Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

I don't understand this interpretation. Sure we "touch" something. It may actually be an electrical field from an electron shell interacting with another but that's good enough to count in my book.


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.


Per my first statement, what is "contact"? What's "the world"? As far as I can observe there's only one world regardless if our familiar material one is not the totality of it.


It depends what you state this world is made of. I can agree there is only one world, but I have doubts that this world is material.

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.

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?

The more you regress down the matter continuum the more you realise this matter isn't actually a substance.


How is particles as forces, fields and probabilities not a material world? What is the working definition of a "material world" for you? Big, solid things that are really real in the way they appear?

Help me out here. I'm not really certain where you stand.


I think understand now. 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.

I am not a new-ager at all. I am just as critical of its love and light garbage and we create the universe philosophy as you are.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 





Matter does not actually exist


it does

thats why you can type "matter"

Obsevation! we dont give words to things without meaning.. sure some people think they are "spitrual beings" or some kinda alien thing that lives for ever

sad truth is YOU NOT and you will DIE just like every other muppet...

no fun or love there sorry.. its that harsh

and if there is aliens "in realtion to the topic" they are aware that once you dead POP your gone

why? because its just a way to recycle your MATTER and ENERGY as they do not get destroyed.. your ego will tho


quick edit!




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.


you define matter by obsevation OF IT..

very simple and it is real.. if it was not then how the hell are you typing? or is that a deam?

didnt mean to make your head explode.. just pointing out the obvious..

people confuse matter with REALITY when in fact they go hand in hand with each other

YOU ARE MADE OF MATTER its a DESCRIPTION of a GROUP of ATOMS so SMALL that when you zoom out it becomes matter aka a SOLID OBJECT

scale my dear padawan SCALE

[edit on 24-12-2009 by 13579]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
And what I mean by new-age science replacing old-science is not a reference to pseudoscience, but to actual science, but which is based on integrating consciousness into the physical world. We are on the brink of a revolution in science which will bring in the age of conscousness.

Things like Chakras, Prana and energy healing will become a part of Medicine. Parapsychology will become a part of Psychology. Meditation and Astral projection will become a part of Physics. Reincarnation studies will become a part of History. Feng-Shui/Vaastu will become a part of architecture and engineering. Astrology will become part of management studies.

It is only a matter of time before the new-age invasion begins


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



borrows his famous thought experiment from Hinduism, and resolves the paradox just as it is resolved in Hinduism: by introducing consciousness.


What part of this was immensely difficult to grasp irregardless of what influence formulated the thought experiment?


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.


Are you purposefully not reading or just purposefully ignoring?


I hate to disappont you but I am a dude


I stand corrected and I apologize for my assumption. Still does not detract from the erroneous BS your applauding and espousing as fact.


You either cannot read or cannot bring yourself to accept what you read.


You really are a special case aren't you? You read on article that discusses and influence and an opinion and auto-magically deduce that this influence and opinion were the main goals of the thought experiment despite explicit statements quoted that goes against that notion.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


nothing new about it..

Just people are to busy watching pop idol.. to give a rats



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I filnd this topic very interesting. It does seem to me that some (certainly not all)scientists are gravitating towards an tolerance of (if not outright acceptance of) idealism (which is what a fundamentally consciousness-based universe is called) then at least the idea that the fundamental constitient of our reality is cybernetic/ informational (or idea-based in some way) which is in my opinion very close to idealism. Certainly science simply cannot rule out a consciousness based reality due to the impossibility of proving a negative - this question is properly outside the bounds of the methadology of science (though it certianly can imply things, put things in context, or give situational indications).

My real point here is that other sciences can give us insight into the possibility of a conscious universe besides quantum physics if we apply the insights implied. For example there is a book called the Web of Life by Fritjif Capra

books.google.ca... hl=en&ei=UMwzS4vvB8nflAfO1b2bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

discussing the work of biologists Maturela and Varela which among other things tackles the queston of what qualifies as life. They have only 2 or 3 requirements (such as self-autonomy or self stabalization) which I believe our universe already meets.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Somebody is about to be really embarrased, and it ain't me:


The modern equivalent would be one person looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or dead, while a second person waits out in the hall. As we discussed, in this modern form the state "collapses" for the first person while it does not collapse for the second person.

www.upscale.utoronto.ca...


not really sure who should be embarrassed by what you've said. . . . perhaps its yourself. This says hewre plain as day that perception is what changes not reality. Its different for the two because there perspective is different.

You kind of just added to sirnex and my own posts. . . thank you for the help


[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


And thus is why you fail my friend. I understand your intent is good but you fall into the same well intended folly a great many do. What works for you will not necessarily work for everyone. And that doesn't somehow make defective/stupid/unenlightened/evil/delusional/contrarian just different. Allow me to explain if I have not already set your mind against me please. What your statement says to those that disagree with you is "If you and everyone else accept and agree with MY beliefs, the world would be better off." which is stated by pretty close to every advocate of any belief system. And I would argue is more than a tad unrealistic. We are all different by varying degrees by nature and the key to ending the ages old BS is not elimanating percieved difference but instead ACCEPTING and even valuing difference.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


I agree, it is not really new. It was like this in ancient times, and it is like this in advanced civilisations in the universe. The understanding that consciousness is a part of the world is very basic. The reason why human civilisation is in such a mess is because it has not made this very basic realization.

Anyway we are on the brink of coming out of this spiritual dark age.

As for matter. I don't believe matter exists. I am past that stage in my understanding. What you call matter for me is a field. I can say the field exists, but that the field is not a material substance. It only seems that way from our perspective. Just as it seems that the Earth is static, when in fact it is spinning on its axis. Things seem to be made up of a substance that is separate from conscousness. This is actually not true. It is all consciousness. The whole world is consciousness, but we miss this because of a false assumption we make based on inferior senses.

The field exists on various densities or levels and at each level the field takes on a new appearance. The field at our level seems very solid, at the preceeding level to that it is fluidic/energetic, at the preceeding level to that it is a wave, at the preceeding level to that it is flux and so on so forth.

I already understand this through both reason and experience. Others will understand in their own time.


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



An instrument can measure data all day, it doesn't matter what that data is until a conscious being analyzes it. Otherwise, as one poster mentioned, were just left with the problem of Schrodinger's cat.

edti: Good lord! I didn't realize this thread was so long. My reply is most likely "old news" but I'll leave it here anyway.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


You comments bring to mind the question of how can matter be solid if the atom is 99.9% space.


Rather perplexing, imo.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Further more Shrodinger's thought experiment was thought up to show how absurd the notion of what you all are talking about really was. He would be rolling in his grave watching you New-Agers.


"The whole point of Schrodinger's cat is to put the misinterpretation of quantum physics to shame. Of course the paradox is impossible and that is the point. Still, it didn't stop the new age fanatics from their mystical thinking. They took the paradox literally and formed a cult from the impossible"


He thought the Copenhagen Interpretation was incomplete and that caused it to have absrd paradoxs. . .


To further illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger applied quantum mechanics to a living entity that may or may not be conscious. In Schrödinger’s original thought experiment, he describes how one could, in principle, transform a superposition inside an atom to a large-scale superposition of a live and dead cat by coupling cat and atom with the help of a "diabolical mechanism". He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death was dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.

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. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks




en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat

All shroedinger eally wanted you to understand is that if you want the answer you have to observe or the result could be said to be anything. He wanted people to stop all the insanity you all seem to indulge so much in.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Reply to post by 13579
 


*shake his head* Do you have any proof for your bold declarations of fact? Or just more condemnations of WHAT YOU THINK is their motive for thinking as they do? The logical fallacy you exhibit should be obvious to you if you thought about it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



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



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


becuase of obvervation

Do not forget matter is YOU also!

what is the 0000.00001% doing?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Isn't that exactly what I said? You can never know the result until a conscious being analyzes the data/result.

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



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


You sound a bit more like Casey now. Anyway, personally I shy away from already loaded terms like that. They just provide an attack point on the basis of category and prejudice rather than content.

There will certainly be a new age, a renaissance of thought and investigation.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Yes i do have proof

go look in the mirror

You are my proof.

if you can not understand it or grasp it that is your problem.

suppermassive < human > supper small

yet you consist of BOTH

find that intresting or do you take that aspect for granted

and were does conscious fit in to it?

being aware of BOTH is were..



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


So..that kind of means, since we have never truly touched anything else, (thinking out loud) that friction is the result of atoms of atmospheric gases heating up whilst in compression within the confines of the gap between surfaces, in the presence of repulsive electromagnetic field moments (from each surfaces' electrons)?

Maybe the surface electrons' electromagnetic/static field is causing the heat generation in terms of what we call friction, because the field together with compression, is able to excite the electrons of the gases as they try to
rush away to equilibrium.

Weird old existence, isn't it.

This also means that no one is ever really dirty. Since the dirt is 'floating' above our skin.

We never cut ourselves shaving. The blade has never touched us, or our hair. It's just that the atomic structure of the steel, produces a more pressure resilient material, that has greater electromagnetic repulsive force than our skin does. Our skin tries to repel the nearing field of the razor's electrons, but loses the battle. Skin atoms are separated (cut), not on contact with the blade, but with it's EM field.

Perhaps this is how strange effects, such as the reported 'Hutchison effect' are created?

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.

Maybe, Hutchison is randomly hitting upon certain sets of frequency/amplitude/whathaveyou combinations, which allow the different atomic structures to fuse...perhaps it's cancelling or neutralising the mutual repulsive force generated by the atoms of each dissimilar material?

Who knows.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


You could just as well ask why 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, that when combined, become a completely new substance. I'm guessing the forces and fields make them feel solid.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join