“relatively slow speed of light” - relatively to what? We cannot measure shared emotions, telepathy, synchronicity or any other phenomena. Since they cannot be measured, any comparison is unfounded. The “speed” at which non-local experiences travel may be a subjective opinion, but nothing more.
“infinitely faster” would suggest that we have a meter that is calibrated to the speed of light units - which we do not.
The official speed of light is yet another scientific fantasy - we have no means to measure it.
We have simply adopted the phrase as a synonym of something unreachable and unbelievable. How true, in both cases.
The issue of the transfer of “something” across the borderline between the tangible world and its perception is interesting, though. Again, we have no means to capture it or analyze in any way. If any device is built some time in the future, it will be tangible, which means that its very structure will be biased towards materiality.
The whole thing is a useless and futile pressure on the “scientific” view of life. Why would you need it? Measuring the inner world in the units of the external “reality” is unnecessary.
However, we do try to penalize the inner perceptions by making them liable for events in the tangible world. “I thought…”, “my impression was…”, “I believe…”, “I don’t recall…” are all references to the impossibility of bridging the two “worlds”.
“relatively slow speed of light” - relatively to what? We cannot measure shared emotions, telepathy, synchronicity or any other phenomena. Since they cannot be measured, any comparison is unfounded. The “speed” at which non-local experiences travel may be a subjective opinion, but nothing more.
“infinitely faster” would suggest that we have a meter that is calibrated to the speed of light units - which we do not.
The official speed of light is yet another scientific fantasy - we have no means to measure it.
We have simply adopted the phrase as a synonym of something unreachable and unbelievable. How true, in both cases.
The issue of the transfer of “something” across the borderline between the tangible world and its perception is interesting, though. Again, we have no means to capture it or analyze in any way. If any device is built some time in the future, it will be tangible, which means that its very structure will be biased towards materiality.
The whole thing is a useless and futile pressure on the “scientific” view of life. Why would you need it? Measuring the inner world in the units of the external “reality” is unnecessary.
However, we do try to penalize the inner perceptions by making them liable for events in the tangible world. “I thought…”, “my impression was…”, “I believe…”, “I don’t recall…” are all references to the impossibility of bridging the two “worlds”.