It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Temporal causality loop, a merger of observer and observed, both of which are one in the same. Dreamtime.




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The universe/multiverse is a mind.

Mind isn't the same as consciousness/measure.

Mind is the combination of consciousness/measure, body/form, and spirit/force.

Think of it like your forces are the will to measure out forms.

Superposition? That too is a measurement. Anything below infinite is a measurement. Once you measure infinity, you cause determination: a "measurement"/quanta/qualia/form.

What is being conceived is the body of the mind (and we just so happen to be living bodies of measure within the body).

You're a tulpa.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Op. You keep falling back on 'information be created nor destroyed'.
Does t that undermine the very essence of your thread here? The title of which is "... Mind created the universe"



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LucidWarrior

The information was always there, it was simply in a different state.

He translated it to a "coherent" state by determining/measuring it (by measuring his will).

There is the potential to measure out anything possible but what is possible is itself limited by...

He thinks it is limited by what has previously been measured out / the current state of information. (That is to say that there are hierarchical limits/rules that apply to information states.)

Which I can't argue with but it is probably better understood that the limit is due to the the information state of the measure and not the information state of energy. Why? Because the information of energy/will is infinite and not limited by itself but how you measure it.

e.g. Is an apple a fruit or is it star dust? The answer (the information) is relative to the measure - it is limited to how you measure - it is limited by the one who measures (which would be the proverbial tree, I suppose).



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: LucidWarrior

The information was always there, it was simply in a different state.



I agree with most of your points in your posts. I think the different state is one that is beyond comprehension based on the way our minds are constructed. We experience time as a linear sequence with known abstractions. I think the Universe and nature do not exist in this way. The Universe has hidden variables all the way down. And it's not that the variables are objects but continuous waves of energy without any knowable discrete divisions.

I think this thread is great and pushing up against the greatest philosophical discussion of our lifetimes. But I think most people presuppose the view understanding the Universe is knowable and like a computer. Nature does follow repeatable patterns of behavior (which is surprisingly consistent). However, nature many times has rogue waves of energy converging to points creating experiences that do not fit into our model perfectly. Scientists grin and throw those data points out. But I would argue unless your theory explains the source of all experimental errors then you do not have a complete and accurate understanding.

My way of thinking about understanding the Universe comes from a ontological or linguistics perspective. For any of our words to have any meaning, there has to exist the opposite concept in relationship. Our brain creates meaning from the differences between ideas. You can only talk about the origin of existence unless you presupposed the possibility of non-existence. I think that may be true to the greatest possible degree.

In continuing the ontological way of thinking, my original argument included a multiverse where every possible quantum state is realized. It's only in relationship to every other possible Universe in the multiverse does our Universe have any meaningful existence. And at some higher dimension above time, there is a sum total where every possibility is realized. At this highest point, you have a single finite view of all of totality. At that zenith point, the word finite and infinite have the same semantics because of the nature of the multiverse.

But any discussion like this is not good science by definition. We are putting a magnify glass between two mirrors. We are asking self-referential questions like can God have a thought so complex that even she can't understand it. We are pushing language to its very limits asking questions like what is the brain doing between thoughts? The human condition by its very nature prevents us from having the kinds of experiences we would need to have, to experience what we need to experience, to have a meaningful conversation about the nature of existence.


edit on 30-3-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typo



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

The way that I think of it is that:

1. everything exists infinitely as will
2. and when it is measured / conceptualized
3. a measurement appears like a mental image.

1.Spirit
2.Soul
3.Body

1. Holy Ghost / the Spirit
2. Father / the Translator
3. Son / the Word

And we, having minds, are in their likeness.


e.g. The words of your post are the image of your translation of your will. (And your will is from the same place as everyone else's but what differs is how it has been conceived.)
edit on 3/30/2017 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

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...


I actually agree with what Sean Carroll said:


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.


Carroll is talking about the splitting of our universe and I agree this has to happen. I don't agree that these universes can no longer interact with each other as we learn more about quantum entanglement.

Quantum mechanics doesn't vanish when a classical universe expands. Our classical universe is dominated by quantum mechanics at every point in space on Planck scales.

So there's no evidence that EVERY POSSIBLE STATE expands into a universe. The reason we can determinalistically predict which measurement outcomes can occur is because we know which POSSIBLE STATES THAT CAN OCCUR.

Again, these probabilities are conserved and the early universe went through what is called the Planck Epoch.



At this point, the universe was in a superposition of ALL POSSIBLE STATES THAT CAN OCCUR. Some say, when it reached a certain threshold it collapsed into one universe and others says these other states expanded parallel to our universe.

These probabilities are conserved therefore they don't vanish when a measurement occurs and one of these probabilities is observed.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Words are not the reality they represent. If our wills come from the same place then you would have known that. The reality out there is very different from the reality we imagine as real.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Words are not the reality they represent. If our wills come from the same place then you would have known that. The reality out there is very different from the reality we imagine as real.

What you've laid out so simply, I've tried many times to express.

Worth repeating this:

"Words are not the reality they represent"

Too many times we forget this very simple yet elegant truth.
edit on 30-3-2017 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I see your point. However, your original post suggested that this information points to a single entity as the creator. I don't see why spin up/spin down suggests that. Doesn't it come down to probability? Of course, if the universe is a simulation, which is the latest hypothesis, then that would necessitate a creator or programmer running the whole thing. Spin up/spin down is like a die with only two possible positions - wouldn't they be equally probable? So if everything were probabilistic, there would be no need for a programmer or a creator defining the terms and conditions as to how the universe functions.

It's an interesting subject - there's so many papers and ideas in the literature it's hard to keep track. And each one takes a lot of time to absorb and understand. The simulation hypothesis is fascinating but extremely difficult to absorb, for me anyway. Too many questions and not enough answers!



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




The simulation hypothesis is fascinating but extremely difficult to absorb, for me anyway. Too many questions and not enough answers!


My two cents. The simulation hypothesis is not very difficult to believe, in terms of the possibility that the Universe is capable of generating such a thing.

I say this because from the moment we were born, our entire experience of life has been electro-biochemically reproduced in our brains. Anything and everything we experience as life, including our idea of ourselves, and what we perceive from our five senses, is merely a phenomenon in our brains. So it is no doubt, that what we call life is indeed a simulation. We experience nothing But that. As neither of us have ever directly witnessed or experienced what's REALLY happening outside our skulls.

SpaceTime, mainly 3 dimensional reality, is also something our brains can miraculously recreate. For instance, if you touch your toe, the sensation of this touch as well as the spacial quality or location of the touch doesn't originate near your toe at all, it is all originating and experienced within our heads.

So if our brains can reproduce everything we call reality, including the sense of spacetime, then it is not entirely difficult to imagine the possibility of a simulated Universe. Since all we know of our current existence, Is a simulation.

Another example of this capability is apparent in our dreams at night. A dream, which consists of an entire world, including the body we dwell in while experiencing the dream, is all simulated. Yet it feels real, from the sensations of our dream bodies and its senses, to the outside environment including the planet we're walking on, the inanimate objects, the sky and the sun above. All of spacetime, even the people in the dream validate the same experience. With the exception of what hindsight reveals, there is no difference between the experiencing of a dream and that of a waking life, because in both cases, what we perceive as the totality of the experience... is a phenomena generated by our brains.

So we have more proof that the Universe is Capable of simulating so-called reality, then we do of any other theory of existence.
edit on 31-3-2017 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I see your point. However, your original post suggested that this information points to a single entity as the creator. I don't see why spin up/spin down suggests that. Doesn't it come down to probability? Of course, if the universe is a simulation, which is the latest hypothesis, then that would necessitate a creator or programmer running the whole thing. Spin up/spin down is like a die with only two possible positions - wouldn't they be equally probable? So if everything were probabilistic, there would be no need for a programmer or a creator defining the terms and conditions as to how the universe functions.

It's an interesting subject - there's so many papers and ideas in the literature it's hard to keep track. And each one takes a lot of time to absorb and understand. The simulation hypothesis is fascinating but extremely difficult to absorb, for me anyway. Too many questions and not enough answers!



Yes, there would be a need for a Mind to determine WHAT PROBABILITIES CAN OCCUR.

This is very specific. These probabilities that can occur are not random and this is why we can determine the probabilities as to which state's can be measured.

The outcome is random but not which outcome's can occur. Here's a couple of examples.

The pair of dice. You can have an infinite set of dice being rolled but the outcomes that you can roll or limited by the designer of the pair of dice which is 2-12.


You can have an infinite set of Football games that have all sorts of different outcomes but what can occur is limited to the rules of Football. These rules were determined by Mind that created Football.

Spin/Spin down are not random states. Whether you measure spin up or spin down is random.

Based on the Constants of nature and the Laws of QM, it limits what probable states can occur and this is why we can determine based on probability which outcomes may occur.

So there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE when people try to claim ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. They say this because there's no way to explain the universe based on what we know without saying a MIND designed it. You have to go outside of Science and say ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. That can be anything and include things we don't have a shred of evidence to support.

That would be like saying a pair of dice designed to roll 2-12 can also roll a 22.

What you can say is, ALL POSSIBLE STATES THAT CAN OCCUR can expand into universes.

This supports what I'm saying.

Based on the fine tuned constants, the laws of QM and what probabilities can occur, it supports the conclusion that a MIND designed the universe.

You have to go outside of Science and say ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes and there's not a shred of evidence that supports such a notion.
edit on 31-3-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




It has to be populated with Parallel Universes because of Superposition.


Superposition only means that stimuli (A + B) will produce responses (X + Y), it does not prove parallel universes exists. Hinduism tells us that the Universe is cyclic, its birth an outgoing breath (Brahma), followed by its existance (Vishnu), then destroyed by an ingoing breath (Shankar), afterwhich the creator (Brahman or Vishnu or ) sleeps, safeguarding all souls in a sleep state, until the next breath occurs. So the creator is the universe but is also distinct from it.

The universe is expanding at an increasing rate which suggests from the hindu perspective that creation is still occuring, suggesting creation itself, was not a single big bang, but a long winded process (pun intended).

Another Brahman creating another universe is possible but imaterial to our existance.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015



John 14:
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


These words are the body of my measure of my will.

Subjectivity doesn't exist in the way that it is thought of.

Individuality (subjectivity) is relativity (where what is measured is relative to where [in the Spirit] you are measuring from.)

Think of it like we're all floating in a pool of time and your measurement is relative to where you are in the pool.

There is no actual separation of things - nothing doesn't exist to separate us - there can only ever be something.

There is only one spiritual body and only one physical body. The third body - the body that cannot be seen - the Tao that can't be named - he is of the two and the two are of him - they are one and he is the one - the I Am: Father.



The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders


It is explained in Christianity.
Yeshua is the body of Yahweh.

These words are my concepts and I am conception. What is my conception made of? My concepts and my will to conceive (emphasis on my concepts.)

The reason everything keeps reappearing is because we all share the same Spirit. If you conceive the will of a secure entrance, what you're going to get is a door because that is the truth of the Spirit.


Great minds think alike.

You conceive what your will is. But if we all did not share the same will, we would not see patterns. The patterns show that there can only be a single source. So individuality must be due to measure/local - the thing between space-time.

space = body
- = soul
time = spirit

It's body is space and its will is time.

Is that too confusing?
edit on 3/31/2017 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




So there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE when people try to claim ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. They say this because there's no way to explain the universe based on what we know without saying a MIND designed it. You have to go outside of Science and say ALL POSSIBLE STATES can expand into universes. That can be anything and include things we don't have a shred of evidence to support.


I'm not the greatest mathematician, but doesn't your hypothesis require a mathematical proof? What would be the term for "mind" in that formula?


edit on 1-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

Essentially what you're saying is that when the coin is flipped, the decision is made and that's the universe you are destined to live in. We create our own reality. But that also rules out probability because the decisions were made BEFORE the actual fact. That could be the case in a simulated universe. But what about an evolving universe where change, which can't be predicted, is actually the driving force? For anyone living in that universe, the future would always be probabilistic.
edit on 1-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You could ask that of any claim and get no answer:

You're comparing things? What is comparing? What is measure?

What is it to reach into infinity and determine a thing?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Essentially what you're saying is that when the coin is flipped, the decision is made and that's the universe you are destined to live in. We create our own reality. But that also rules out probability because the decisions were made BEFORE the actual fact. That could be the case in a simulated universe. But what about an evolving universe where change, which can't be predicted, is actually the driving force? For anyone living in that universe, the future would always be probabilistic.


If I'm understanding your question correctly, I think experientially there's not much difference between the two. If we're unaware of the innumerable causal affects leading up to every happening in the universe, there is no experiential difference between a deterministic Universe and a Probabilistic one. And if we're unaware of the causal factors leading to our reactions, there is no experiential difference between free will and no free will.

edit on 2-4-2017 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join