The Universal String Singularity is Consciousness

a reply to: Abednego

Take it up with Einstein

metaphysicsspeaks.com...

Albert Einstein was very clear in his day. Physicists are very clear now. Time is not absolute, despite what common sense tells you and me. Time is relative and flexible and, according to Einstein, “the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion”.

a reply to: Cygnis

What do you get if you remove time? Just space?
Yeah if you remove time you just get space.
velocity = distance/time so remove time and you just get distance.
What is your point?

I guess if you remove time you remove change therefore removing entropy.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Nobody knows how to define the inner self.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
So it appears that the whole Universe is likely a String Singularity, ...

Not to me and Freeman Dyson. Of course, nobody cares what the situation appears like to me but perhaps someone cares what Freeman Dyson mentions regarding the subect of "trying to create a theory of quantum cosmology with a wave function for the whole universe" (2:40) and his 2 general conclusions relevant to this subject towards the end based on his evidence discussed before it, which is mostly and conveniently ignored by some key figures in Quantum Cosmology cause it undermines their speculative models based on "a wave function for the whole universe" as well as their speculative ideas on how to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, which is their bread and butter (21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechinal language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms" (quoting Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, which is related to this issue of applying and interpreting QM incorrectly as described at 2:40 in the video: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle")

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

Perhaps this video may give some further insight (and background) on the matter:

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Exactly, time is dependent to movement. If you remove movement then time stops. But the space define that time too.
I'm 43 years old, is that my real age? Yes, at least here on Earth. It means that I have completed 43 revolutions around the sun. But what if, if instead of using the revolution around the sun as a measurement for my age I use the moon or Earth's revolution on it's own axis?
Base on space time is relative.

a reply to: muzzleflash

This is a very fine line I'm going to try to explain here. And this line divide science from spirituality and sometimes they cross each other (more often than not).
So this may get confusing.
For every particle there is an anti-particle, but modern science has failed to explain the difference in numbers but ancients scientists (alchemists) figured it out.
The Vesica Pisces, a particle and an anti-particle crossing each other (entanglement), modern science explain that they nullified each other when in contact, but in this case there is no contact but they still are connected to each other.
So we have two circles crossing each other and when they do a third figure appear in the middle. That is what account for the difference that modern science cannot explain.
The Holy Trinity, Osiris/Isis/Horus, Yin/Yan, etc.

Knowledge hidden in symbols. A mystery.

There's a forum called "philosophy and metaphysics" by the way. This thread is perhaps much more appropiate there (not implying it should have been placed there or that it should be moved there, that's not my point or the point of this comment). Of course, plenty of people that like to refer to themselves and eachother as "scientists" that present or market this kind of stuff as "science" or a "theory" (presented in the context of science or scientific enquiry, i.e. an implied "scientific theory", conflating the 2 main usages of the word "theory", or playing on the inability of the public to tell the difference usually because it's the ones who like to refer to themselves and eachother as "scientists" using the word "theory" without making it clear how they are using the word for an unverified idea or collection of ideas/philosophies and thus on that occasion acting as philosophers, not scientists drawing conclusions from experiments and observations by the proper usage of inductive reasoning rather than wishful speculation and pure speculation for marketing purposes, as in presenting the latest most creative exotic idea the way Apple presents their latest Iphone, see the examples further below).

Unverified philosophies/ideas (not scientific theories as scientific theories are defined by at least 1 dictionary for scientific terminologies that I've seen, don't let the marketing-label fool ye):

- string theory
- M-theory
- the interpretations of QM described on wikipedia on the page for the "Copenhagen interpretation" that conflict with, contradict or ignore the conclusions 1 and 2 of my previous comment
- the idea that the universe can be described with a wave function (or "in quantum mechanical language", quoting Dyson), string singularity or similar terminologies at the first instant of the expansion of the universe (a.k.a. "the Big Bang").

In the words of the mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose:

"What is referred to as M-theory isn't even a theory, it's...a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It's not even a theory."

He pretty much puts so-called "string theory" in the same category:

A synonym for "ideas" is "philosophies". And I prefer to describe what Roger Penrose describes as "hopes, aspirations" as "wishful thinking and pure speculation for marketing purposes" (because it's a more honest and accurate way of phrasing it and describing what is really going on here). And since we're talking about unverified ideas/philosophies here, we're really talking imaginative philosophy, not science/knowledge, which essentially means a familiarity with facts/truths/realities/certainties or things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/definite/definitive such as the law of gravity and the fact that E=MC^2.

And if you understand Freeman Dyson's thought experiments and agree with the conclusions that can be derived from them by inductive reasoning, you may be able to move it over (in your mind) all the way to the realm of debunked mythology, i.e. La La Land (the 4 things I listed earlier starting with "string theory"). Also take note of the phrase at 21:59 in the Freeman Dyson video:

"But we saw the uncertainty principle is violated and therefore no such wave function can exist."

Most relevant context starts at 20:50. That phrase is not to be taken or considered out of context (in that particular situation in that thought experiment, but it has implications for other similar situations and conditions, as alluded to in the final 2 general conclusions).

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Abednego

Take it up with Einstein

metaphysicsspeaks.com...

Albert Einstein was very clear in his day. Physicists are very clear now. Time is not absolute, despite what common sense tells you and me. Time is relative and flexible and, according to Einstein, “the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion”.

I agree with Einstein on this distinction regarding "time". Thanks for the link.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: muzzleflash

Nobody knows how to define the inner self.

You mean we cannot collectively agree on a definition.
Plenty of people think they know how to define just about anything - it's just few agree.

a reply to: whereislogic

I understand your reservations but a "scientist" is anyone who formally studied science - it doesn't mean they are correct because history shows every "scientist" was wrong about something, and often times wrong about a lot of things. They were studying and learning and sharing their findings with others.

I put this topic in this forum on purpose by the way because I want to challenge people more directly on the issues and keep the topic closer aligned with a scientific physics based discussion primarily and with philosophy as a secondary or tertiary matter to be discussed on the side or overlapping with the primary focal point.

I am aware of Sir Penrose and Mr Dyson but I will watch these videos sometime soon and I will respond with my thoughts on the specifics of what you are trying to express here.

Thank you for posting your contentions and challenges, I do appreciate it. I'll get back to you when I have more time to review all of this material.

Wow, I just noticed somehow this thread got 46 flags.

Thank you ATS!!!
That's so freaking cool that many of you were open to this concept and enjoyed the videos in the OP!!

I'm actually totally surprised and very impressed with that turnout.

I really love yall thank you so much.

I admit I was afraid only 10 or 15 of you would even be interested at all. I apologize for doubting you ATS! This is such a great sign.

It's proof that I'm in the company of dozens upon dozens of bona fide geniuses. MENSA ain't got nothin on ATS!! Woohoo!!

a reply to: muzzleflash

I commend you for wanting to bring real physics into this discussion but

"The Universal String Singularity is Consciousness"? and

"Unified Field Consciousness"?

That really is metaphysics speak.

I'm not sure what a good definition of human consciousness is. I just know I experience it.
It may be one of those things that we just accept as truth like an axiom and can't prove.

As for Super String Theory, as far as i know, it hasn't yielded a useful prediction to date or at least one that can be tested. I'm not knocking SST. I love it if just for the sake of developing more Mathematics.