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.

 

We Are God

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
if the world makes the mind how do you explain that an observer changes the out come of an experiment simply by watching it. i refer to the double slit experiment.

On ATS, this one comes up every time.

You're going to have to take my word that I know what I'm talking about, okay? I'm not a physicist. I do know a little physicis.

Look at it like this. You are the mind in question. The mind that creates the universe. The only mind you think you can be sure of knowing the existence of, because it is you. 'I think therefore I am,' etc. (Nietzsche would disagree, but let's put a sock in him for the moment, shall we?).

You, the Universal Mind, observe the outcome of a 'double-slit experiment' and note that the photon went thataway.

So by this, you created the universe? Because the photon decided to go thataway when you looked at it?

Did you give the command 'Slit A', and see the photon go thataways? Or was it 'Slit B' instead, and did you then see the photon go theotherways? Once? Twice? A dozen times? Could you predict with accuracy better than chance which slit the photon would choose at every iteration of the experiment?

Thought not.

So what does the experiment prove? Read this carefully: this is all it proves. It proves that a probability field collapses when it's measured.

That's it. That's all.

On the particular occasion of the double-slit experiment the measuring device in question was you. But what control did you have over the outcome of the measurement? None. Did you influence the measurement? No.

It went where it went, and you had absolutely no say in the matter.

The universe went ahead and did what it was going to do anyway, using you as its helpless tool and plaything, which is what you are and always have been, as have I, as has anyone else who is reading this and all the rest besides.




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 

Does this mean that as mind increases in scope and sophistication, the universe becomes more causal and logically coherent?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SugarCube
 

Does this mean that as mind increases in scope and sophistication, the universe becomes more causal and logically coherent?


Yes!

And in becoming more causal and logically coherent does it mean we can one day gain some form of 'control' over it?



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SugarCube
 

Does this mean that as mind increases in scope and sophistication, the universe becomes more causal and logically coherent?


Yes!

And in becoming more causal and logically coherent does it mean we can one day gain some form of 'control' over it?


Individuals influence. The sum (or collective) controls. If only we had the perspective of the whole instead of the individual, then it would feel like we are in control, even if the choices are obvious. If we have the ability to connect information faster than it's creation then we should be able to achieve this 'state of mind'.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


But if the universe itself is a consciously generated, self aware, information processing, non-local holographic phenomenon, and mind too, like a point within an ever expanding sphere of consciousness - if consciousness itself is the universal connecting principal, then your arguments fall apart.

I don't think it's a chicken and egg scenario, as to which created what, since both mind and reality are intrinsically interwoven and give rise to one another simultaneously.

It's not a matter of being "special" but of being part of a vast ocean of consciousness which is reality itself, and I'm not just referring here to the collective consciousness of all sentient observers, but the interplay between that phenomenon, and the thing under observation itself.

"To be is to be percieved." So it's more like a great hall of mirrors where one's individual perspective, one's "I am" of being, is a solipsistic, holographic like expression of the whole kit and caboodle.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Yes, i totally agree with you.

I have believed this since i was old enough to think is such ways.

The best way for one to make this realization, and in essence have this fact proven to them is through meditation. Deep meditation.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


your logic is flawed. assuming that someone cant control the outcome of a given experiment only shows that YOU cant predict the outcome of a given experiment.

What if what seems like random selection has a deeper purpose, that the observers subliminal psyche controls which slit the photon goes through. I myself cant collapse the probability field to a predetermined path. This however doesnt mean there are not higher levels of intelligence that cant do that.

maybe the universe is using us to exist, but the fact remains that we can alter reality by accident or other wise. the mere fact that observation causes changes to be made on a sub atomic level should be shouted from the roof tops. this is not a simple discovery this is phenomenal. Your argument seems to completely ignore the fact that probability field collapses at all. the very fact that we can effect the universe by just existing be it random or determined is ground breaking. this is the very fabric of reality were are talking about.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by phi1618
 


Your avatar lends itself as an object of meditation. Whever I see it, it always stops me from whatever I'm thinking and doing and I just sit there, watching the kitty lick the screen over and over again..



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
 
And in becoming more causal and logically coherent does it mean we can one day gain some form of 'control' over it?

I think it more likely that it will gain some form of 'control' over us.

[edit on 22/6/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
your logic is flawed.

Nope.


What if... the observers subliminal psyche controls which slit the photon goes through.

First we should have to demonstrate the existence of a subliminal psyche, then show that such an entity could in fact do what you suggest. Nothing in quantum mechanics presupposes the existence of such an entity, neither, as far as I can see, does anything in the argument.


maybe the universe is using us to exist, but the fact remains that we can alter reality by accident or other wise.

You might want to look to your own logic here. You're postulating the existence of some kind of Unwilling Self that has control over which slit a photon passes through. Even if such a thing existed, what difference would it make? Will, as exerted by consciousness, is out of the picture anyway. As for altering reality by accident, that is precisely the same thing as being accidentally altered by reality. Can't you see this?


the mere fact that observation causes changes to be made on a sub atomic level should be shouted from the roof tops.

It is not a new discovery. It is very old, and as as far as I know it has been thoroughly and completely discussed by scientists, phiilosophers, theologers, writers and even drawing-room intellectuals these seventy years or more. A brutally oversimplified, distorted version of it is now being peddled to the masses as a kind of pseudo-spiritualism. But it is not new and, as you can see, it has not turned science, philosophy or even theology upside-down. A brief history of quantum mechanics



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
- Before quantum physics was properly understood, a materialist physics prevailed in science - elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, including neurons, neurons make the brain and brain makes consciousness. This theory of causation is called the theory of upward causation: cause moves up from the micro elementary particles all the way to the macro brain and consciousness. There is no causal power in any entity of the world but in the interactions between elementary particles.

But if we ourselves are nothing but material possibilities, how can our observation collapse waves of possibility? The interaction of possibility with possibility only begets more possibility, never actuality. So if there were only upward causation in the world, quantum collapse would be a paradox. In the correct paradox-free interpretation of quantum physics, upward causation is only capable of producing material waves of possibility for (nonmaterial) consciousness to choose from, and consciousness has the ultimate power, called downward causation, to create manifest reality by freely choosing among the possibilities offered. Consciousness is no longer seen as brain epiphenomenon but as the gound of being, in which all material possibilities, including the brain, are embedded.

- Quantum objects, when suitably correlated, are experimentally found to influence one another nonlocally (see Bell's Theorem as a proof for the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox), that is, without signals through space and without taking a finite time. Thus, correlated quantum objects must be interconnected in a domain which trascends space and time. Nonlocality implies transcendence. It follows that all quantum waves of possibility reside in a domain that transcends space and time; we will call it the domain of transcendent potentia (meaning potentiality), to use Aristotle's term adapted by Werner Heisenberg.

Is possibility less real than actuality? It may be the other way around. What is potential may be more real than what is manifest because potentia exists in a timeless domain whereas any actuality is merely ephemeral; it exists in time. This is the way Easterners think, how mystics all over the world think, and how physicists who heed the message of quantum physics think.

~ Amit Goswami, Ph.D. past professor of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon (taught there for 32 years)
from the book "Physics of the Soul", Hampton Roads Publishing ISBN 1-57174-332-4

You should read it Astyanax, it might just open your mind to new possibilities..


The old science of the past three centuries taught that all phenomenon are phenomenon of things that are made of matter. It is a monism (one substance) based on the idea that matter is the ground of all being.

The new paradigm posits instead a monism based on the primacy of consciousness - that consciousness (variously called Spirit, God, Godhead, Ain Sof, Tao, Brahman, etc. in popular and spiritual traditions), not matter, is the ground of all being; it is a monism based on a consciousness that is unitive and transcendent but one that becomes many in sentient beings such as us. We are that consciousness. All the world of experience, including matter, is the material manifestation of transcendent forms of consciousness.


Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein tried to prove it wrong, and came up with a choice between a non-localized interconnected universe, or a fatally flawed quantum theory. Bell came along and used the EPR experiment to prove non-locality. Physicists and the world just haven't caught up with the implications, yet..

So no, a materialist monism is a paradigm, however common sensicle, which is now in its death throws, and indeed, it makes the materialist atheists VERY uncomfortable.

But the truth is that the "stuff" of the universe, isn't really "stuff" at all per se, but a non-local holographic phenomenon of transcendent potentia, made actual only by the observation of a type of universal God-consciousness or mind of God, within which our mind is imbedded as another holographic waveform phenomenon, as if we're more like a chip off the old OLD block, than we are separate entities functioning in a purely isolate consciousness, the implication of which is that we share the same ground of being, at core, in a very intimate way, and that too makes some people uncomfortable - that to be, is to be percieved by the mind of God, but if that's the way it is, then there's no hiding!
And in my view, that is very liberating, provided we are freed from any sort of extreme judgement or condemnation.

"Therefore, judge not, and you will not be judged, for the amount you measure out, is the amount that will be measured unto you."

That's a very Buddhist type statement in all truth, and it's in perfect congruent alignment with the findings of modern quantum physics as well.

Yes - We are part of God, we are God.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


You should read it Astyanax, it might just open your mind to new possibilities.

Instead of offering me book recommendations, try addressing the points I'm making, one by one. Your posts are all waffle. Post something of substance if you expect to be taken seriously.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I just did! (make a substantive post) Why don't you address the points that I made.. and that were made through that author, a quantum physicist?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I just did! (make a substantive post) Why don't you address the points that I made.. and that were made through that author, a quantum physicist?

You mean this?


Before quantum physics was properly understood, a materialist physics prevailed in science...

Surely you jest? You want a serious reply to a post that begins by confusing causality with constitution, and blithely blunders on from there?

Come on. I have better things to do with my time.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


dont waste your time. people have the right to believe what they want. thats whats so great about free will. based on a reality where mind creates matter he/she has decided that this particular version of reality is what he/she wants to subscribe to. so by all means let him/her play in that world and we can play in ours.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
dont waste your time. people have the right to believe what they want... let him/her play in that world and we can play in ours.

The whole point of ATS is to be a place where people with widely divergent beliefs can discuss them with one another. However, we can pick and choose whom we respond to. I certainly do.

I answered your question because it was clearly put, and because it is one that many readers of this thread are probably asking. An honest question, to which I gave an honest answer. If you wish to discuss the matter further, by all means let us do so. There is no possibility of my coming round to your point of view (because it is based on a fallacy), but perhaps I can bring you round to mine.

Regrettably, I find I cannot extend the same respect to those who have nothing meaningful to say but insist on saying it anyway, especially when they present their ill-conceived opinions as inarguable truth.

Edited to remove unnecessary details.

[edit on 22/6/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Bell's Theorem proved nonlocality, and so the fundamental particles of the Universe are in instantaneous communication with everything else, and of course from the perspective of a photon, all is one, and there is no time or causation. It's all one, eminating from one source, but for anything to BE anything, it must be actualized from the realm of immaterial quantum potentia (what physicist David Bohm called the "implicate order" of quantum potentia), and so the universal wave of probability for all matter, if the moon is still to be there when we're not looking at it, must be actualized by a type of universal consciousness manifesting and upholding the objective reality independantly of any one subjective observer, or trillions of them, who are all part of the one consciously generated, nonlocal holographic-like matrix of existence. So no, we or the collective of all sentients do not make reality, but we are part of the mind of God, which does, and are embued with similar abilities or attributes, as co-creators of reality, but not THE creators. We, our consciousness is more like part of a hologram, made in the image of, the great reality.

Consciousness, not matter, is the first cause which gives rise to all manifestation. Consciousness is primary, and matter is dependant upon it, not the other way around.

And the point about the collapse of the wave of probability to actuality, is a good point. How can free will choice via conscious observation alter the physical parameters of matter, if consciousness is nothing special, or just more matter doing stuff in the brain..?

That's not waffle, but a valid point, which someone else made earlier, and was ignored with obfuscation about WHICH slit the particle went through, but that it was even operating as a particle to begin with, was determined by the choice of the observer..


--------------------

"So fear not, little ones, nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased the father to share his kingdom with all his children."



[edit on 22-6-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 

It is certainly more trouble than it is worth, but since you are so eager to be debunked...

*


1. A false first step


Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Before quantum physics was properly understood, a materialist physics prevailed in science - elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, including neurons, neurons make the brain and brain makes consciousness. This theory of causation...

Here is your first error, which makes everything you say thereafter false. What you describe is not a theory of causation. It is a theory about how objects are constituted. It says nothing about how they are brought into being or why they behave the way they do. That would be a theory of causation. This is just a theory of the composition of matter.


...is called the theory of upward causation: cause moves up from the micro elementary particles all the way to the macro brain and consciousness.

There is no such principle in science. No scientist is stupid enough to pretend that all causes originate at the level of elementary particles. They can all theoretically be described in terms of the interaction of elementary particles but that is neither here nor there.

On the contrary, science embraces emergence, the idea that complex systems may have properties that cannot be predicted by studying their component parts. Thus consciousness cannot be predicted from studying any part or activity of the brain. Emergence is directly opposed to your spurious 'theory of upward causation'. Only a fool believes that there is


no causal power in any entity of the world but in the interactions between elementary particles.

So your fundamental premise is wrong, and because it is, your entire argument collapses.

*


2. A second, equally ruinous false assumption

Even if your first premise were correct, your argument from it fails because it contains a false assumption.


if there were only upward causation in the world, quantum collapse would be a paradox.

As stated earlier, science does not insist on this spurious 'upward causation' principle of yours. But there is another problem. The necessity of an observer (in practice, a measuring device, not a mind at all) to give definition to an event is only paradoxical if it can be proved that the observer consciously, willingly affects the outcome. And we have already shown that the observer cannot control or predict the outcome. See my reply to TiM3LoRd above.

*


3. Giant assertions unsupported by the slightest evidence


Consciousness has the ultimate power, called downward causation, to create manifest reality by freely choosing among the possibilities offered.

Consciousness has no power to affect a quantum outcome.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics - not the double-slit experiment, not the EPR paradox, not Bell's Theorem, not even Bohm's ideas of an immanent 'quantum potential' - that invests consciousness with this power. Consciousness chooses nothing, determines nothing. It is an innocent, unwilling bystander - an observer who, by definition, has no control over the way his presence changes the experiment.

Yes, by definition - the Uncertainty Principle sees to that. So much for your transcendent mind determining the motion of particles and bringing the universe into being. The pretence that it does is waffle, mumbo-jumbo, snake-oil, New-Age gobbledygook, and nothing more.


There is no time or causation.

More gobbledygook. Neither time nor causality are exorcised by quantum entanglement. In the EPR experiment causality is implicit in the fact that changing the spin orientation of particle A results in a change in the spin orientation of particle B. As for time, it is part of the overarching framework within which the experiment is conducted. In effect, it is part of the experimental apparatus.

*


4. A wilful misapplication of Bell's Theory

In another post you make much of Bell's Theorem and the apparent violation of locality in the EPR experiment. From a philosophical or epistemological point of view this is certainly a very important result. It is also very important because it calls into question some popular assumptions about reality that are also shared by science. However, this paradoxical result in an obscure experiment is open to any number of different interpretations, and the one you have espoused is about the least likely. Bell's Theorem itself does not favour it above others. A near-infinitude of evidence from science and common experience cries out against it, showing the world to be causal, relativistic and predictable.

*


5. Miscellaneous howlers

I will content myself by pointing out only the most egregious of your scientific and epistemological howlers.


we ourselves are nothing but material possibilities, how can our observation collapse waves of possibility?

Every time I flush the toilet I am reminded that at least some part of me is a material reality. A material reality is just what it takes to collapse a wave function - I take it that is what you mean by a 'wave of possibility'.


The interaction of possibility with possibility only begets more possibility, never actuality.

Particles interact. Objects interact. People interact. Possibilities are not physical entities and therefore cannot interact, in this world or any other.


Correlated quantum objects must be interconnected in a domain which trascends space and time.

'Correlated quantum objects' or rather, entangled particles (I love these pseudoscientific coinages of yours) are rather obviously, as their name implies, connected in space and time. They originate from the same source. This could well suffice to account for the apparent paradoxes of entanglement.


Nonlocality implies transcendence.

No, it merely implies that quantum mechanics is not a perfect description of reality. We sort of knew that anyway.

*



6. Disingenuousness and waffle


Is possibility less real than actuality? It may be the other way around. What is potential may be more real than what is manifest because potentia exists in a timeless domain whereas any actuality is merely ephemeral; it exists in time. This is the way Easterners think, how mystics all over the world think...

It is how wishful thinkers think.

First they invent a domain of irreality based on the flimsy evidence of some paradoxes in quantum mechanics, conveniently ignoring an all-but-literal infinitude of day-to-day evidence that shows the universe is causal, deterministic and predictable.

Next they dream up a set of purely hypothetical possibilities and assert that the imaginary domain of irreality is their home - as if possibilities are physical creatures that need somewhere to live!

Then they try to convince us that this irreality of theirs is more real than reality. Nice try, chaps.

Finally, and on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, they claim that the domain of irreality is (or is shaped by) consciousness.

One would admire such propagandist audacity were it not so incompetently fabricated and expounded.

And by the way, I am an Easterner - a South Asian. Do not presume to tell me how I think.


for anything to BE anything, it must be actualized from the realm of immaterial quantum potentia (what physicist David Bohm called the "implicate order" of quantum potentia)

No, this was just a hypothesis Bohm used to try to account for quantum violations of Bell's Inequality. It is conjectural and theoretical, not based on direct empirical evidence, so you are being disingenuous when you present it as scientific fact. It is a hypothesis at best - not even a theory.


That's not waffle, but a valid point.

Sorry, chum, it's waffle. Your New Age pals have taken a paradoxical result in quantum mechanics and built a vast contraption of unwarranted assumption and cargo-cult mumbo-jumbo on top of it. Nonlocality doesn't mean what you think it does, the holographic principle is not some kind of cosmic Politburo and Mind does not make reality, no matter how hard you meditate. The reason you don't understand why this is so is because you don't really have the science. I recommend that you acquire a scientific education. Once you really understand what you're talking about, you will cease to confuse yourself and others.

[edit on 23/6/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Notice it sais "make", as in create:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." -- Genesis 1:26

How does that make *us* god ?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join