien jy so voel, kan ons in 'n volgende gesprek besin oor die bedenklike rol wat die kerk deur middel van die Joods-Christelik-Islamitiese Drie-Eenheidsgodsdiens gespeel het om die Boerevolk te kondisioneer en selfs te indoktrineer en sodoende ten gronde te rig...


Petrus Potgieter 

Goeie dag almal,
Hierdie is my eerste plasing op hierdie groep. Kortliks my diensplig rekord; 1984: 2 SAI Rooikop, Infanterieskool,
1985: 101 Bn, RM 6
Al my kampe voltooi.
Ek bly en werk in die VSA waaroor ek al verskeie negatiewe aanklagtes gekry het. My standpunt is egter dit:
In my eie land was my werksloopbaan en opsies in my lyn van ervaring in n doodloop straat, ek bly egter patrioties en is in n oogwink terug, die dag wanneer ek "benodig" word..
Ek sal soveel moontlik konstruktiewe kommentaar op die volgende waardeer:
Gedurende diensplig was ons opgelei en geleer in die doelstellings en beginsels van die rewolusionere aanslag teen ons land en volk, ek dink ek hoef hieroor of oor die 3Susterskerke se ondersteuning hiervan uit te brei nie. Iets wat my ernstig geraak het en wat almal van ons ervaar het was n spesifieke doelstelling en ek kan nie die woorde onthou nie, maar dit was iets soos "kill the innocent recentlessly and run from the strong shamelessly"
N ernstige bekommernis tans vir my is die byna weeklikse plasings op fb oor die verdwyning van jong kinders in SA, studente wat doodgemaak word en die grondbesettings dreigemente deur n nuwe groep millitantes..
Verskeie mense se vir my die meeste van dit is vals nuus of waardelose dreigemente.
Ek is nie n rassis nie (per spesifieke definisie) en ek glo die meerderheid mense oor die wereld wil maar net die basiese dinge he (Maslow) maar ek was in die weermag en ek weet hoe maklik word mense geindoktrineer.
My vraag is dit..
Hier is n groep met duisende lede, die plasings is meestal maar van n klein groepie, die wat ek sien ieg, wat moet gedoen word? Ons hoor niks meer van die rewolusionere aanslag nie, als word geregverdig deur n apartheidsverskoning.. wat is hierdie stadige en verspreide aanslagte anders as rewolusionere oorlogvoering?
Ek het kinders in SA wat daar wil bly en daar n toekoms wil begin, maar is dit nog moontlik? Ek is so telleurgesteld in ons kerke, behalwe die voetewas eskapade, word die huidige demoniese aanslag teen ons volk totaal ontken..
Ek glo in gebed, maar ek glo ook in objektiwiteit en realisme en ek glo in die respek vir alle lewe, dit is tog deur ons God geskep.
Wat staan ons te doen? Ek het pyn in my hart elke keer as ek die fb plasings sien oor ons kinders wat so verdwyn, oor boere wat vermoor word, ek plaas nie n "amen" of n "like" ek huil in my hart en ek wonder oor die groot vraag in die Bybel, die een wat eendag vir ons elkeen gevra gaan word - "wat het jy gedoen?""

Monday, May 15, 2017



February 3, 2015
Josh Richardson, Prevent Disease

Everything exists in the present moment and it’s a fundamental principle of the Universe that many of our scientists are still trying to grasp. Time does not actually exist and Quantum Theory proves it. There are things that are closer to you in time, and things that are further away, just as there are things that are near or far away in space. But the idea that time flows past you is just as absurd as the suggestion that space does.
The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny).
According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, there is no way to specify events that everyone can agree happen simultaneously. Two events that are both “now” to you will happen at different times for anyone moving at another speed. Other people will see a different now that might contain elements of your's but equally might not.
The result is a picture known as the block universe: the universe seen from that impossible vantage point outside space and time. You can by all means mark what you think is “now” with a red dot, but there is nothing that distinguishes that place from any other, except that you are there. Past and future are no more physically distinguished than left and right.
The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now – they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real.
Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But theWheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.
“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time – that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.”
One might say that when we better understand consciousness we will better understand time. Consciousness is the formless, invisible field of energy of infinite dimension and potentiality, the substrate of all existence, independent of time, space, or location, of which it is independent yet all inclusive and all present. It encompasses all existence beyond all limitation, dimension, or time, and registers all events, no matter how seemingly miniscule, such as even a fleeting thought. The interrelationship between time and consciousness from the human perspective is limited, when in fact it is unlimited.
There Is No Such Thing As Time
Julian Barbour’s solution to the problem of time in physics and cosmology is as simply stated as it is radical: there is no such thing as time.
“If you try to get your hands on time, it’s always slipping through your fingers,” says Barbour. “People are sure time is there, but they can’t get hold of it. My feeling is that they can’t get hold of it because it isn’t there at all.” Barbour speaks with a disarming English charm that belies an iron resolve and confidence in his science. His extreme perspective comes from years of looking into the heart of both classical and quantum physics. Isaac Newton thought of time as a river flowing at the same rate everywhere. Einstein changed this picture by unifying space and time into a single 4-D entity. But even Einstein failed to challenge the concept of time as a measure of change. In Barbour’s view, the question must be turned on its head. It is change that provides the illusion of time. Channeling the ghost of Parmenides, Barbour sees each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. He calls these moments “Nows.”
“As we live, we seem to move through a succession of Nows,” says Barbour, “and the question is, what are they?” For Barbour each Now is an arrangement of everything in the universe. “We have the strong impression that things have definite positions relative to each other. I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see (directly or indirectly) and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once. There are simply the Nows, nothing more, nothing less.”
Barbour’s Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book’s spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity existing without time, existing outside of time. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them in a step-by-step fashion makes a story unfold. Still, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. As Barbour says, “The cat that jumps is not the same cat that lands.” The physics of reality for Barbour is the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole. There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour’s Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time.
Our illusion of the past arises because each Now contains objects that appear as “records” in Barbour’s language. “The only evidence you have of last week is your memory. But memory comes from a stable structure of neurons in your brain now. The only evidence we have of the Earth’s past is rocks and fossils. But these are just stable structures in the form of an arrangement of minerals we examine in the present. The point is, all we have are these records and you only have them in this Now.”
Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe.
The word “Mechanics” used in the term “Quantum Mechanics” indicates a machine like predictable, buildable, knowable thing. The Quantum Universe in which we live, whether we want to accept it or not, may seem on the surface to be mechanical and linear but it is not. It is probably better described as an infinite multitude of possible linear actions. If we must give this still mystical process a name lets call it “Quantum Ecology” rather than “Quantum Mechanics” because it is built from within it’s self. Everything comes out of the invisible in the same way as any living organism does.
In quantum mechanics all particles of matter and energy can also be described as waves. And waves have an unusual property: An infinite number of them can exist in the same location. If time and space are one day shown to consist of quanta, the quanta could all exist piled together in a single dimensionless point.
The current predominant world paradigm is that if a thing cannot be explained, detailed, analysed and documented by linear scientific thought processes then it’s mumbo jumbo. If you have a spiritual explanation for human existence then your'e crazy, you’re in dream land. The scientific mindset says everything in the universe must be capable of explanation either now or at some point in the future by scientific analytic methods alone. Science says “In the absence of scientific proof it’s not worth the time discussing. If it cannot be put in a box with a label then forget it. Go figure out what box you can put it in, label it, then come back to us and we’ll see if we agree”. Can you see the limitations that this puts on human development?
Quantum particle behavior cannot be explained in terms of science alone, that is to say, it cannot be explained in terms of the mind because the mind by it’s nature functions on the basis that reality consists of things, things that can be broken down into individual bits of information and explained in a linear mechanical fashion. To realise how flawed this mindset is you must first accept that this is a relative world in which we live and on the conscious level we interact with other human beings and the rest of the universe in a linear fashion. This is the nature of the mind. We must go beyond the mind to access the answers.
According to physics, your life is described by a series of slices of your worm; you as a baby, you as you ate breakfast this morning, you as you started reading this sentence and so on, with each slice existing motionless in its respective time. We generate time’s flow by thinking that the same self that ate breakfast this morning also started reading this sentence.
So do we really need to mourn time’s passing? Einstein, for one, drew solace from the view of the timeless universe he had helped to create, consoling the family of a recently deceased friend: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”