...or, if they will, they don't know what it means. It's a case of "Yes, but......" LOL
Most physicists accept the math and the weirdness of the experimental results, but without the direct experience of oneness, they lack the one thing that would put the experimental results in context. At our local university I only found one person, a nuclear engineer, who realized how thought is involved in the process of model building, but he had not yet realized that there is only one observer, nor who that observer IS.
Bell's Theorem points to the same underlying connectedness, but if you read an explanation of what it implies, you will find the same "Yes, but......." repeated, and then followed by complex theories about what it means.
The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?"
Most physicists accept the math and the weirdness of the experimental results, but without the direct experience of oneness, they lack the one thing that would put the experimental results in context. At our local university I only found one person, a nuclear engineer, who realized how thought is involved in the process of model building, but he had not yet realized that there is only one observer, nor who that observer IS.
Bell's Theorem points to the same underlying connectedness, but if you read an explanation of what it implies, you will find the same "Yes, but......." repeated, and then followed by complex theories about what it means.
The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?"
