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.

 

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


I think the key word is "feel" just because they "feel" solid doesn't mean they are. How is it that the force/field can have such a strong affect on the way that we perceive matter?

Wouldn't it be an amazing feat for a force/field to be able to make something that is 99.9% space "feel" solid?




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
We have no proof that anything unconscious affects the way matter acts because it takes a conscious being to determine the affect.


Exactly.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 





Wouldn't it be an amazing feat for a force/field to be able to make something that is 99.9% space "feel" solid?


You're pretty much describing 'Aerogel'.

The stuff NASA used on the mission to capture some comet dust a little while ago.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
We don't really need science to prove there is one consciousness, we all just need to open up our minds and find the answers for ourselves. If everyone were to do so, the human race would move forward spiritually and that would be awesome.

So I guess if science can prove that there is one consciousness, then most people would wake up and we'd all be mostly on the same level. But that's a stretch, even though I'd love that too happen, I don't know if it will anytime soon. You never know though!



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 

Where dissimilar materials have reportedly fused together, at the atomic level in the presence of high frequency radio waves and other EM fields. Wood with metal, fused atomically where they intersected for example.


Explosion welding is the fun way to fuse things together. A million or two PSI does the trick.





posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


It is amazing.

Nobody has ever touched something called matter.

If you would go up to the person on the street and ask them, has science shown that matter exists, they would say of course. They would think you were watching to many Matrix movies.

The fact is, science can't show that matter exists. Materialism is based on wishful thinking.

We perceive things like hardness and softness. Nobody has actully touched a table top or laid their head on a soft pillow.

This is the fork in the road so to speak.

Science shows that perception creates reality. Many scientist are materialist though. This means they reduce consciousness to the human brain.

They then look for a theory of everything to try and explain how dead matter became aware of itself.

The logical answer is found in Idealism.

Science shows that perception creates reality, therefore the universe must perceive itself. The universe is conscious.

This is science but many scientist will reduce consciouness to the brain and therefore they have this blind, misguided belief in materialism.

The MWI is just a materialist way to try and bring materialism back to the table but it does no such thing.

MWI actually supports a Conscious universe.

If you want to explain the universe, you just need to look at humans.

Consciousness experiences different realities. A woman can be a mother, wife, lawyer, Aunt, Godmother, sister in law, marathon runner and more.

So a singular consciousness (the woman) experiences all of these different realities.

This is the same with the universe. The universe is a singular consciousness that we all are connected to. This singular consciousness experiences different realities.

This is why these universes don't have an objective, material reality. These realities are conscious projections. These realities are thoughts of this singular consciousness.

People will say this is New Age but it's not. This is science. Materialism is fantasy.

I understand why people cling to materialism. They want the illusion to be real. It's like Plato and the allegory of the cave. I remember that one character in the Matrix movies who wanted to return to the Matrix. He said,"Ignorance is bliss."

This is true. It's easier to accept materialism because then you don't have to ask the tough questions. Who or what is this singular consciousness? Are we that singular consciousness manifesting in this reality? What about death? What's life if matter doesn't exist? What's old age if time doesn't exist?

The questions can go on and on. It's easier to say dead matter became aware of itself and that's that.

Ignorance is bliss.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by constantwonder
 


No he didn't. This sounds like some wishful thinking of materialist fundamentalists. Schrodinger was through and through idealist. Read his autobiography. Get over it.


Lets see what he said about his own work. . .


A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement


Can only be understood when measured, he did not say concsiousness was requirted. . .


I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.



The paradox that Schrödinger’s hypothetical cat presented was that the cat was simultaneously dead and alive. Schrödinger asked Einstein to imagine that a cat was inside a box and that we could not see or hear or otherwise sense what was happening inside the box. The cats fate is linked to some random event inside the box. Applying the rules of quantum physics the cat is both dead and alive until we can open the box and and directly determine its state. Common sense would suggest that surely the cat is either dead or alive inside the box, whether we know it or not, but applying the rules of quantum physics, the actual state does not come into being until the moment that we measure it. Of course, Schrödinger didn’t actually believe that; he thought the idea made no sense. His real goal was to point out that if this was dumb idea when applied to cats, it might be just as dumb an idea to apply to subatomic particles.


whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com...



It was originally meant to show how ridiculous quantum mechanics can be, by someone who didn't believe in it in the first place. cats don't behave quantum mechanically. forget about the cat. trying to learn qm using cats will only hurt your understanding


www.physicsforums.com...


In the 1920s, with the inception of early quantum theory, some of its founders, including Erwin Schrödinger,[11] Werner Heisenberg,[12] Wolfgang Pauli,[13] Niels Bohr,[14] and Eugene Wigner, took an active interest in the philosophical implications of their emerging quantum theory. Given that the theory changed the fundamental understanding of physics, the question of how it could be used to explain all observable reality became central to the debate. The question opened gaps in the empirical and scientific explanations of actual reality and human perceived reality.


en.wikipedia.org...

Again we have an example saying that perception is what changes not reality. . . .

schrodinger on mysticism


The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it...


en.wikiquote.org...

hrmmm. . . .

I will stop tring to convince you all of anything. Its clear that as long as you don't have to look into the science or facts about what your spouting your happy. You misinterperate physics, you deny the maths, and paint faces on dead people based on subjective biographies. . .

I showed the math and pointed out what the scientists themselves thought about the theory which is all contradictory to what you are pushing, yet you deny everything said. . . and i thought science was dogmatic and stubborn. . .




[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Lets see what he said about his own work. . .


A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement


Can only be understood when measured, he did not say concsiousness was requirted. . .

[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]


So if it can only be understood when measured, how does the measurement come to fruition?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Sorry, but the sources you quoted sound like materialist fundamentalists trying to put words into Schrodinger's mouth.

Here are actual quotes by Schrodinger(cited earlier)


In 1925 Schrõdinger resolved that paradox the way the Vedantists did: he asserted that all consciousness is one. As he wrote:

"But it is quite easy to express the solution in words, thus: the plurality [of viewpoints] that we perceive is only "an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy, in which this is a fundamental dogma, has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies, one of the most attractive being the many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply the object."

Here is another fragment of that essay:

"... you may suddenly come to see, in a flash, the profound rightness of the basic conviction of Vedanta: ... knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings."

Finally, Schrödinger himself makes an interesting analogy between Vedantic philosophy and modern physics:

"If finally we look back at that idea of Mach [that `the universe is not twice given'], we shall realize that it comes as near to the orthodox dogma of the Upanishads as it could possibly do without stating it expressis verbis. The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing."



Schrodinger wrote in his book Meine Weltansicht

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”



According to his biographer Walter Moore, there is a clear continuity between Schrodinger’s understanding of Vedanta and his research:

“The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One."

He became a Vedantist, a Hindu, as a result of his studies in search for truth. Schrodinger kept a copy of the Hindu scriptures at his bedside. He read books on Vedas, yoga and Sankhya philosophy and he reworked them into his own words, and ultimately came to believe them. The Upanishads and the Bhagavad gita, were his favorite scriptures.


Source

Get over it. Schrodinger was idealist. And Hindu at that.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
You see this is what i mean. . . it can only be understood by man when you observe the results. This does not mean that a conscious being has to observe the results for them to occur.

The event happens anyway, the man, machine, tree, rock, other particle, whatever the observer may be in any particular situation only becomes "aware" of the event through an observation of it.

Until this observation is made it can be argued that each possible outcome has occured. In reality however only one event has occured. This is what schrodinger was trying to explain.

He was pointing out how absurd applying that to the real world would be. A radioactive material will decay with or without conscious observation. But you can't say that with certainty until you make a measurement.

Before you observe something then from your perspective it may or may not have happened, but from another perspective it has already happened.

Its all about perspective and perception. Those are the variables. Thats why it seems like you have to observe, logicly the argument is valid. The mathematics which outway the logic do not require an observer. The functions happen regardless.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Sorry, but the sources you quoted sound like materialist fundamentalists trying to put words into Schrodinger's mouth.



Uhm the first two quotes are direct quotes from Schrodinger.

"all sensitive beings" . . . clearly hes stating that the mind and the universe are linked through perception. No where in any of the quotes you've provided or the info you have given does he say that your required, or that the universe requires consciousness.

You are linked to matter through your perception of it that's why it seems like your concsiousness has an impact. Reality is black and white perception makes it grey.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Interesting quote from Shrodinger. But he also said this...

en.wikiquote.org


I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.


And this...


We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators.


And this..


Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...


And let's pay the most attention to this:


Knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it... For we should then have the same baffling question: which part, which aspect are you? what, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours... is, in a certain sense, the whole... This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world.'


hmmmm...sounds to me like he is saying we are all of one consciousness.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


But aren't the mathematics products of us observing? Or do I have it backwards?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


No actually he was trying to show the collapse of the wavefunction only takes place when an observation is made. Prior to that light is both a particle and a wave. When it is observed it is either one or the other. Sigh. Look at the original Hindu paradox from which Schrodinger takes his paradox from. It is from Samkhya philosophy branch of Hindu philosophy which is a dualist school and considers reality to consist of two substances: matter and conscousness. The purpose of the paradox is to show that an event only takes place when the observer collapses it to prove that that there is no world independent of an observer.

He then resolves the Hindu paradox by the rival Hindu philosophical school, called Vedanta, which is non-dualist and believes everything is an expression of consciousness. Schrodinger concludes similarly, there is only singular and pure consciousness and there is no such thing as many observers or selfs. Hence why he said that subatomic particles do not exist in isolation. Ultimately, he concludes what Vedanta concludes, the entire world is consciousness.

You can deny it all you want, but we actually have Schrodinger on record saying this stuff. So once again: Get over it.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by constantwonder
 





We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators.


He said it right here, it happens anyway, we observe it and paint it with whatever brush we like. Thats why we all experience similar events but have different feelings about them.

Its my argument that the universe does not require consciousness to exsist. Oneness of mind and the other philisophical implications I won't say much on though.

It's my point that concsiousness specifically is distinctly different than the universe of matter.

We do not will things into exsistance and control wave functions with thought, we don't have a dead and alive cat and Schrodinger didn't think so either.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by constantwonder
 


But aren't the mathematics products of us observing? Or do I have it backwards?


Mathematics are the rules we've discovered that govern things always. Mathematical and physical law are law because they happen everywhere all the time. With or without something there to witness it



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Exactly, that is exactly what Schrodinger is saying that the universe is linked to our perception of it and is not independent of it. That is called idealism. Schrodinger was idealist. You've just proven my point.

His ultimate conclusion which has now been cited several times in this thread is that everything is ultimately one consciousness.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



Well, for one thing, it redefines what matter is. If it isn't solid, tangible objects and its solidity is only an appearance, then it makes you question what matter really is and whether it actually exists at all.


I've already gone over the solidity issue of the material world as well as what happens when you 'touch' a 'solid' object. I refer back to this post link We can further clarify this issue by looking into force carriers, I will leave you to look that up yourself rather than me reexplaining and amending that explanation by including the role of force carriers.


Quantum Mechanics, in my opinion is the first real challenge at the assumption of a real world and it has redefined what matter is. I do not claim that it has proven that matter does not exist, but it has certainly redefined what this matter is.


No, QM explains the mechanics behind the behavior of matter at the atomic and subatomic level. It does not in any way 'redefine' matter or physical reality.


Quantum mechanics (QM) is a set of principles describing the physical reality at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles).
source


If you take the standard model of the atom virtually the entireity of it is made up empty space. If you look at Quantum field theory, what we call matter is just actually flux from a virtual field(virtual quanta). This pushes us further to redefine matter. If it originally some flux in a virtual field, then what exactly is this matter?


You should really get into the habit of citing sources rather than giving personal opinion founded upon misunderstandings.


The atom is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons.

...

The principles of quantum mechanics were used to successfully model the atom.


Oh snap no it did not just say QM was used to successfully model the atom! DAAAAAMN!



Matter does not actually exist, it is a field projected by consciousness. A field of conscousness. What we call matter are just dense thought-forms. The so-called virtual field of quantum field theory is the etheric plane of esoteric wisdom, and this is preceeded by even finer field manifestations. Ending at pure consciousness.


Please cite sources of evidence for review. Oh right... I've already asked this a dozen times.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
my entire point was that the universe does not require a concsious observer.

no where in any of my posts did I say anything about the oneness of concsious entities.

The universe does not require concsiousness. The far more intruiging question from a philisophical standpoint is does consciousness require the material universe.

oh boy time for dinner i shall return


[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



We are basically witnessing the integration of new age science with old age science, with old age science being gradually replaced with new age science.


No, we actually are not. I demonstrated this in that one clip. What we are witnessing is the purposeful act of new agers trying to hang onto their narcissistic beliefs by sensationalizing and muddying quantum theory. [/quot


All I want to say is.....yeah, what he said.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join