<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Telekinesis and Quantum Field Theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:26:25 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-94998</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-94998</guid>
		<description>I think that Karl has a point.  I myself am a Traditional Catholic who is fascinated by the possiblilities of the human brain.  I believe that telekenisis (forgive any misspelling) is both a spiritual and scientific probablility.  I know others may think different (and I&#039;m open to all criticism) but the fact still remains: if love has no mathmatical equation, no scientific method of experimentation, then there is no scientific way of proving its existence, yet we acknowledge it everyday, we observe its affects on others and even ourselves... But I&#039;m getting off topic and I apologize.  

Where love is not experimentally possible, then, maybe, neither is telekenisis, but yet there have been documented acounts of it (especially in Russia and Japan).  I have had my try at it myself.  The ball of energy that they all talk about feels very much like electromagnetism (I have even compared the push between two magnets and my hands).  Who knows, maybe it uses electromagnetism for all we know.  Even though we don&#039;t for sure there should always be a possibility, an oprotunity, to believe in it (even if it&#039;s in jest, or for fun).  That opprotunity should always be open despite the efforts of methodical experimentation.  Many things can be explained methodically, yes, but there&#039;s yet a minority ready to be observed if one is privy to it, or interested in it.  

Besides, we only use 10% of our brains (that&#039;s scientifically proven), but there can and there might be a way of unlock the ramaining 90%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that Karl has a point.  I myself am a Traditional Catholic who is fascinated by the possiblilities of the human brain.  I believe that telekenisis (forgive any misspelling) is both a spiritual and scientific probablility.  I know others may think different (and I&#8217;m open to all criticism) but the fact still remains: if love has no mathmatical equation, no scientific method of experimentation, then there is no scientific way of proving its existence, yet we acknowledge it everyday, we observe its affects on others and even ourselves&#8230; But I&#8217;m getting off topic and I apologize.  </p>
<p>Where love is not experimentally possible, then, maybe, neither is telekenisis, but yet there have been documented acounts of it (especially in Russia and Japan).  I have had my try at it myself.  The ball of energy that they all talk about feels very much like electromagnetism (I have even compared the push between two magnets and my hands).  Who knows, maybe it uses electromagnetism for all we know.  Even though we don&#8217;t for sure there should always be a possibility, an oprotunity, to believe in it (even if it&#8217;s in jest, or for fun).  That opprotunity should always be open despite the efforts of methodical experimentation.  Many things can be explained methodically, yes, but there&#8217;s yet a minority ready to be observed if one is privy to it, or interested in it.  </p>
<p>Besides, we only use 10% of our brains (that&#8217;s scientifically proven), but there can and there might be a way of unlock the ramaining 90%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-93484</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-93484</guid>
		<description>Im not a scientist, Im an artist who is fascinated by the entire world and all of its possibilities. Instead of Breaking down the laws of physics as we understand, trying so desperately to explain to the masses that something isn&#039;t real. consider this simple fact that space, scientifically and spiritually speaking is infinite, and based on that prospect as you said before... Anything is possible. I follow paganism because it incorporates both science and faith. and knowing that we as humans have a higher intelligence with the ability to ask questions and create the world as we want to see it, why shouldn&#039;t we spend as much time researching about paranormal phenomena, and what we consider the impossible, as we do with science that you claim to be the logical truth?... maybe youd have a better time understanding the endless possibilities if you got laid instead of spending so much time contradicting concepts that we havent even remotely begun to start studying....

after all, Einstein said there is no mathematical equation for love :)....loser...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Im not a scientist, Im an artist who is fascinated by the entire world and all of its possibilities. Instead of Breaking down the laws of physics as we understand, trying so desperately to explain to the masses that something isn&#8217;t real. consider this simple fact that space, scientifically and spiritually speaking is infinite, and based on that prospect as you said before&#8230; Anything is possible. I follow paganism because it incorporates both science and faith. and knowing that we as humans have a higher intelligence with the ability to ask questions and create the world as we want to see it, why shouldn&#8217;t we spend as much time researching about paranormal phenomena, and what we consider the impossible, as we do with science that you claim to be the logical truth?&#8230; maybe youd have a better time understanding the endless possibilities if you got laid instead of spending so much time contradicting concepts that we havent even remotely begun to start studying&#8230;.</p>
<p>after all, Einstein said there is no mathematical equation for love <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> &#8230;.loser&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What Questions Can Science Answer? &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-83112</link>
		<dc:creator>What Questions Can Science Answer? &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-83112</guid>
		<description>[...] these theoretical frameworks come along with appropriate domains of validity, depending both on the kinds of experimental data we have available and on the theoretical [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] these theoretical frameworks come along with appropriate domains of validity, depending both on the kinds of experimental data we have available and on the theoretical [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martien de Jong</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-80972</link>
		<dc:creator>Martien de Jong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-80972</guid>
		<description>Let me notice that some time ago (I think a month or 2 maybe) some guys announced that they created a computer completely controlled by the brain.
I&#039;m not sure if I&#039;m right, but I think that pretty much proves telekinesis is possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me notice that some time ago (I think a month or 2 maybe) some guys announced that they created a computer completely controlled by the brain.<br />
I&#8217;m not sure if I&#8217;m right, but I think that pretty much proves telekinesis is possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-79703</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-79703</guid>
		<description>A very interesting article, and I think it makes a very good case in the context of our current knowledge of things.  And that is very useful, I suppose. What other context is truly meaningful to us, since we need to live in the here and now? 

However, as soon as one calls himself a scientist, he must realize the limits of his own usefulness to humanity.  Scientists help us live in the here and now by helping the common man to live more effectively within the rules that we currently understand. 

The inevitable outcome, however, is that the laws defined by that scientist will not stand the test of time.  Years from now, another scientist will prove to the world how misguided you were.  And he (or she) will excuse your ignorance, saying &quot;how could he have known any better at the time?&quot;

Years from that, another scientist will do the same to discredit the one who discredited you.  And so the cycle will continue, until new possibilities emerge and the universe looks like a drastically different place than the one we can imagine, from our current context. 

I appreciate the opinion of any scientist who realizes that although he may feel certain of his correctness today, there will likely come a time when his life&#039;s work will be proven irrelevant to the new context. 

Scientists who become too certain of themselves become an example of how a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. A little bit of knowledge about particles and forces (compared to what will exist in a future context) will simply be limiting to the rest of the population. Scientific opinions must always end with &quot;but anything is possible.&quot;   

Although the opinion of one brilliant man or woman is valuable to us, I think it is much less useful than watching a trend.  It is very easy for one person to be completely wrong about something.  However, if a concept such as telepathy appears in human culture, is scrutinized by generation after generation, and becomes an idea that will not go away, then I find it likely that it does exist and we simply do not understand it yet.  

If time and the application of science cannot make a concept go away, then there is something that we are missing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very interesting article, and I think it makes a very good case in the context of our current knowledge of things.  And that is very useful, I suppose. What other context is truly meaningful to us, since we need to live in the here and now? </p>
<p>However, as soon as one calls himself a scientist, he must realize the limits of his own usefulness to humanity.  Scientists help us live in the here and now by helping the common man to live more effectively within the rules that we currently understand. </p>
<p>The inevitable outcome, however, is that the laws defined by that scientist will not stand the test of time.  Years from now, another scientist will prove to the world how misguided you were.  And he (or she) will excuse your ignorance, saying &#8220;how could he have known any better at the time?&#8221;</p>
<p>Years from that, another scientist will do the same to discredit the one who discredited you.  And so the cycle will continue, until new possibilities emerge and the universe looks like a drastically different place than the one we can imagine, from our current context. </p>
<p>I appreciate the opinion of any scientist who realizes that although he may feel certain of his correctness today, there will likely come a time when his life&#8217;s work will be proven irrelevant to the new context. </p>
<p>Scientists who become too certain of themselves become an example of how a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. A little bit of knowledge about particles and forces (compared to what will exist in a future context) will simply be limiting to the rest of the population. Scientific opinions must always end with &#8220;but anything is possible.&#8221;   </p>
<p>Although the opinion of one brilliant man or woman is valuable to us, I think it is much less useful than watching a trend.  It is very easy for one person to be completely wrong about something.  However, if a concept such as telepathy appears in human culture, is scrutinized by generation after generation, and becomes an idea that will not go away, then I find it likely that it does exist and we simply do not understand it yet.  </p>
<p>If time and the application of science cannot make a concept go away, then there is something that we are missing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-78148</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-78148</guid>
		<description>And anyway, 600 years ago we believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and everyone was just so SURE about that...then they said the Earth was flat! Maybe people will laugh at skeptics 200 years from now! who knows?

p.s: no one said TK was magic...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And anyway, 600 years ago we believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and everyone was just so SURE about that&#8230;then they said the Earth was flat! Maybe people will laugh at skeptics 200 years from now! who knows?</p>
<p>p.s: no one said TK was magic&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-78147</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-78147</guid>
		<description>Well, this is bullshit!
And although I love universe mysteries and are very interested in anything that has to do with science, I still think science is crap. I mean, c&#039;mon! Our brains are way to small to understand everything about the universe, and we already know scientists hide a great part of what they discovered. Perphaps they don&#039;t want to scare people. Maybe they just don&#039;t want to look like idiots after centuries of saying something was not possible. Or maybe they just don&#039;t have all explanations about it yet so they try to hide it while they discovered more. I don&#039;t know. In any case, we WERE born with something bigger than our physical brains!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, this is bullshit!<br />
And although I love universe mysteries and are very interested in anything that has to do with science, I still think science is crap. I mean, c&#8217;mon! Our brains are way to small to understand everything about the universe, and we already know scientists hide a great part of what they discovered. Perphaps they don&#8217;t want to scare people. Maybe they just don&#8217;t want to look like idiots after centuries of saying something was not possible. Or maybe they just don&#8217;t have all explanations about it yet so they try to hide it while they discovered more. I don&#8217;t know. In any case, we WERE born with something bigger than our physical brains!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-62771</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-62771</guid>
		<description>The thing is that we have been surprised by reality so many times throughout history  ... that now its hard to believe that something is not possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing is that we have been surprised by reality so many times throughout history  &#8230; that now its hard to believe that something is not possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skank</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-60695</link>
		<dc:creator>Skank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-60695</guid>
		<description>If TK, Psi, ESP, Remote Viewing and such are all just a load of bumf, then why do the military even have a budget for such things?  It is well known that the Military has technology that exceeds normal consumer available technology by about 20+years.  Who is to say that with the aid of technology these humans haven&#039;t been able to enhance the psychic mind?   

Is it possible that while those physicists were working on the atomic bomb that other physicists had no clue that this existed as it was military?  Maybe there IS available, justifiable and data rich information available on things like ESP but it is in the military vaults where such abilities would surely be best used and data readily available due to National and International security.

As far as I am concerned anything is possible, the more improbable it is the more it adds fuel to the progression of Quantum Physics.  To stifle Quantum Physics with data that is available and is subject to formulae is like telling an artist to paint with numbers.  Open your mind further!  Many serious physicists believe in a creator or composer of the universe and we are just dancing on the edge that is the true microscopic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If TK, Psi, ESP, Remote Viewing and such are all just a load of bumf, then why do the military even have a budget for such things?  It is well known that the Military has technology that exceeds normal consumer available technology by about 20+years.  Who is to say that with the aid of technology these humans haven&#8217;t been able to enhance the psychic mind?   </p>
<p>Is it possible that while those physicists were working on the atomic bomb that other physicists had no clue that this existed as it was military?  Maybe there IS available, justifiable and data rich information available on things like ESP but it is in the military vaults where such abilities would surely be best used and data readily available due to National and International security.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned anything is possible, the more improbable it is the more it adds fuel to the progression of Quantum Physics.  To stifle Quantum Physics with data that is available and is subject to formulae is like telling an artist to paint with numbers.  Open your mind further!  Many serious physicists believe in a creator or composer of the universe and we are just dancing on the edge that is the true microscopic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guthrie Prentice</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-59532</link>
		<dc:creator>Guthrie Prentice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/#comment-59532</guid>
		<description>A slight clarification of my previous post, the addendum by Julie Milton stated that skeptics blocking out data would make an effect difficult to detect, paranormal or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A slight clarification of my previous post, the addendum by Julie Milton stated that skeptics blocking out data would make an effect difficult to detect, paranormal or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.254 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page served by WP-Cache -->
