ferozali's blog


Quantum Evolution


The first thing we must address when writing an article about Quantum Physics, or any other highly technical subject is to define our terms.


What is meant by Evolution? When the Quantum Scientists talk about Quantum Evolution they discusses the classical Darwinian model of Evolution. They also use the words mutation and random mutations.


These are not my choice of words. I prefer the Spiritual Quantum Theory of Quantum Evolution and the word "mutation" in any form does not fit there.


Scientific Quantum Evolution discusses the structures of DNA and RNA, and coherence times. They speculate on the jumps in fossil records and speculative molecular processes.


The point I am making is this: the workings of the Quantum Ocean, the Mind of God and Nature are really quite simple. Man in his egoistic drive to believe that he is the highest order of intelligence in the Universe constantly complicates things.


When ever a theory or a speculation about any thing leaves out the primary cause of all creation, a Prime Move, a Grand Architect of the Universe, or an intelligent Creator it is doomed to failure.


I taught college mathematics for 18 years. If I started my mathematical proofs with 2+2=5. no matter how sophisticated the rest of the proof was worked out, the conclusion would be wrong.


The Scientific Quantum theorists, engineers and professors quantum ai ukshould understand that just because man can do something, does not mean that he should go ahead and do it.


Genetic engineering and the Atomic bomb are two inventions that come to mind.


If we could only learn to slow down our Scientific Quantum Evolution advances and our dangerous high technology race towards destruction. If we could just get QUIET!


And by getting quiet we would be able to hear the small quiet inner voice that is within all of us. This voice would tell us what "Spiritual Quantum Evolution" means.


Since Quantum (Plural: Quanta) is the smallest unit of any physical entity we could say it represents the smallest particle that an individual soul could manifest into.


Therefore "Spiritual Quantum Evolution" is about the Evolution of individual souls not physical matter.


The true purpose or should I say destiny of a soul is to work (experience) itself back from whence it came. Back to God, it's beginning.


Spiritual Quantum Physics answers the three intriguing questions that have puzzled man from time immemorial.


Who are we? Where did we come from? And Where are we going?


Spiritual Quantum Evolution tells us we are all individual souls who have 'Blinked Out' of the Quantum Ocean, Mind of God into a physical reality.


It is here on the physical plane, matrix or playing field of the Quantum Ocean that we experience life. It is here where we use these experiences to fulfill our individual destinies.


And that destiny is to evolve; to raise our levels of consciousness; to become more godlike with each "Blink Out' incarnation, until one day we can "Blink Back" into the Quantum Ocean, Mind of God and come out no more.


If you take quantum physics to its logical conclusion, you can only deduce that those residents of the quantum realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering on self-awareness, consciousness, quasi-free will, a sort of 'mind' of their own but programmed with the social mores of quantum-land. They have the ability to 'know' things about their external world and their relationship to that. They can make decisions with respect to those relationships and act accordingly within their programming. They are not totally unresponsive and inert little billiard balls.


I'm also aware that such an assertion crosses the boundary between my being rational and being irrational. I mean how could an electron for example 'know' anything and make decisions? Such a proposition makes alien abductions, the Loch Ness Monster and the realm of astrology seem downright normal and acceptable and within the realm of conventional logic! But there is experimental evidence and observations to back this up.


Case Study #1 - The Double Slit Experiment: Take the infamous double slit experiment (referenced in any and all tomes on quantum physics). Send a stream (lots and lots and lots) of photons at two parallel slits that have a target board of sorts behind them that show where the photons land after they pass through the dual slits. The photons pass through both slits and form on the target board a classic wave interference pattern, thereby showing that electromagnetic radiation, in this case visible light, is a wave. So far; so good. Now fire one light photon at a time at the dual slits, such that one photon will pass through the slits and reach the target board before the next photon is released. What you get - wait for it - is a classic wave interference pattern! That's ridiculous. It's as if one photon passes both slits at the same time and interferes with itself. That's very funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha. In fact, it's straight out of the "Twilight Zone" again. But wait, it gets worse. Now rerun the one photon at a time experiment but set up a detection device at each slit in order to determine if the photon goes through just one slit or through both. What happens is that the lone photons, fired one at a time, is indeed detected going through one slit or the other quantum ai uk  slit but not both simultaneously and thus, as you would expect, the classic wave interference pattern vanishes to be replaced with two separate and apart lines on the target board. That's totally nuts since without detectors at the slits you get that classic wave interference pattern; with detectors, no such pattern. The question is, how did the photon 'know' the detectors were there and thus change their behaviour?


Case Study #2 - Entanglement: In the double slit experiment where one photon went through both slits simultaneously, the photon was said to be in a state of superposition - it could be in two places at the same time. In this new study we have two particles with a common origin, linked in some way, and released together out into the wilderness, sort of like Hansel and Gretel. Unlike the fairy tale, the two particles fly off in differing directions. So far; so good. The particles are not quite identical, just like Hansel and Gretel are not quite identical, but complementary, as one particle might be the antiparticle of the other or one is either spin up or spin down and the other is either spin down o spin up. The two particles are again considered to be in a state of superposition - each is simultaneously a particle and its antiparticle; or both are in a state of spin up and spin down. In other words, as in the case of the double slit experiment, there is doubt about who's who and what's what until a detector is put into place. I this example both particles fly off until they are on opposite sides of the Universe. Then, a detector is put into position in the pathway of one of the pair (i.e. - someone peeks). When someone peeked (i.e. - the detector detected) as in the double slit experiment, the photon was required to go into an either/or state. Ditto here. If the particle turns out to be Hansel, you know the particle on the opposite side of the Universe must be Gretel. Or, if one particle is observed to be an antiparticle, or say spin up, its partner clear across the Universe instantaneously must cease its superposition of state and become a particle or solidify into a spin down state. That one particle across the Universe somehow 'knows' that the superposition of state jig is up since its counterpart has been caught in the act (i.e. - observed or detected). Einstein had a phrase for this. He called it "spooky action at a distance". Einstein wasn't happy since this instantaneous communication implied superluminal speeds, faster than the speed of light, which his Special Theory of Relativity gave the thumbs down to. Now apparently, if I'm to understand things correctly, it's noted that restrictions on the speed of light as the ultimate cosmic speed limit only applies if actual information is being transmitted. Pure gibberish can be transmitted instantaneously and 'communication' between two entangled particles isn't actually information. How the cosmos 'knows' whether or not something is, or is not, bona fide information and thus employs photons travelling at the speed of light, or gibberish and thus allows instantaneous 'communication', is, IMHO gibberish! The whole issue is resolved if you just eliminate the concept of superposition of state. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same place.


Almost everyone seems to have an opinion about whether Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was wise or otherwise when she decided to end permanent telecommuting arrangements at her company.


I don't. This may be a little surprising, since I write a regular opinion column. My regular readers have probably concluded that I have opinions, worthwhile or not, about everything.


Editorialists, journalists and bloggers all rushed to comment on the policy change. Some argued that working from home is productive, and accused Mayer of missing or ignoring the drawbacks of working in an office. Others defended Mayer, pointing out that her decision was simply about what was best for Yahoo, not a broader statement about the utility of working from home. Still others tied the news into the ongoing discussion about women trying to climb the corporate ladder and raise young children simultaneously, while others polled the public to see whether they thought working from home made employees more or less effective.


Readers keeping up with the coverage would be forgiven for suspecting reactions to Yahoo's policy say more about their respective authors than about Yahoo.


People tend to assume, falsely, that their experiences and priorities are always relevant to somebody else's situation. Running my own business gives me quite enough to do without worrying about how Mayer runs her company. Lacking an insider's perspective, I cannot form a knowledgeable opinion about whether I would have reached the same decision in Mayer's position. All I can do is reflect on my own experiences, apply my own values and priorities, and wonder whether lack of productivity is really at the core of Yahoo's problems.


Employees at my company, starting with me as its founder, have always worked from home on occasion. In some cases, employees have split their workweek between  work from home employee monitoting and office for extended periods of time; in a few situations, they have worked almost exclusively from home for temporary periods of up to a year.


Telecommuting plays an important, though limited, role at our company. Our organization would not be nearly as strong without it. Yet what works for us would not necessarily work for other businesses in our own industry, let alone in fields that are very different from the tax and financial planning services we provide. Some firms probably need to allow more telecommuting than we do, while others should do it less.


The debate over the "productivity" of work-from-home employees largely misses the point, for two reasons. The first is that working from home probably increases productivity sometimes and reduces it at other times, in different amounts for different employees. The second is that productivity - the number of units of "work," however we define it, that an employee churns out in a given period of time or for a given amount of compensation - may not be the most important consideration in evaluating an employee's performance or overall value to the company. It might not even be close.


There is almost no circumstance in which I would hire a new employee and have that person start by working from home most or all of the time. The need to evaluate a new employee's work habits and ability to self-supervise is part of the reason, but only a minor part. Even if I had the utmost faith in the employee's diligence and focus, we want to provide as much guidance and mentoring as possible during the first few years an employee is with us. At the same time, we want to integrate that person into our tightly knit, team-oriented, client-centric culture.





As anyone knows that has managed workers knows, getting them all to show up regularly on time can be a daunting task. The usual methods to inspire employees usually involve threats and incentives but often times this carrot and a stick approach even has its limitations. Add to that, prevailing economic conditions, meaning that when times are good they tend to get slack but when work gets short they tend to improve.


Put in Your Damn 40 Hours your Slacker


The problem with that is that it is during peak economic times when you need them all the most. Orders are backlogged and its time to make hay. In the end, poor employee attendance is always made up in expensive overtime hours that could have been avoided if everyone put in their regular 40 hours like they should have.


New Software Management Tools


Poor employee attendance also effects other areas of business such as the moral of hard working diligent workers who have to stand by and watch while others show up late and slack off. Now however, there are new software management tools to help you deal with this and other personnel management issues.


Cheap and Easy - Just like Your Last Girlfriend


Employee attendance software is not only cheap to procure but it completely streamlines the job of tracking attendance statistics and trends either individually or as a group. Also the beauty of it is that all the data that it processes is gathered as each employee clocks in or out  employee tracking software at the beginning and end of each day.


OK You Mutts - Now I'm Using Employee Attendance Software!


Then after it has been gathered, the software processes it and makes it presentable in any number of varieties of charts and graphs for analysis. Also, another surprising result of implementing employee tracking software is once employees know you are using it attendance problems seem to magically become minimized.


Pages: « 1 2