Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

I highly suspect that when I die and lose consciousness for the final time, my chunk of the holographic universe will cease to exist. Whether the universe can stand losing me remains to be seen (or not), but I wish you the best of luck in not being erased from existence after I die. As far as I'm concerned, you will be. And that's all that really matters.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

Materialism? What else/where would consciousness be exactly? Are you saying that it is not localized in the brain and is not a simple evolutionary trait like eyes or hair?

All animals are conscious just to varying degrees...i think the complex human and other primate forms have helped us immensly.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Solomons]

Exactly, that is precisely what is being said. The universe did not spring from nothing, and consciousness is universal. Each of us has a "prong"of the universal consciousness, and ultimately if you go down deep enough, all individual consciousness joins into one.

And evolution is based on a system of circular-reasoning, no matter how much people wish it wasn't... your adherence to a circular-reasoned process of something springing out of nothing is just not tenable.

Here's an interview with Dr. Stenger he explains what ive been saying very nicely.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

Sirex, I am not doing physics here. I am doing Philosophy. I couldn't really careless about physics that much, because physics cannot know the causes of anything. It can only measure effects. When it comes to knowing causes you shift to philosophy. Philosophy demands very critical reasoning and nothing is immune from criticism in philosophy, even the most basic assumptions about reality.

Again, the exercise would be a moot argument. If one ceases to exist, then one can not report on existence itself for obvious reasons.

Exactly, my point. You cannot prove it.

Yet when taken into context of reality itself and whether reality continues to exist or not, the entirety of all who are able to perceive reality as still existing must be taken into account on the existence of reality after the non-existence of ones self. Just because YOU can experience reality due to your non-existence does not invariably imply that reality ceases to exist for all thing's in reality. If such were true, then I pray I never die for the sake of my children.

Again as you no longer exist you will never know whether others are existing or not. It would be like me going away for a while, thinking my home still exists, only to come back and see that it was bulldozed. I can believe that my home still exists, but I don't know for certain. Likewise, you can believe that after you cease to exist reality will continue, but you cannot be certain of it.

This philosophy is known as skepticism. Hume is a famous skeptic and he doubted even the laws of physics. Just because the laws of physics have held to be true so far, does not mean they will always hold true. Hume is merely showing that we cannot have certain knowledge based on inductive reasoning. Your reasoning that reality will continue after your non-existence is based on inductive reasoning. You assert that only on the basis that reality existed in the past.

We do not consciously agree to perceive reality the way it is perceived. There is no scientific evidence to support this assertion at all.

I never said that we consciously agree to perceive reality. It is clearly unconscious, but the fact remains that we perceive reality as it is because our minds are similar. Not all minds perceive reality in the same way. It would be arrogant to say that only your perception is valid, and every other perception is invalid.

We see reality from a 3D point of view. Imagine seeing it from a 4D point of view or a 5D point of view. It would look very different. Not everybody is shaing the same reality.

Even from a socio-linguistic point of view, social theorists will tell you that different societies perceive reality very differently. The Japanense for example cannot distinguish certain colours because they do not exist in their vocabulary.

Reality depends upon your perception.

Nothing has been shown to be dependent upon conscious observation in order to exist, and certainly not human consciousness.

Listen to me, because I am tired of repeating it. It depends upon your modes of access. If your modes of access could see energy, you would see reality as a field of vibrating energy. Do you remember when Neo awakens in the Matrix? He no longer sees's physical objects, he sees code.

To say reality "IS" is known as scientific positivism. It is a defeated philosophy. Even very basic things like what is electricity are not known in science, whenever a defnition is formed, new observations are made which falsify the definition.

Reality is not easy to pin down. I want you to appreciate this. At least this will give me some confidence you are capable of thinking rationally.

This is more unfounded conjecture without any evidence backing it. I honestly don't care for empty claims of truth.

It is not conjecture, it is an argument. A famous argument in fact which appears in Buddhist Philosophy of non-self and in Hume's philosophy, and in contempoary cybernetic philosophy. Hume famously said, that whenever he inquires into what is called the "self" he finds nothing more than a bundle of changing memories, thoughts and sensations. There is nothing that he could call self. The Buddhists agree, the self is an aggregate based on changing factors and is momentary. There is no such thing as an enduring human self.

Psychology furnishes this with evidence showing how our personality changes with every social situation. I behave differently in an interview, in a causal night out with friends, with my spouse, with the boss, in a crisis. The personality is not a real substance, but it an aggregate of various factors which change from moment to moment.

Therefore the human self is not the real self. The real self is something other than our personal identity.

If you still don't get it, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with somebody who cannot reason.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by constantwonder


I am aware that Schrodinger used Hinduism. Actually, he not only used Hinduism to interpret Quantum Mechanics, but he also used Hinduism to formulate Quantum Mechnics. He even borrows the the Cat thought experiment from Hindu philosophy. If you read his biography, it says his wave mechanics was him putting Hinduism into the language of physics.

Hindu philosophy has already dealt with the the notion of observer collapsing matter and proven through strong logical arguments why matter and consciousness are interdependent. In Hindu philosophy matter exists in a a pure potential state called Moolaprakriti(quantum matter) and when consciousness collapses it, matter manifests and gradually takes on the form of physical mass. However, just before it assumes mass states, it exists in various densities ranging from very dense to least dense.

The trouble with a human observer is, according to Hindu thought, is that they cannot perceive the less dense states of matter. They are much more finer than quarks. In fact they are too fine to measure. As you regress from the gross to the subtle, you tend towards consciousness. In other words, matter will start to become more like consciousness the further you regress in the matter continuum.

This is actually what the new-age model of reality is based on. After physical, there is the etheric, after the etheritc, the astral, after the astral the mental etc

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

How can we simply demand consciousness be what creates reality when we don't know what consciousness is or how it arises? An exercise such as this might be as faulty as planting an apple seed and concluding an orange tree should grow from it.

As we get more awesome skillz, we could probably pull off the seed thing. I'd be happy if we'd permanently remerge apples and oranges into a single species.

What I have come to understand is that consciousness and qualia do not arise as they are not processes, however, aspects of them are selected by structure and process with a correspondingly limited view. I will meet you on the zombie thing but with a twist. There is noone watching because the watching and the watched are the very same. The language does have the noxious effect of proceduralizing this non-process of the thing itself by its grammatical structure. Go beyond the language.

Despite the hype that I myself rejected, I came around to thinking the plasticity (thus outcomes are not fully predetermined) that QM allows may be an important ingredient for consciousness as is experienced. I'm working it out bit by bit. If I end up back at hype level by some kind of reasoning or honest insight rather than pure faith or novelty fascination then at least it isn't blind.

You said you wanted to be shown the rabbit hole. I can only try to guide you there. Once you see it, you might find you always did, keeping it in a sort of blind spot. On the other hand, you could end up institutionalized. Frack. You're making me sound Morpheus-ish.

There is nothing in processes that is satisfactorially explanatory of this ultimate aspect of my subjective experience. By contrast, there is in those non-processes. My experience is not that of processes at all but is in fact a sort of virtual reality; the brain cannot provide anything but that. None of this "stuff" that is "out there" has any requirement to be anything more than a very convincing dream and it would appear to exist just as it does. Any physical process is computable if forces and their relationships can be modeled mathematically (trivially true?).

The "hard" and "easy" problems have more or less exchanged places for me mentally while still remaining in their respective places intellectually, at least verbally.

I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous of others to exclaim that whatever is the causation of the universe must have been at the very least a conscious force and in the extreme as very intelligent and powerful and as always have existed as such.

If I take a zombified and reductionist viewpoint, ample evidence exists that this "dumb matter" has the ability to create pocket watches. It took awhile but it got done. It doesn't seem so dumb and mindless afterall. Much like deciding where a car ends and a heap of car parts begins, where intelligence ends and non-intelligence begins, consciousness ends and non-consciousness begins is a judgement call and has no objective basis. We look for evidence but we have to interpret it and decide where the boundaries lie but that is merely an imputation. You preferred way out is zombies and then no such line really exists and we thus share that unified view from opposite ends.

Declare us the walking dead! Ha. That is so, so not what I am observing at all. As far as I can tell, this awareness and qualia seem to have no survival value whatsoever from a materialist perspective and so why the hell do I perceive it there at all? We could have all the needed programs to survive and multiply without it. The programs are falsehood constructed to perpetuate the animal, the only part that must procreate. There is the qualitative experience of the programs but said programs are not truely the self.

This is partly where the rabbit hole was located for me. The most accessible part of my experience is not accounted for by materialistic processes alone.

Why can not the contrary be equally believable? That reality has always existed as it exists but in different states than the state it's in now as the law's of physics demonstrates that it should exist?

I'm not sure what the "laws of physics" really mean except that they manifest as one part in relating to another and that they appear applicable over our immediately observable reality. Nothing at this time can prove they apply to ALL. Whatever always exists cannot be subject to any laws or it would change by those laws. It would be a happening instead and thus transient in nature.

But, yes, I will again meet you, this time on "reality always existed in one way or another". Even in a Biblical Genesis scenario, where God and our world are portrayed as separate, God was all of reality up to the point He made heaven and earth.

I find it hypocritical to believe on form of eternal existence must be true but another form can't possible be true. Yet, I am the closed minded one. I know that isn't what your saying, but the statement reminded me of what others openly state about me.

As I understand these forms of which you speak, I think neither are fundamentally antagnostic or they'll both fight each other to death leaving some other thing to survive-- meteor against dinosaurs destroys both and leaves room for the mammals to thrive, who keep quietly to themselves in the meantime.

She's just a special case out there in her own little world. She's arguing something that isn't there and despite me demonstrating that the video was wrong in it's claims about what science is saying, she still places those delicate fingers in her ears and screams "I can't hear you." I agree, it doesn't have to get hostile and I would prefer that it doesn't, but if she want's to remain arrogant to her unfounded opinions in light of explicit evidence to the contrary, then that is her own doing.

Awwww, you think she's special!

She seems quite bright. You seem so as well. I see you talking past one another. Understanding on both sides needs improvement. But hey, who is honest and humble in this world that would think otherwise of themselves?

Man, if you were a couple...

I don't know if there is no God up there as the ultimate observer in which creates reality, nor am I against the possibility of one. Simply, because I don't know and I see no evidence by my own observations or cited by others, I will debate till I'm blue in the face when they claim it's an absolute fact.

It will never come via anything but your own internal awareness since ultimately you are that observer. Basically you ask for the experiment to observe the observer.

Especially when they start posting erroneous information about what science says, such as the video in this thread.

I find similar frustrations when the supposed implications of a concept become overblown and when illogically constrained.

I object to the conclusion that matter doesn't exist because it manifests probabilities and isn't really a solid thing. It just tells me it doesn't exist in the nature we readily intuit.

Is there a slight probability an electron that should be in my brain could be measured as located in Andromeda? If an Andromedan does so, do it steal it from me?

I'm not saying spiritualism isn't true, but that I have my own opinion based on evidences that resist falsifiability rather than evidences based on personal experience alone. I can cite tons of beliefs based on personal experience that we now know were wrong.

Falsifiability will naturally depend upon what we are capable of measuring and thus by implication perceiving. What is not now could later become so.

I have this thing against personal experiences, including my own. If I can't find something that is collective of reality, then how can I be one-hundred percent sure that it truly exists to reality?

I think I understand this schizm. However, I cannot think of one thing that doesn't involve the use of personal experience, even if it's regularly put to the test, even if the information is highly abstract and logical, ultimately I decide the validity. The vast majority may even agree and we know argument from consensus is a fallacy. The mind provides the basis or substrate for assessing all of the evidence.

So, what is certain here?

I have my own opinions of religion and why/how it arose. It appears to be a more primitive political system that eventually gave rise to true politics.

I'd say that's a creative afterthought for mass control. The roots to me appear squarely to originate in "mystical" experience and understanding and later perverted to serve more selfish agendas. Perhaps there was even good intent early on to push it for the sake of ending suffering but we know about the road to ruin..., all good things...

I take such a stance as 'just in case' and I personally can't force myself to strictly follow a path of belief 'just in case'.

My chaotic nature allows me to do that. I won't lose anything. Better to feel the shoes from the inside before buying them. I'll try to develop and do zombie meditations.

(Continued...)

It also implies that whatever force behind the universe had created the universe with life in mind and that it demands life behave a certain way and rewards such behavior. Yet, when we look at nature itself, there is no inherent set of moral code and as much as we pretend to be a moral species, we truly are not.

There is indeed some empirical evidence that the universe imposes some rewards and punishments, either directly or indirectly. Cooperation, sharing and kindness tend to have at least a sleight upper hand for ensuring survival. There is anatomy in a human brain that reflects this. Some individuals recognized that turning away from such "laws" can be lead to greater suffering (you perhaps could could say they directly read the "code").

It took me hours to get through this. The phone interruptions never seemed to stop-- wrong numbers and all. Had to fix the tree lights. Perhaps the universe didn't want me to post it, either it is too revealing or too embarrasing! Yeah, those must be the choices. In it goes, messed up or no. By now I'm just happy I got to say "zombie" so often in a post! 'Tis a rare privilege.

Feliz Navidad a todos!

What you fail to see is that the MATHS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS do not say any of the garbage these people are pushing. . . Its new age propaganda poorly disguised as science.

Quantum physics is a purely mathematical system which can tell you the probability of subatomic events happening reasonably exactly; but as most people can’t do the advanced maths necessary to understand what it’s all about, it has to have a thin skin of linguistic metaphor drawn over it to make it comprehensible to laymen. But metaphor-skins have their drawbacks: they are the map, not the territory. The verbal description of quantum theory sounds pretty far out and is expressed in language that is sometimes deliberately derived from mysticism (e.g the eight-fold way), so a proportion of those encountering it are tempted to see it in a mystical light and extrapolate furiously from it into all sorts of rarefied realms, which What the Bleep does in spades. You can’t do that. You have to extrapolate in the maths, then describe it in words. No one in What the Bleep ever backs up their pronouncements with the math; when someone asserts that “quantum theory really does show that the universe can be contained in a mustard seed”, they need to produce an equation that demonstrates this, but don’t, unsurprisingly.

I hate to keep harping on about the fallacies of what the bleep but. . . .

To make their quantum/mystic interaction work, it is necessary to set up a link between quantum functions at a sub-atomic level and human consciousness on a macroscopic scale, which they largely do by wilfully misunderstanding the observer effect, the idea in quantum physics that the outcome of any quantum interaction remains in a state of indeterminacy until “observed”, at which point the wave function collapses and the interaction resolves itself down to a definitive solution. What the Bleep treats this as if it needs a consciousness to interact with it, which is not the case, then extrapolates from this to the idea that consciousness can actively influence reality, and provides some priceless examples of “research” to back this up.

www.nthposition.com...

The approach suggested by Schrodinger was to postulate a function which would vary in both time and space in a wave-like manner (the so-called wavefunction) and which would carry within it information about a particle or system. The time-dependent Schrodinger equation allows us to deterministically predict the behaviour of the wavefunction over time, once we know its environment. The information concerning environment is in the form of the potential which would be experienced by the particle according to classical mechanics

Whenever we make a measurement on a Quantum system, the results are dictated by the wavefunction at the time at which the measurement is made. It turns out that for each possible quantity we might want to measure (an observable) there is a set of special wavefunctions (known as eigenfunctions) which will always return the same value (an eigenvalue) for the observable. e.g.....


EIGENFUNCTION always returns EIGENVALUE
psi_1(x,t) a_1
psi_2(x,t) a_2
psi_3(x,t) a_3
psi_4(x,t) a_4
etc.... etc....

where (x,t) is standard notation to remind us that the eigenfunctions psi_n(x,t)
are dependent upon position (x) and time (t).


Even if the wavefunction happens not to be one of these eigenfunctions, it is always possible to think of it as a unique superposition of two or more of the eigenfunctions, e.g....



psi(x,t) = c_1*psi_1(x,t) + c_2*psi_2(x,t) + c_3*psi_3(x,t) + ....

where c_1, c_2,.... are coefficients which define the composition of the state.

If a measurement is made on such a state, then the following two things will happen:
The wavefunction will suddenly change into one or other of the eigenfunctions making it up. This is known as the collapse of the wavefunction and the probability of the wavefunction collapsing into a particular eigenfunction depends on how much that eigenfunction contributed to the original superposition. More precisely, the probability that a given eigenfunction will be chosen is proportional to the square of the coefficient of that eigenfunction in the superposition, normalised so that the overall probability of collapse is unity (i.e. the sum of the squares of all the coefficients is 1).

The measurement will return the eigenvalue associated with the eigenfunction into which the wavefunction has collapsed. Clearly therefore the measurement can only ever yield an eigenvalue (even though the original state was not an eigenfunction), and it will do so with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. There are clearly only a limited number of discrete values which the observable can take. We say that the system is quantised (which means essentially the same as discretised).

Once the wavefunction has collapsed into one particular eigenfunction it will stay in that state until it is perturbed by the outside world. The fundamental limitation of Quantum Mechanics lies in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which tells us that certain quantum measurements disturb the system and push the wavefunction back into a superposed state once again.

For example, consider a measurement of the position of a particle. Before the measurement is made the particle wavefunction is a superposition of several position eigenfunctions, each corresponding to a different possible position for the particle. When the measurement is made the wavefunction collapses into one of these eigenfunctions, with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. One particular position will be recorded by the measurement: the one corresponding to the eigenfunction chosen by the particle.

If a further position measurement is made shortly afterwards the wavefunction will still be the same as when the first measurement was made (because nothing has happened to change it), and so the same position will be recorded. However, if a measurement of the momentum of the particle is now made, the particle wavefunction will change to one of the momentum eigenfunctions (which are not the same as the position eigenfunctions). Thus, if a still later measurement of the position is made, the particle will once again be in a superposition of possible position eigenfunctions, so the position recorded by the measurement will once again come down to probability. What all this means is that one cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time because when you measure one quantity you randomise the value of the other

newton.ex.ac.uk...

Where does this say consciousness is required for this. . . . Where does it say the Universe is concsiously observing itself. . . . The math the science does not give all your mystical results





[edit on 23-12-2009 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

Sirex, I am not doing physics here. I am doing Philosophy. I couldn't really careless about physics that much, because physics cannot know the causes of anything. It can only measure effects. When it comes to knowing causes you shift to philosophy. Philosophy demands very critical reasoning and nothing is immune from criticism in philosophy, even the most basic assumptions about reality.

Is "causes" have the right shade of meaning to express what I think you're thinking? I think science does when it comes to relationships of events. I tend to prefer "nature" or "origins" in the sense of its inability to get at what something IS. Am I quibbling too much?

Even from a socio-linguistic point of view, social theorists will tell you that different societies perceive reality very differently. The Japanense for example cannot distinguish certain colours because they do not exist in their vocabulary.

I have seen something similar where "white" covers what we would call "pink" and "white". I also recall further research being done to determine if despite less precise vocabulary, colors could be matched precisely and that in fact it was found they could. "Cannot distinguish" musn't be confused with "do not distinguish (by convention)".

Also, in my own experience, I can match colors precisely despite not having specific vocabulary for what I'm matching. Sure I might say they're both "green" but they don't actually appear alike. It works even to the point I cannot absolutely memorize the two individually because of their similarity.

Reality depends upon your perception.

This appears to me to be a closed loop rather than an open one, thus a system of feedback. Certainly in some sense my perception depends upon reality as well. If it didn't my creation couldn't be manifest to me.

New Age is simply a continuation of the tribal Witch Doctor. Control people through fabricated ideas that can not be proven nor disproved by their nature. Sadly, those who create the fantasy come to believe it themselves and pass it on. They create their own reality and often enhance the myths through things like self-hypnosis and the use of drugs like hallucinogenics.

Convince a person that carrying a bit of quartz in their pocket will do something positive for the carrier and from that point forward they will associate all positive experiences with that bit of rock. They will pass this on convincingly to others because they have conditioned themselves to believe. It's very much like Voodoo where the spells only work on those who have been conditioned to believe in Voodoo.

I do find it an irony that a new website named consciousuniverse.com is in the process of opening up and will soon have a store. Where better to plant this to get people searching. This is a conspiracy board after all.

Conscious Universe appears to be a recent incarnation of the Witch Doctor through New Age models which are one in the same. Since it, like its relatives require faith without proof, it is most certainly a religion.

A quartz crystal in the pocket, a lucky coin, a belief one can influence a slot machine in Vegas are all the same. Sometimes it will seem to work when in fact its just coincidence and random chance. A believer in the Conscious Universe should never go near a Casino in fact.

The dark side of these beliefs is it makes a person easy to control by someone who knows what is really going on with the believer. An easy Mark if you will. Ripe for the pickin and a wallet wide open to be drained.

Stop all the guru metaphorical nonesense, everyone. Everything exists in the same place as one in quantum physics because everything has an infinite probability of coordinates! Not all is one in our specific reality!!!!!!. Don't be an idiot, look in further do the research you will see! Good God!!!!! I am so sick of Quantum Religion!!!!!

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Are you familiar with the founder of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger?

WHAT?! Are you flipping serious? Obviously you know nothing about quantum theory.

The history of quantum mechanics[12] began essentially with the 1838 discovery of cathode rays by Michael Faraday, the 1859 statement of the black body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff, the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system could be discrete, and the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy is radiated and absorbed in quantities divisible by discrete ‘energy elements’, E, such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which they each individually radiate energy, as defined by the following formula:

source

How hard is it to look thing's up before we post something?

He resolved the Schrodinger's cat problem by introducing consciousness.

He did no such thing at all!

Schrödinger's thought experiment was intended as a discussion of the EPR article, named after its authors — Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen — in 1935.

...

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states.

source

OK, so do you still want to claim that your statement is true, or are you going to finally submit that you don't know diddly about what your attempting to assert is true?

If anyone is interested there is a full length movie that is solely about quantum Mechanics. It is called: "What the Bleep do we Know" (that is the exact title). I noticed in the OP's video clips that they have some background images from that movie in the videos. Also some of the same scientists in the you tube video are in the movie. The OP's you tube videos also remind me of a book I read a couple years ago called "The Secret".

I hope this is useful to someone. The movie is pretty good, if you are into this sort of stuff, I am certain you will enjoy it.

[edit on 12/24/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
If anyone is interested there is a full length movie that is solely about quantum Mechanics. It is called: "What the Bleep do we Know" (that is the exact title). I noticed in the OP's video clips that they have some background images from that movie in the videos. Also some of the same scientists in the you tube video are in the movie. The OP's you tube videos also remind me of a book I read a couple years ago called "The Secret".

I hope this is useful to someone. The movie is pretty good, if you are into this sort of stuff, I am certain you will enjoy it.

[edit on 12/24/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

What the Bleep is not a quantum physics documentary or movie. It's at worst a piece of propaganda for a cult

That has meant little attention has been given to either the film's agenda, or its questionable use of supposed experts. At least one scientist prominently interviewed in the film now says his words were taken out of context. And two other key subjects in the film are not fully identified: a theologian who, the film fails to divulge, is a former priest who left the Catholic Church after allegations of sexual abuse; and a mysterious woman identified only as Judy "JZ" Knight, who is actually a sect leader claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior spirit named Ramtha. The film's three co-directors are among those who follow Ramtha and look to Knight's channeled maxims to decipher the mysteries of life. These Ramtha followers reportedly number in the thousands. But critics call the sect a cult.

dir.salon.com...

and at best an "art piece" starring Marlee Matlin

Scientists who have reviewed What the Bleep Do We Know!? have described distinct assertions made in the film as pseudoscience. Amongst the concepts in the film that have been challenged are assertions that water molecules can be influenced by thought (as popularized by Masaru Emoto), that meditation can reduce violent crime rates, and that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being

Simon Singh called it pseudoscience and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash." According to João Magueijo, professor in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science. The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought

en.wikipedia.org...!%3F

reply to post by constantwonder


Hey I was just offering the information for those who was interested. It is no different than the OP's you tube videos, in fact it is quite the same. In reality, I know absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics, I did; however, find the movie interesting and it made me think a little. This is never a bad thing, especially for some idiot such as myself.

Also, please if you wish to make a point to me (which I do appreciate, honestly). Please use a credible citation. Using Wikipedia for anything other than casual information is placing your own reputation at risk. Ask a college student or professor what would happen to them if they ever cited Wikipedia. The site is user defined, not defined through any credible sources. The guy who lives next door to you could have very well provided the information you are citing. I am not saying it is all garbage, because it isn't; however, I would never risk my reputation on a roll of the dice citation.

Not trying to disrespect you in any way; quite the contrary, I am trying to save you inevitable future humiliation or shame.

Merry Christmas to you sir.

S&F OP ,Great Post, I think we are are talking about The Sakshin (The Witness Consciousness) which also brings up The (Sat Karya Vada Principle) In other words, we can only change the form of an observable object not The Underlying Nature/Unity within it. Some well thought out replies. This is why I enjoy ATS and The Membership So Much. Peace All

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Sirex, I am not doing physics here. I am doing Philosophy. I couldn't really careless about physics that much, because physics cannot know the causes of anything. It can only measure effects. When it comes to knowing causes you shift to philosophy. Philosophy demands very critical reasoning and nothing is immune from criticism in philosophy, even the most basic assumptions about reality.

You applaud erroneous physics information through philosophy and then proceed to tell *me* I lack intellect? Your just amazing!

Exactly, my point. You cannot prove it.

It's a *moot point* that lacks any critical thought behind it. Your basing all of reality upon the existence of one individual while claiming that this one individual isn't the observer that observes reality existing. I mean come on, get real. Think about your own contradictory argument there for a minute.

Again as you no longer exist you will never know whether others are existing or not. It would be like me going away for a while, thinking my home still exists, only to come back and see that it was bulldozed. I can believe that my home still exists, but I don't know for certain. Likewise, you can believe that after you cease to exist reality will continue, but you cannot be certain of it.

Piss poor analogy. Think about it, please.

This philosophy is known as skepticism. Hume is a famous skeptic and he doubted even the laws of physics. Just because the laws of physics have held to be true so far, does not mean they will always hold true. Hume is merely showing that we cannot have certain knowledge based on inductive reasoning. Your reasoning that reality will continue after your non-existence is based on inductive reasoning. You assert that only on the basis that reality existed in the past.

Oh good grief, are you now claiming to be a true skeptic while claiming to know a definite truth to reality without having a lick of evidence to back up that truth of reality? Do you understand how silly your argument has evolved to appear now?

I never said that we consciously agree to perceive reality. It is clearly unconscious, but the fact remains that we perceive reality as it is because our minds are similar. Not all minds perceive reality in the same way. It would be arrogant to say that only your perception is valid, and every other perception is invalid.

We see reality from a 3D point of view. Imagine seeing it from a 4D point of view or a 5D point of view. It would look very different. Not everybody is shaing the same reality.

Ah, OK... So now you have evidence of 4D and 5D life and the biology behind how that life perceives reality? Man, you just keep belting out those empty claims don't you?

Even from a socio-linguistic point of view, social theorists will tell you that different societies perceive reality very differently. The Japanense for example cannot distinguish certain colours because they do not exist in their vocabulary.

Reality depends upon your perception.

Oh boy this is a cute one. Cite your sources please.

Listen to me, because I am tired of repeating it. It depends upon your modes of access. If your modes of access could see energy, you would see reality as a field of vibrating energy. Do you remember when Neo awakens in the Matrix? He no longer sees's physical objects, he sees code.

First off, the Matrix is a movie, it is fantasy and does not depict what is known by science about reality at all. That's akin to believing cave men had stone cars because you saw it on the Flintstones. I've already gone over the energy issue, it's a function/property of *matter*. You would see *matter* not a field of energy.

To say reality "IS" is known as scientific positivism. It is a defeated philosophy. Even very basic things like what is electricity are not known in science, whenever a defnition is formed, new observations are made which falsify the definition.

Reality is not easy to pin down. I want you to appreciate this. At least this will give me some confidence you are capable of thinking rationally.

Doesn't appear to be a problem for you and your plethora of empty claims in which I have asked for you too back up and cite sources. I'm assuming you lack any such evidence and your just spouting off unfounded 'truths' that make you feel good about yourself.

It is not conjecture, it is an argument. A famous argument in fact which appears in Buddhist Philosophy of non-self and in Hume's philosophy, and in contempoary cybernetic philosophy. Hume famously said, that whenever he inquires into what is called the "self" he finds nothing more than a bundle of changing memories, thoughts and sensations. There is nothing that he could call self. The Buddhists agree, the self is an aggregate based on changing factors and is momentary. There is no such thing as an enduring human self.

This sounds like a gap argument being coupled with a religious philosophy, this doesn't sound like evidence and nor do I see sources cited.

Psychology furnishes this with evidence showing how our personality changes with every social situation. I behave differently in an interview, in a causal night out with friends, with my spouse, with the boss, in a crisis. The personality is not a real substance, but it an aggregate of various factors which change from moment to moment.

Psychology has nothing to do with reality. We don't psychoanalyze the moon before we land upon it. Please learn when, where and how to apply the sciences.

Therefore the human self is not the real self. The real self is something other than our personal identity.

If you still don't get it, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with somebody who cannot reason.

I know, I just don't 'get it'... I get that response from your ilk pretty much daily when you and your kind can't bother to back up your claims. HA, and I lack intellect... I love it!

reply to post by EnlightenUp

There is indeed some empirical evidence that the universe imposes some rewards and punishments, either directly or indirectly. Cooperation, sharing and kindness tend to have at least a sleight upper hand for ensuring survival. There is anatomy in a human brain that reflects this. Some individuals recognized that turning away from such "laws" can be lead to greater suffering (you perhaps could could say they directly read the "code").

It took me hours to get through this. The phone interruptions never seemed to stop-- wrong numbers and all. Had to fix the tree lights. Perhaps the universe didn't want me to post it, either it is too revealing or too embarrasing! Yeah, those must be the choices. In it goes, messed up or no. By now I'm just happy I got to say "zombie" so often in a post! 'Tis a rare privilege.

Eh, I'm not so sure it's the universe that imposes evolutionary rewards. Since you claimed that there is indeed empirical evidence that it does, I would appreciate you to cite sources for that evidence for my review.

Sigh, I am going to give up on Sirex. I would have better luck trying to reason with my ex

Is "causes" have the right shade of meaning to express what I think you're thinking? I think science does when it comes to relationships of events. I tend to prefer "nature" or "origins" in the sense of its inability to get at what something IS. Am I quibbling too much?

Science attempts to find causes for events, but it cannot, because causes are outside of empirical observation. Instead, science has to hypothesise causes and create mathematical models to measure effects consistently. However, these are only hypothetical models and not necessarily how things really work, and due to this these models undergo constant falsification.

To claim that our hypothetical models have any correspondence with reality is known as the fallacy of psychologoism. This is when we confuse our psychological constructs, such as mathematical models with the real world.

As long as there is an unobservable universe science cannot positively identify the causes of any physical phenomenon. This unobservable universe will remain as long as the observer is not factored into reality, because the physical world is not a real construct, but it is also psychologically created. In other words there is an interaction between the observer and the empirical world before the world comes into being. Therefore even before an act of perception takes place, a set of interactions have already taken place to allow that perception to happen. Therefore causes will always be outside of the observers domain.

Even from a socio-linguistic point of view, social theorists will tell you that different societies perceive reality very differently. The Japanense for example cannot distinguish certain colours because they do not exist in their vocabulary.

I have seen something similar where "white" covers what we would call "pink" and "white". I also recall further research being done to determine if despite less precise vocabulary, colors could be matched precisely and that in fact it was found they could. "Cannot distinguish" musn't be confused with "do not distinguish (by convention)".

Also, in my own experience, I can match colors precisely despite not having specific vocabulary for what I'm matching. Sure I might say they're both "green" but they don't actually appear alike. It works even to the point I cannot absolutely memorize the two individually because of their similarity.

This is true to an extent of course, we have the capacity to distinguish unknown colours if we make a determined effort to do so. This is because obviously that different colours have different wavelengths which can be detected by the eye. However, in an ordinary social context we would not detect the differences, because psychologically we are habituated to not discriminating the shades. This is why certain cultures find it difficult to distinguish certain colours. However, as psychological constructs are not real or rigid, it is possible to train somebody from another culture to distinguish the shades.

The point was to show that how each person's reality is slightly different due to many factors, of which socio-linguistic background is also a factor.

The Yogasutras mentions 5 factors that shape up reality, which is relevant to be mentioned here: correct knowledge, fallacious knowledge, imagination, states of awareness and memory. This means that our reality is based on a combination of correct knowledge(scientific, logical etc) fallacies based on bad reasoning(prejudices etc) imagination(hypothetical constructs) our habits(memory) and finally our state of consciousness.
If you change any of these factors it has a marked effect on your perception of reality.

I think what this goes to show that not everybody inhabits the same reality, there are minor and major divergences in everybodies perception of reality. Unfortunately, dogmatic people do not realise this simple truth, and try to assert a universal reality on all people and expect absolute conformity. Such as is being done by these materialist fundamentalists in this thread. I can't help but laugh at them

As somebody who has specialised in Philosophy of Science, I find their rants amusing. I think they don't realise that there isn't actually universal agreement in science either on what reality is - or for that matter what quantum physics is.

This appears to me to be a closed loop rather than an open one, thus a system of feedback. Certainly in some sense my perception depends upon reality as well. If it didn't my creation couldn't be manifest to me.

I agree, I said earlier in fact that reality is a function of the interaction between the observer and the field. Here I was simply making it clear that conscousness is the grounds which allows reality to take place and therefore perception is key to the reality you experience.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Sigh, I am going to give up on Sirex. I would have better luck trying to reason with my ex

There is no reason being espoused from yourself. You've applauded erroneous information in that clip. You've posted erroneous information yourself about the founder of Quantum Theory and Schrodinger's point of his thought experiment. You want to call this reasoning and intelligence? Your not even conceding that your information is wrong or that the information that was applauded was wrong despite me citing sources and explicitly quoting from those sources so that you can see the information is wrong.

Reason my left ass cheek. This has nothing to do with a well reasoned intelligent discussion. This is more about pushing your unfounded biased conjectures forward as fact without backing up any of the claims when asked to do so. If anyone should be giving up on anyone, I should be the one giving up on you for your purposeful act of ignorance in light of evidence against your act of applauding erroneous information and posting your own deceitful erroneous information. Don't sit there and act like you know what your on about when I've corrected you that many times now. Epic Fail.