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.
originally posted by: Prene
Materialism is the definition of Satanism. Thats where it comes from and why theistics are inclined to question science's beliefs and motives.
There is no wave particle duality. The particle is an illusion. The wave is real.
The curse on earth was the increase in density. God did not create the material world for souls. He created it as an anchor, a root system for Eden. We used to swim like fish, you me and Eve. Now we crawl through the mud. The temptations of flesh has nothing to do with sex. Temptations to worship the tabernacle, the space suit, the prison cells, the quarantine walls..
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: Prene
Materialism is the definition of Satanism. Thats where it comes from and why theistics are inclined to question science's beliefs and motives.
There is no wave particle duality. The particle is an illusion. The wave is real.
The curse on earth was the increase in density. God did not create the material world for souls. He created it as an anchor, a root system for Eden. We used to swim like fish, you me and Eve. Now we crawl through the mud. The temptations of flesh has nothing to do with sex. Temptations to worship the tabernacle, the space suit, the prison cells, the quarantine walls..
LOL
Satanism/Satan is an invention of Christianity. It means opponent, and was initially used to designate rival Christian sects. Over time it was applied to anything perceived as immoral/evil from Christian point of view.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It's because all evidence points to that being the case. For example, if consciousness existed outside the body why does one's perception of the world, aka consciousness, change when the brain becomes damaged?
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dug88
If you're a scientist, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Half of what you say is incoherent babble. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about because you posted links without any context. Scientist don't talk about exact truth. You just posted links and said go fish LOL. So I will go fishing for you since you don't understand what you posted. The fact is you destroyed your own argument with your blind posts. First you posted about Hogan and the holometer but you failed to read this from a link you posted.
The Fermilab holometer aims to test one interpretation of the so-called holographic principle, which states that the amount of information that can be crammed into a region of space and time, or spacetime, is proportional to the region's surface area. If the holographic principle holds, then the universe is a bit like a hologram, a two-dimensional structure that only appears to be three-dimensional. Proving that would be a big step toward formulating a quantum theory of spacetime and gravity. The principle implies a kind of information shortage that, according to the experimenters, makes it impossible to say precisely where an object is. The holometer aims to prove that position is inherently uncertain. Not everyone cheers the effort, however. A co-inventor of the holographic principle says the experiment has nothing to do with his brainchild. Others say they worry that the experiment will give quantum-gravity research a bad name.
science.sciencemag.org...
Again, this is a link you posted. One of the people that came up with the Holographic Universe says the experiment has nothing to do with his theory 3 years before hand and Hogan's experiment has nothing to do with recent papers like this:
From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology
Niayesh Afshordi, Claudio Corianò, Luigi Delle Rose, Elizabeth Gould, and Kostas Skenderis
Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 041301 – Published 27 January 2017
journals.aps.org...
Here's an article on the paper.
Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded."
Although not an example with holographic properties, it could be thought of as rather like watching a 3-D film in a cinema. We see the pictures as having height, width and crucially, depth—when in fact it all originates from a flat 2-D screen. The difference, in our 3-D universe, is that we can touch objects and the 'projection' is 'real' from our perspective.
In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.
Professor Skenderis comments: "Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this."
phys.org...
This is very important and could actually point to data that may have given birth to our universe.
You found some articles about Hogan and the Holometer but I haven't mentioned Hogan. I talked about Hoof't and Susskind. The Holometer has nothing to do with anything I've posted. This is why you just blindly posted without any context. Here's what Physicist I have posted said about the Holometer years before Hogan's experiment started.
Ralph Bousso:
But some experts on the holographic principle think the experiment is completely off-target. “There is no relationship between the argument [Hogan] is making and the holographic principle,” Bousso says. “None whatsoever. Zero.” The problem lies not in Hogan’s interpretation of the uncertainty relationship, but rather in “the first step of his analysis,” Bousso contends.
Bousso notes that a premise of special relativity called Lorentz invariance says the rules of physics should be the same for all observers, regardless of how they are moving relative to one another. The holographic principle maintains Lorentz invariance, Bousso says. But Hogan’s uncertainty formula does not, he argues: An observer standing in the lab and another zipping past would not agree on how much an interferometer’s beam splitter jitters. So Hogan’s uncertainty relationship cannot follow from the holographic principle, Bousso argues.
The experiment can do no good in testing the holographic principle, Bousso says, but running it could do plenty of harm. The holometer has garnered an inordinate amount of attention in the blogosphere and in press accounts, he says, raising unrealistic expectations. “They’re not going to have a signal and then there is going to be a backlash saying that the holographic principle isn’t valid, and we’ll look like we’re on the defensive,” Bousso says. “That’s why I’m trying to get the word out [that the experiment won’t test the principle] without appearing to make excuses.”
Susskind:
Not everyone cheers the effort, however. In fact, Leonard Susskind, a theorist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and co-inventor of the holographic principle, says the experiment has nothing to do with his brainchild. “The idea that this tests anything of interest is silly,” he says, before refusing to elaborate and abruptly hanging up the phone.
www.math.columbia.edu...
Please, stop blindly posting things you don't understand. This way I don't have to dig through your links because you haven't read them. This way you can post a link then add some interesting comments on the links instead of incoherent babble.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It's because all evidence points to that being the case. For example, if consciousness existed outside the body why does one's perception of the world, aka consciousness, change when the brain becomes damaged?
Initial evidence is found that the brain has a 'tuning knob' that is actually influencing behavior. Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts relevant at the time. The scientific magazine Neuron is publishing the results of researchers at Radboud University the Netherlands on January 22.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: neoholographic
The problem is the lack of philosophy involved in science. Read Des cartes that will clue you into what you're asking about. The reality is that we can't know anything with absolute certainty except that we our Consciousness at least exist. If we can't agree on that there can be no agreement on anything you have to start from the foundation of what you actually know with certainty. Then you can determine what is likely and so forth.
Jaden
Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
Nope - it's a whole subject area Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true. Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct. Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature.
Over the years, we have written extensively about why QM seems to imply that the world is essentially mental (e.g. 1990, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2017a, 2017b). We are often misinterpreted—and misrepresented—as espousing solipsism or some form of “quantum mysticism,” so let us be clear: our argument for a mental world does not entail or imply that the world is merely one’s own personal hallucination or act of imagination. Our view is entirely naturalistic: the mind that underlies the world is a transpersonal mind behaving according to natural laws. It comprises but far transcends any individual psyche.
According to QM, the world exists only as a cloud of simultaneous, overlapping possibilities—technically called a “superposition”—until an observation brings one of these possibilities into focus in the form of definite objects and events. This transition is technically called a “measurement.” One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements.
Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.
originally posted by: TheBandit795
New article by Bernardo Kastrup, Henry Stapp and Menas Kafatos.
Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics
The question is no longer whether quantum theory is correct, but what it means
For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true. Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct. Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature.
Over the years, we have written extensively about why QM seems to imply that the world is essentially mental (e.g. 1990, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2017a, 2017b). We are often misinterpreted—and misrepresented—as espousing solipsism or some form of “quantum mysticism,” so let us be clear: our argument for a mental world does not entail or imply that the world is merely one’s own personal hallucination or act of imagination. Our view is entirely naturalistic: the mind that underlies the world is a transpersonal mind behaving according to natural laws. It comprises but far transcends any individual psyche.
According to QM, the world exists only as a cloud of simultaneous, overlapping possibilities—technically called a “superposition”—until an observation brings one of these possibilities into focus in the form of definite objects and events. This transition is technically called a “measurement.” One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements.
They go on to explain why inanimate objects cannot collapse a wave function, rule out decoherence and the notion that massive objects do not have entanglement. And finish with the following:
"Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.
Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.
originally posted by: neoholographic
What's the basis for materialism in science?