Also, when the experiment was first performed, the results were very surprising. The scientists' expectations of the results differed from the experimental results. this flies in the face of your claim that observations match experimental expectations.
A similar situation was when Rutherford shot alpha particles at a thin gold sheet in an attempt to study the shape of the atom. The results changed the way everyone thought about the structure of the atom.
It would seam I need to revise the double slit experiment then, i only looked into it the last couple of weeks; no matter, the implications don't even scathe the wider scope of the metaphysical perspective.
Also: you side step the point that einstein already conceptualised light as a mass of particles;to which the expected observations are predefined by intent from the metaphysic perspective...[edit: the next thread post (I meant topic; so I'm aware you may have been mislead to think I was going to post here)] will likley be more than enough to dispel anything you add to to this thread as a basis of argument. As far as im concerned there is no argument only a choice of difering perspectives which cannot win over the other in a debate
The next topic will raise implications of why these examples do not fly in face of my claims, besides I din't claim anything I'm supporting it based on internally perceived experiential reasoning, aswell as the fact that atomic theory was conceptualised in a manner of ways many centuries ago therefore adding to the notion that:
when meta-physicists say that measurements need a conscious observer we don't mean literally observing it with eyes...Intent is the key aspect of observation because it is (from our perspective) a non-physical influence that is not pined down to the location of our thoughts and feelings but radiates out along the EMF/auric field of an individual as well as the mass collective consciousness...so an individuals influence can have an effect on an experiment before during and after the experiment takes place.
As I made clear to raist I wont continue to bring up these points to counter his perspective, this goes for everyone else; I'm happy to be informed of things that I should revise as stated here with the d-slit exp but for arguments sake on the wider issues if others fail to take in all the points made or choose to ignore what I have already said, excluding so as that their own points can appear debatable... I will simply ignore them myself.
I think the real reason that mainstream science reacts so defensively to these notions is because most people who support them ignore science and are either religiously inclined of spiritually inclined based upon beliefs choosing to believe what they want to, and ignoring the “facts”, I say facts with quotation because these facts are still observations that are repeatable based on scaffolding which utilises assumptions such as the Einsteinian assumption that light travels in straight lines and always at the same speed...i.e. We can repeatedly observe astrological objects traversing a defined coarse, however that is not a justified reason to assert that light does not or cannot bend under certain conditions...and you can guarantee that if the assumption of light bending becomes a reason to support something in the defence of scientific data that is more important to maintaining the establishment than the theory of relativity, it will be incorporated into the mainstream; for instance the same way it was posed as a solution to explain the phantom city that appeared recently over the river in Japan (or some other country in Asia I forget)
Further it seams that the thing that bothers the establishments position most is that there are certain individuals who have no religious background, and thus no indoctrinated belief system to defend, who have non drug induced mystical experiences that they cannot deny themselves, and are contradictory to the mainstreams ideas. Especially so when these individuals go about studying and researching the relevant subjects, releasing all of their work free without any strings attached...
The question that then occurs to those scientists who only wish to support the ideas of the establishment, is, “what would motivate someone to do such a thing” deep down they know the answer but they don't want to openly admit it...there are people who are literally unable to conform to the current scientific paradigm...they have had experiences that occur outside of the parameters of the conventional box. When one experiences something that is repeatedly observable from their own esoteric point of view it becomes inner knowledge...when this knowledge renders their orientation of conscious perception irreversibly incompatible with the mainstream model...they are mentally incapable of having that knowledge replaced by scientific “knowledge” which was observed and repeatedly accept by many without question therefore solidifying it as a “consensus reality”
There have been hypnotists that have caused people to see things that aren't there as well as see through things that are there such as he case of the girl whom was able to tell the hypnotist what object he held behind another person who he had convinced did not exist in the room at that time . This can only be possible if
a. past observations are what people are recalling about their surroundings, then super imposing them over the current moment, or excluding current things. And or
b. that there is a sub-psychic collective conciousness Hypnosis only happens when a person is receptive to suggestion...science has inadvertently (and sometimes intentionally) operated with
NLP - neuro linguistic programming (passive hypnosis like methods) by quoting a load of technical data which confuses the average person lulling them into the assumption which convinces them that the “experts” know exactly what they are dealing with. This leads to a potentially illusory or collective sub reality which is not congruent with the way things really are behind the veil.
This is why from the metaphysics perspective it seams silly for science to ignore these factors and insist on making out anything else to be mumbo jumbo...when really both realities are functionable...those who wish to be a part of mainstream reality will choose to whether these implications are publicly acknowledge by the media or not. For the very base notion of these concepts alone imply that ones reality is that which they choose it to be. This thereby allows those who are not ready to embrace higher dimensional life to maintain that which is a comfortable threshold.