It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Spin up and Spin down states shows us a Mind Created the Universe!

page: 1
20
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:39 AM
The Universe had to be Created by a Mind and has to be populated with Parallel Universes.

It has to be populated with Parallel Universes because of Superposition. Superposition tells us what we call a subatomic particle, which isn't a particle at all in the context of locality, will be in multiple states until it's measured.

So a subatomic particle will be spin up/spin down until it's measured and an Observer will see either spin up or spin down.

This means spin up and spin down must exists on a fundamental level in order for one of these states to be measured and observed.

It's just like a set of dice where you can roll 2-12. 2-12 has to exist in order for it to be a probability that you will roll some number between 2-12. So Parallel Universes have to exists. It has been shown that locality is dead and the universe is non local.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

www.nature.com...

What this shows is that our universe is like a 7 that was rolled and observed. It doesn't mean 2,3,4,5,5,8,9,10,11 and 12 don't exist on a fundamental leve of the pair of dice. Their just not being measured and observed at the moment.

This als points to fine tuning. There's no evidence that every possible state exists only states that are allowed by fine tuning. This is very important because some like to say EVERY POSSIBLY STATE. They don't say EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR!

That's a very important distinction.

Every possible state means anything can happen. Every possible state that can occur means anything can happen within the limits that are fine tuned.

Look at the pair of dice. The pair of dice can be rolled in an infinite set. You will only roll the numbers on the dice fine tuned by the person who designed those dice. So you can roll those dice ad infinitum and you will only get a 2-12.

This is our universe. There's no evidence that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE CAN OCCUR only EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR. The possible states that can occur are limited by fine tuning just like the dice are limited by fine tuning and you can only roll 2-12.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:02 AM

originally posted by: neoholographic
The Universe had to be Created by a Mind and has to be populated with Parallel Universes.

But the mind that theoretically created our universe had to exist in it's own universe. What created that universe?

At some point there wasn't a mind to create a universe, and somehow a universe and a mind came about. To me that shows that while it's possible that a mind created our universe, it is still far from a certainty.
edit on 3/29/2017 by scojak because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:08 AM

You said:

But the mind that theoretically created our universe had to exist in it's own universe. What created that universe?

Why would a Quantum Mind need to exist in it's own universe? A Quantum Mind always exists because quantum information isn't created or destroyed. Black holes can't even destroy quantum information and this has led things like black hole thermodynamics and the holographic principle.

So, you're talking about a local brain not a non local mind. A non local mind would exists at every point in space at Planck scales. It wouldn't need a universe to exist.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:09 AM
"Where we come from?" and "What are we doing here?" is the two great questions of life.

But I think we'll only know it when we pass.
edit on 29/3/2017 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:26 AM

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: neoholographic
The Universe had to be Created by a Mind and has to be populated with Parallel Universes.

But the mind that theoretically created our universe had to exist in it's own universe. What created that universe?

At some point there wasn't a mind to create a universe, and somehow a universe and a mind came about. To me that shows that while it's possible that a mind created our universe, it is still far from a certainty.

The Universe does NOT have to come first or vice versa..both are equally uncertain.

What i can say..is that we should actually try and find out this answer..instead of hiding inside dimensional thinking.

This is why science bores me as much as creationism on this topic..it is clear to see that both are far too afraid to even REMOTELY dig deep enough.

We need a new direction...so to speak

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:29 AM

originally posted by: vinifalou
"Where we come from?" and "What are we doing here?" is the two great questions of life.

But I think we'll only know it when we pass.

Why would we know it then ?

This Universe is full of agendas and hidden zones...just activating ones own brain to insane levels has shown me that religion stems far beyond this plane...

So many control systems masquerading as either GOD or EVOLUTION...both need to be destroyed.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: neoholographic

Why would a Quantum Mind need to exist in it's own universe?

So where did the quantum mind come from? Where did the quantum information come from? It all still exists in a quantum system. What created that system?

It's a bit of an offshoot from the discussion about the creation of our physical universe, but I don't feel you can definitively answer a question with an answer that can't be explained.

A Quantum Mind always exists because quantum information isn't created or destroyed. Black holes can't even destroy quantum information and this has led things like black hole thermodynamics and the holographic principle.

I understand that it can't be destroyed, but qubits can apparently be made.

How to Make a Qubit

If qubits can be added to a quantum system, isn't that information that is being added to a quantum system?

Please correct me if I'm wrong because I really don't know.

So, you're talking about a local brain not a non local mind. A non local mind would exists at every point in space at Planck scales. It wouldn't need a universe to exist.

I'm actually very interested in the definition of "space" here. As I read it, space is a part of our physical universe. Thus the mind would exist in the physical universe, and as so, need a universe to exist in. I take it you mean quantum spacetime?

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:50 AM

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: neoholographic
The Universe had to be Created by a Mind and has to be populated with Parallel Universes.

But the mind that theoretically created our universe had to exist in it's own universe. What created that universe?

The question you are asking presupposes non-existence is a state. There's nothing to suggest that this could ever occur other than in our imaginations. Since we do exist reality has always existed just not in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

originally posted by: scojak
At some point there wasn't a mind to create a universe, and somehow a universe and a mind came about. To me that shows that while it's possible that a mind created our universe, it is still far from a certainty.

The mind of the Universe doesn't have to be like a human mind with linear thought. The mind of the Universe could be contained in an infinite number of space-time dimensions of the multiverse where time is complete by having every possible quantum state realized. At the highest dimension, the sum total of the realization of every possibility infinite and finite are the same thought. In this sense, we exist for a purpose on purpose.

edit on 29-3-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typos

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:56 AM

originally posted by: ParasuvO
The Universe does NOT have to come first or vice versa..both are equally uncertain.

Oh, I absolutely agree. The question isn't whether the chicken or the egg came first, it's how and why does either exist.

What i can say..is that we should actually try and find out this answer..instead of hiding inside dimensional thinking.

Well, that's modern science for you. Even if we could find answer 'Z', it wouldn't be accepted until we related it to 'A-Y'.

This is why science bores me as much as creationism on this topic..it is clear to see that both are far too afraid to even REMOTELY dig deep enough.

We need a new direction...so to speak

Ya, science won't accept what it can't explain, and there is a whole lot of that.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:59 AM

You said:

So where did the quantum mind come from? Where did the quantum information come from? It all still exists in a quantum system. What created that system?

Here's why you're wrong.

Given that in quantum theory information can not be lost, can information be created? That is, can (does) the total information of the universe increase, or is it steady, as in the conservation of matter/energy?

The conservation of information is derived from quantum field theory via the quantum Liouville theorem. Quantum field theory works both forward and backward in time, so the conservation of entropy (or information) works both ways. If quantum field theory is correct (as it so far seems to be) then information, in the abstract, is neither created nor destroyed. Pure states remain pure states. A probabilistic combination of pure states keeps the same set of probabilities.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

That simply destroys the question. There's no need for a Quantum Mind to be Created or it has to live in some local universe in order to exists.

A PROBABILISTIC COMBINATION OF PURE STATES KEEPS THE SAME SET OF PROBABILITIES!

This is tied to Entanglement but again, it shows that not only can't information be created nor destroyed but the PROBABILITIES THAT CAN OCCUR CAN'T CHANGE!

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:25 PM

Thank you for the information. It's just not in me to accept that the quantum world is the end of it. That this fine tuned machine has always been on, cannot be altered and just is the way it is.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:01 PM

I understand that but at the end of the day, evidence doesn't need your acceptance.

It is what it is.

Entanglement shows us that quantum information can't be created, destroyed or altered. It can be expressed in different ways so it's conserved.

Just like energy. I can create new solar panels but that doesn't mean I created any new energy. I just harnessed the energy that already exists in a different way.

It's the same with information and what probabilities can occur. There can be a limited number of probable states that can occur but these states can produce a myriad of different observations.

I can roll a 7 and lose money. I can roll a 4 and win money. I can roll a 10 and land in jail in Monopoly. I can roll a 5 and pass Go and collect \$200.

The point is, the probabilities 2-12 that can occur doesn't change but it produced all of these different observations.
edit on 29-3-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:08 PM

Everything is a wave until our eyes and brain or hands and brain measure it. Or like you say it is fine tuned into matter. At a subatomic level it may still be condensed or trapped waves. This was the basis of what I dug into in the past. I am going to read more of what you have to form a better understanding.

My thought of waves may be obstrude from videos and experiments. I sometimes think like the matric subatomic 101101101101010000011101
101010010101010111110010
101010101010101010101101
000110010001001000101111

I also along with this think out brains could have created the universe. As we observe we create it so we will never find the end to our universe. This also may be why a lot of depictions look like our own eyes and pupil black hole. This also may explain why subatomic and in nature we see similarities to the universe.

This would mean though life was created here and outer space did not exist until it could be measured or observed. Unless the solar system always existed and the universe not so much. I obviously do not know but I just rambled off my vague understanding or readings and thoughts on such subject in a hope to one day have enough information to form a better educated opinion or theory.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:26 PM

originally posted by: neoholographicThis is very important because some like to say EVERY POSSIBLY STATE. They don't say EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR!

Could you clarify this? It seems like it might be a redundancy; if something is possible, its implicit that only what can occur is possible. Where is the distinction between "possible states" and "possible states that can occur"?

edit on 29-3-2017 by Talorc because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:28 PM

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: neoholographicThis is very important because some like to say EVERY POSSIBLY STATE. They don't say EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR!

Could you clarify this? It seems like it might be a redundancy; if something is possible, its implicit that only what can occur is possible. Where is the distinction between "possible states" and "possible states that can occur"?

It's simple.

Every Possible State isn't enough because saying every possible state is different than saying every possible state that can occur.

For instance, you will year some say every possible universe can occur. There's no evidence for this because of our fine tuned universe. We can only talk about these things in the context of what can occur based on these constants.

Some will say you can have universes with life and also universes without life but there's no evidence that a universe that can't sustain life can even go through inflation and expand into a universe.

So you can only talk about these things within the restraints of what can occur until there's evidence that things can occur outside of the parameters.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 04:25 PM

So something can be possible which, all the same, couldn't occur under any circumstances immanent in the universe?

!If that's the case, wouldn't you do better to call that impossible?

If not, what is the difference between "impossible" and "possible but cannot occur"?
edit on 29-3-2017 by Talorc because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:17 PM

Hmmm. I don't know. Sean Carroll and others have a different opinion. Certainly worth discussing though, although I don't buy in to the All Powerful Being argument. I think it's important to understand the other side as well.

The basic silly objection is that EQM postulates too many universes. In quantum mechanics, we can’t deterministically predict the outcomes of measurements. In EQM, that is dealt with by saying that every measurement outcome “happens,” but each in a different “universe” or “world.” Say we think of Schrödinger’s Cat: a sealed box inside of which we have a cat in a quantum superposition of “awake” and “asleep.” (No reason to kill the cat unnecessarily.) Textbook quantum mechanics says that opening the box and observing the cat “collapses the wave function” into one of two possible measurement outcomes, awake or asleep. Everett, by contrast, says that the universe splits in two: in one the cat is awake, and in the other the cat is asleep. Once split, the universes go their own ways, never to interact with each other again.

www.preposterousuniverse.com...

edit on 29-3-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:19 PM

No, and especially not scientifically speaking.

It wouldn't make any sense to say it's impossible at this juncture. It only makes sense to say there's not any evidence to support the conclusiion.

So there's no evidence that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE can occur meaning every universe whether it contains life or not. There's only evidence that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR, which is universes like ours with similar constants can occur.

You can't talk in absolutes in these areas.

For example, I can talk in absolutes about a pair of dice. I can say it's impossible to roll a 22.

So when talking about universes, which this thread is partly about, I can't say it's impossible that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE occurs because there's no evidence to support that notion. I can say that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR, occurs based on what we know about constants and the fact that we are here and a universe like this one did expand.

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:34 PM
What if we're each our own parallel universe within the material universe that we all share together? Each life plays out radically differently from the next and is always unique and from a different point of view.

We may have a unique view of the universe from one another but our lives still run parallel (universe) to one another through the same time line which is the universe forever unfolding and expanding.

The up and down spin of subatomic particles is represented in male/female, up/down, inner/outer, big/small, etc.

The subatomic universe we see is only a reflection of the universal mind you speak of that created the universe and continues to with every second that passes by, us being the universal mind viewing its reflection from different vantage points, each vantage point containing the whole within it.

Where is the center of the universe? Look yourself in the eye in the mirror, that is where the light resides and coincidentally it cannot be seen because of the black pupil.
edit on 3/29/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:05 PM

So when talking about universes, which this thread is partly about, I can't say it's impossible that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE occurs because there's no evidence to support that notion. I can say that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE THAT CAN OCCUR, occurs based on what we know about constants and the fact that we are here and a universe like this one did expand.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If every possible state is possible but not provable, you can't say that every possible state that can occur, occurs based on what we know. I don't think constants or expansion play a significant role in this.

new topics

top topics

20