Does everybody agree that from existence itself, you can deduce that every perception is based on/refers to substance of wich it's existence is as basic as the mere conclusion of existence itself?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The end of spiritualism
- Thread starter burnt
- Start date
Alright I guess I will start this response by starting my argument completely over as no one seems to have gotten it.
The wave particle duality is used by all kinds of people to say that the mind controls reality. That the conscious act of observing something by a human mind makes reality by causing quantum events to 'collapse'.
I am saying that no where in quantum theory does it require a conscious observer for quantum events to happen. This idea has been perpetuated for decades now by all kinds of people even physicists. The originators of quantum mechanics although they speculated about these kinds of things never meant that consciousness causes quantum events to happen. The observer was any separate macroscopic system doing the observing of the quantum system.
This debate is complicated and confusing. However there are physicists out there who have taken the time to deal with these issues and explain them and the misconceptions behind them. One of those physcists is Victor Stenger. I will provide a link to his website where his books are advertised and a series of articles and talks are available to explain not only the history of this debate but the physics behind it.
So far what we know about the world is that its made up of particles. String theory has no verified experimental evidence so stop using it as an explanation for these supernatural ideas and if you are going to use it the only way you can describe how it connects to your theory is to see if it fits in within the theory and stop just saying that it does. Even if it is true that doesn't discount that the world is made of matter. String theory requires one dimensional objects and curled up extra dimensions but it still requires something physical.
The standard model is so far the most complete picture we have as to what normal matter is made up of. It is by no means complete it requires the Higgs boson which may never be found meaning the theory needs revision but that doesn't mean all those particles just go away. Many have been directly observed. Many people would probably be excited if the higgs boson was not found because then it means science must go beyond the standard model. But so far the standard model agrees with all experimental evidence and observations to date.
The crux of my argument is that there so far need not be anything beyond matter to describe our universe and where it came from and why weird things happen in it. Dark matter is still matter we just don't know anything about it yet except that it exerts gravitational force and doesn't interact with light. To say that there is, is to imply the existence of a god or another world that somehow interferes with or creates our world. That is what I am saying most likely doesn't exist. I can never disprove a deist god. But there is certainly no evidence for a theist god.
Many here agree there is most likely no theist god and no one has mentioned the deist god but all that means is a god who made the universe and then left it alone with the laws of nature to take care of the rest.
But many here are also claiming that consciousness is the fundamental make up of reality. That consciousness is what creates all those particles we observe. Some even claim that our consciousness can will aspects of reality to come true and claim this is the explanation for supernatural phenomenon. My question is why?
Quantum mechanics is not an explanation. Particles do exhibit wave like character and it depends on the observation --> but the world is made up of particles! To say that the wave function is a real physical thing and particles exist everywhere at once then relativity is violated. In abstract mathematical space anything can exist anywhere it doesn't matter. If you think that consciousness is everywhere instantaneously in the universe then you have violated relativity. If you violate relativity you better be prepared to explain yourself. No commonly accepted quantum theory violates relativity. If you claim that there is something pervading the universe yet interacting with matter it MUST be detectable or observable somehow. If its not interacting with matter then you have never experienced it and it might as well not exist.
You don't even need to use the wavefunction to describe quantum states. You can use a vector in any abstract mathematical space. You can use Heisenburg's matrix mechanics. They all give the same results. All these formulisms give the same indeterministic non classical quantum world.
If anyone has any problems with the above I want specific arguments.
Now about the question I keep dodging. "Is scienctific knowledge the only valid knowledge". I tried answering this but maybe I glossed it over to simply. I am not saying that science is the only source of knowledge. There are plenty of things that humans and animals and all kinds of things have knowledge about without science. I don't see how I am dodging the question? Science however is the best possible way to get answers about things that we currently don't have answers for. Of course you can think of answers to questions about things and those may be correct. Science can also disprove certain kinds of knowledge. Or at least show that it is highly unlikely.
The criticism that science is a dogma is absurd. How is science a dogma? Is science dogma because it often has a reductionist approach? Science isn't always reductionist. Science also doesn't have a big book that sais "here are all the answers". Its up to humans and observations and experiments to figure out answers to things we do not understand.
Now science can't offer a moral solution to lets say the population crisis. Any scientist can argue its my evolutionary right to have children and any scientist can argue if we don't control population there will be mass human suffering. Well these decisions aren't science based decisions. We make them we can use science as a guide but science can't make these kinds of moral decisions. I also stated why I do not believe in an objective right and wrong. Who sets the right and wrong then? You can't use the word conscience. Some people don't have one nor is it the same for everybody.
And of course you can make some argument like well science is built on facts after fact after fact but how do you know those facts are correct "how do you know anything. This kind of argument goes no where. We know those facts are correct to the limit to which we can. Sure I'll accept there's a limit. How can I prove I am not living in some matrix like reality and my brain isn't just hooked up some some tube? I don't. But am I going to assume that because I don't know it that its true? No of course not. Science validates science all the time. When a theory is proven by experimental evidence its validated. If someone disproves it its invalidated. This happens and progresses all the time.
The more we know does not equal the less we know unless what we think know is wrong.
Now concerning mystical experiences. Most of us have had them whether psychedelic induced or not. Now according to current neuroscience this type of phenomenon can occur and should occur when weird things happen. Weird things are just things that don't normally happen. Like looking at a wall and seeing one pattern become the entire wall. We have also mostly experienced what is commonly known as ego death. All these earth shattering eye opening mind twisting experiences make sense if the brain and its networks and its connects to our bodies and sense organs make up our subjective experience of reality. There is no disconnect.
I can think of two areas where this would be wrong.
1- if the brain isn't what makes consciousness and you are all right that its the other way around.
2- if we do encounter some external intelligence who tells us something we could have never known and that is then shown to be true and it is shown that the individual could not have solved the problem any other way.
But now since there are many correlations between brain activity and subjective experience answer 1 becomes less likely. 2 is not likely until it happens. Of course there are anecdotal claims by everybody whose tripped that they learned something they couldn't have while tripped. Well of course because psychedelics allow you to think differently so you should be coming up with new ways of looking at things on them. If you didn't it would be strange. But no one has ever proven that there is no other way they could have solved a specific problem without external knowledge entering the mind from somewhere else.
But going back to correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. So far no one can explain why when you feel love it feels the way it does and I don't think anyone ever will unless you can transfer subjective experiences from brain to brain. If we were observing an animal we could say look it has this attachment to another animal because it has an instinct to mate and doesn't actually "feel" anything and is not conscious. The only reason we know in ourselves what anything feels like is because we feel it. This is subjective of course. I also think other animals have subjective experience many forms of life probably do.
But that doesn't mean that love is not caused by the activity of the brain. Just because we can't explain how it feels doesn't mean its not being caused by whats going on in your brain. The reason I take that stance because many aspects of conscious experience can be damaged and change and become weird things. Just a simple example is visual neglect or phantom limb syndrome. There are way more complicated examples like schizophrenia. Maybe I shouldn't call it conscious experience though? Maybe I should only refer to the overarching unity of mind as consciousness. But consciousness clearly is made up of many parts. Perhaps that base awareness is made up of very simple parts? Perhaps that base awareness is all there is and the rest is an illusion? Are we talking about the base awareness or are we talking about higher cognitive functions? I feel this is an important definitional standpoint and will now stop.
The wave particle duality is used by all kinds of people to say that the mind controls reality. That the conscious act of observing something by a human mind makes reality by causing quantum events to 'collapse'.
I am saying that no where in quantum theory does it require a conscious observer for quantum events to happen. This idea has been perpetuated for decades now by all kinds of people even physicists. The originators of quantum mechanics although they speculated about these kinds of things never meant that consciousness causes quantum events to happen. The observer was any separate macroscopic system doing the observing of the quantum system.
This debate is complicated and confusing. However there are physicists out there who have taken the time to deal with these issues and explain them and the misconceptions behind them. One of those physcists is Victor Stenger. I will provide a link to his website where his books are advertised and a series of articles and talks are available to explain not only the history of this debate but the physics behind it.
So far what we know about the world is that its made up of particles. String theory has no verified experimental evidence so stop using it as an explanation for these supernatural ideas and if you are going to use it the only way you can describe how it connects to your theory is to see if it fits in within the theory and stop just saying that it does. Even if it is true that doesn't discount that the world is made of matter. String theory requires one dimensional objects and curled up extra dimensions but it still requires something physical.
The standard model is so far the most complete picture we have as to what normal matter is made up of. It is by no means complete it requires the Higgs boson which may never be found meaning the theory needs revision but that doesn't mean all those particles just go away. Many have been directly observed. Many people would probably be excited if the higgs boson was not found because then it means science must go beyond the standard model. But so far the standard model agrees with all experimental evidence and observations to date.
The crux of my argument is that there so far need not be anything beyond matter to describe our universe and where it came from and why weird things happen in it. Dark matter is still matter we just don't know anything about it yet except that it exerts gravitational force and doesn't interact with light. To say that there is, is to imply the existence of a god or another world that somehow interferes with or creates our world. That is what I am saying most likely doesn't exist. I can never disprove a deist god. But there is certainly no evidence for a theist god.
Many here agree there is most likely no theist god and no one has mentioned the deist god but all that means is a god who made the universe and then left it alone with the laws of nature to take care of the rest.
But many here are also claiming that consciousness is the fundamental make up of reality. That consciousness is what creates all those particles we observe. Some even claim that our consciousness can will aspects of reality to come true and claim this is the explanation for supernatural phenomenon. My question is why?
Quantum mechanics is not an explanation. Particles do exhibit wave like character and it depends on the observation --> but the world is made up of particles! To say that the wave function is a real physical thing and particles exist everywhere at once then relativity is violated. In abstract mathematical space anything can exist anywhere it doesn't matter. If you think that consciousness is everywhere instantaneously in the universe then you have violated relativity. If you violate relativity you better be prepared to explain yourself. No commonly accepted quantum theory violates relativity. If you claim that there is something pervading the universe yet interacting with matter it MUST be detectable or observable somehow. If its not interacting with matter then you have never experienced it and it might as well not exist.
You don't even need to use the wavefunction to describe quantum states. You can use a vector in any abstract mathematical space. You can use Heisenburg's matrix mechanics. They all give the same results. All these formulisms give the same indeterministic non classical quantum world.
If anyone has any problems with the above I want specific arguments.
Now about the question I keep dodging. "Is scienctific knowledge the only valid knowledge". I tried answering this but maybe I glossed it over to simply. I am not saying that science is the only source of knowledge. There are plenty of things that humans and animals and all kinds of things have knowledge about without science. I don't see how I am dodging the question? Science however is the best possible way to get answers about things that we currently don't have answers for. Of course you can think of answers to questions about things and those may be correct. Science can also disprove certain kinds of knowledge. Or at least show that it is highly unlikely.
The criticism that science is a dogma is absurd. How is science a dogma? Is science dogma because it often has a reductionist approach? Science isn't always reductionist. Science also doesn't have a big book that sais "here are all the answers". Its up to humans and observations and experiments to figure out answers to things we do not understand.
Now science can't offer a moral solution to lets say the population crisis. Any scientist can argue its my evolutionary right to have children and any scientist can argue if we don't control population there will be mass human suffering. Well these decisions aren't science based decisions. We make them we can use science as a guide but science can't make these kinds of moral decisions. I also stated why I do not believe in an objective right and wrong. Who sets the right and wrong then? You can't use the word conscience. Some people don't have one nor is it the same for everybody.
And of course you can make some argument like well science is built on facts after fact after fact but how do you know those facts are correct "how do you know anything. This kind of argument goes no where. We know those facts are correct to the limit to which we can. Sure I'll accept there's a limit. How can I prove I am not living in some matrix like reality and my brain isn't just hooked up some some tube? I don't. But am I going to assume that because I don't know it that its true? No of course not. Science validates science all the time. When a theory is proven by experimental evidence its validated. If someone disproves it its invalidated. This happens and progresses all the time.
The more we know does not equal the less we know unless what we think know is wrong.
Now concerning mystical experiences. Most of us have had them whether psychedelic induced or not. Now according to current neuroscience this type of phenomenon can occur and should occur when weird things happen. Weird things are just things that don't normally happen. Like looking at a wall and seeing one pattern become the entire wall. We have also mostly experienced what is commonly known as ego death. All these earth shattering eye opening mind twisting experiences make sense if the brain and its networks and its connects to our bodies and sense organs make up our subjective experience of reality. There is no disconnect.
I can think of two areas where this would be wrong.
1- if the brain isn't what makes consciousness and you are all right that its the other way around.
2- if we do encounter some external intelligence who tells us something we could have never known and that is then shown to be true and it is shown that the individual could not have solved the problem any other way.
But now since there are many correlations between brain activity and subjective experience answer 1 becomes less likely. 2 is not likely until it happens. Of course there are anecdotal claims by everybody whose tripped that they learned something they couldn't have while tripped. Well of course because psychedelics allow you to think differently so you should be coming up with new ways of looking at things on them. If you didn't it would be strange. But no one has ever proven that there is no other way they could have solved a specific problem without external knowledge entering the mind from somewhere else.
But going back to correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. So far no one can explain why when you feel love it feels the way it does and I don't think anyone ever will unless you can transfer subjective experiences from brain to brain. If we were observing an animal we could say look it has this attachment to another animal because it has an instinct to mate and doesn't actually "feel" anything and is not conscious. The only reason we know in ourselves what anything feels like is because we feel it. This is subjective of course. I also think other animals have subjective experience many forms of life probably do.
But that doesn't mean that love is not caused by the activity of the brain. Just because we can't explain how it feels doesn't mean its not being caused by whats going on in your brain. The reason I take that stance because many aspects of conscious experience can be damaged and change and become weird things. Just a simple example is visual neglect or phantom limb syndrome. There are way more complicated examples like schizophrenia. Maybe I shouldn't call it conscious experience though? Maybe I should only refer to the overarching unity of mind as consciousness. But consciousness clearly is made up of many parts. Perhaps that base awareness is made up of very simple parts? Perhaps that base awareness is all there is and the rest is an illusion? Are we talking about the base awareness or are we talking about higher cognitive functions? I feel this is an important definitional standpoint and will now stop.
blue_velvet
Rising Star
You know you are all wrong, right?
You are not listening to me at all.
I am not claiming the double split experiment is wrong. I am citing other physicists who explain the history and misconceptions of quantum mechanics throughout the last a century. I posted a link with a clear explanation of all this stuff and the history of this debate but you continue to ignore it.
Stop accusing me of misusing science when I am not. I am saying the world is made up of matter. Quantum mechanics doesn't say or imply otherwise. In fact its in complete agreement with a material matter world (I know its not newtonian so stop saying that!). I understand that its not classical and that you cannot define location until observation (measurement). I am not denying any of this so stop accusing me of doing it when I am not. What I am denying is that its an explanation for spiritual explanations about the universe.
MOST PHYSICISTS WOULD AGREE! I have discussed these issues with friends who were physicists and they explained it. But yet again see my links to Victor Stenger's website. He has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort dispelling the quantum spiritualists out there. I cannot even come close to doing as good of a job as he does. So read his literature if you care. He wrote a nice new book on the subject called Quantum Gods. He also wrote a book called the Unconscious Quantum. Until you do stop accusing me of lieing or making things up about science that aren't true because I am not!
Entanglement is real but it does not need imply superluminal communication. Infact entanglement obeys the rules conventional quantum mechanics and does not need any subquantum local variables as was proposed by Einstein and Bohm.
Einstein said quantum mechanics was wrong because if it was local meaning not non local it would require information to move faster then speed of light. This is called the EPR paradox. At the end of the day Einstein and Bohm did not succeed in describing anything with their idea of hidden variables or non locality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't imply that the world is not made of matter. What do you think the standard model is describing?!
I am not claiming the double split experiment is wrong. I am citing other physicists who explain the history and misconceptions of quantum mechanics throughout the last a century. I posted a link with a clear explanation of all this stuff and the history of this debate but you continue to ignore it.
Stop accusing me of misusing science when I am not. I am saying the world is made up of matter. Quantum mechanics doesn't say or imply otherwise. In fact its in complete agreement with a material matter world (I know its not newtonian so stop saying that!). I understand that its not classical and that you cannot define location until observation (measurement). I am not denying any of this so stop accusing me of doing it when I am not. What I am denying is that its an explanation for spiritual explanations about the universe.
MOST PHYSICISTS WOULD AGREE! I have discussed these issues with friends who were physicists and they explained it. But yet again see my links to Victor Stenger's website. He has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort dispelling the quantum spiritualists out there. I cannot even come close to doing as good of a job as he does. So read his literature if you care. He wrote a nice new book on the subject called Quantum Gods. He also wrote a book called the Unconscious Quantum. Until you do stop accusing me of lieing or making things up about science that aren't true because I am not!
Entanglement is real but it does not need imply superluminal communication. Infact entanglement obeys the rules conventional quantum mechanics and does not need any subquantum local variables as was proposed by Einstein and Bohm.
Einstein said quantum mechanics was wrong because if it was local meaning not non local it would require information to move faster then speed of light. This is called the EPR paradox. At the end of the day Einstein and Bohm did not succeed in describing anything with their idea of hidden variables or non locality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't imply that the world is not made of matter. What do you think the standard model is describing?!
pmm
Rising Star
This is a fascinating discussion. I am not sure how much sense any of my opinions will make to any of you, but here you go:
Reality, consciousness, spirituality, the universe are infinitely bigger than my ability to conceive, measure, assess or comprehend. The statistical likelihood that any of my own, subjective definitions tally with those of anyone else are infinitesimally small. This is simply because those concepts are dynamic pointers to something, clad in structural framework of a cultural matrix with no objective or objectifiable boundaries. If I say, consciousness is this or that, I have adopted a convenient delimitation, grabbed one piece out of the phenomenon, which is what I can grasp. Language serves well to show its own boundaries - we call it definition, that means we put a finite hedge around the patch we feel comfortable with. To claim that this is actually an accurate description of the observed phenomenon is basically either presumptious or delusional.
All we do, as a species as well as individuals is to accumulate more and more data to fill those concepts with, conveniently filtering out everything that does not pass our conceptual framework - science does that, religions do it, philosophy does it. In philosophy the concept of multi-veracity slowly gets momentum, admitting to itself that there is not one truth, but different equally valid standpoints that aren't mutually exclusive, although they appear that way. It's not even relativistic, it's relational.
In philosophy people like Rombach have introduced a wider spectrum of thought, which seems to advance our precepts from delineating reality from systems to structures, inherently dynamic in nature, undergoing constant change and evolution.
For me, the question whether quantum mechanics can explain or cannot explain spiritual experiences is void, simply because they are based on the assumption that they cover the same patch we hedged in. It'd be a bit like trying to explain love with the second law of thermodynamics. They might even have some intricate imperceptible connection, but how, why or to what degree of importance is simply not assessable with our current knowledge and tools.
I have to admit, I find the slagging off of established religions a little distasteful, although everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, statements like "we all know that those are crap" just because followers of those belief systems commit or have committed outrageous atrocities, used belief as a brain substitute, or exploited other members of that faith and whatever negative arguments one can come up with, does again close minds rather than opening them to possibilities that may or may not be contained even in them. A lot of religion and spirituality makes only sense in consummation, because of the highly individual experience it generates.
Structures are more complex than systems, as they evolve their own sets of laws in the process of unfolding and hence appear to have a higher degree of accuracy in describing and encompassing a variety of phenomena, interacting and being subsumed under larger structures.
Sorry for the rant, I hope that at least some can see what I am hinting at - and please forgive my long, run-on sentences, but English is unfortunately not my first language.
Reality, consciousness, spirituality, the universe are infinitely bigger than my ability to conceive, measure, assess or comprehend. The statistical likelihood that any of my own, subjective definitions tally with those of anyone else are infinitesimally small. This is simply because those concepts are dynamic pointers to something, clad in structural framework of a cultural matrix with no objective or objectifiable boundaries. If I say, consciousness is this or that, I have adopted a convenient delimitation, grabbed one piece out of the phenomenon, which is what I can grasp. Language serves well to show its own boundaries - we call it definition, that means we put a finite hedge around the patch we feel comfortable with. To claim that this is actually an accurate description of the observed phenomenon is basically either presumptious or delusional.
All we do, as a species as well as individuals is to accumulate more and more data to fill those concepts with, conveniently filtering out everything that does not pass our conceptual framework - science does that, religions do it, philosophy does it. In philosophy the concept of multi-veracity slowly gets momentum, admitting to itself that there is not one truth, but different equally valid standpoints that aren't mutually exclusive, although they appear that way. It's not even relativistic, it's relational.
In philosophy people like Rombach have introduced a wider spectrum of thought, which seems to advance our precepts from delineating reality from systems to structures, inherently dynamic in nature, undergoing constant change and evolution.
For me, the question whether quantum mechanics can explain or cannot explain spiritual experiences is void, simply because they are based on the assumption that they cover the same patch we hedged in. It'd be a bit like trying to explain love with the second law of thermodynamics. They might even have some intricate imperceptible connection, but how, why or to what degree of importance is simply not assessable with our current knowledge and tools.
I have to admit, I find the slagging off of established religions a little distasteful, although everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, statements like "we all know that those are crap" just because followers of those belief systems commit or have committed outrageous atrocities, used belief as a brain substitute, or exploited other members of that faith and whatever negative arguments one can come up with, does again close minds rather than opening them to possibilities that may or may not be contained even in them. A lot of religion and spirituality makes only sense in consummation, because of the highly individual experience it generates.
Structures are more complex than systems, as they evolve their own sets of laws in the process of unfolding and hence appear to have a higher degree of accuracy in describing and encompassing a variety of phenomena, interacting and being subsumed under larger structures.
Sorry for the rant, I hope that at least some can see what I am hinting at - and please forgive my long, run-on sentences, but English is unfortunately not my first language.
We have dealt with established religion in other posts. (see freedom from religion thread i started a while back in this section it deals with that topic).
Why should I open my mind to the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead or that Mohammad spoke to god?
I get what you are saying about how language is limiting especially when describing consciousness because its I think a very loose term.
pmm
Rising Star
burnt said:
Why not? We are in no position to prove or disprove that either was the case due to a lack of first-hand/witness experience. Because it doesn't fit into your concept of reality doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible.
I haven't had time to read most of the threads here, but will certainly try to catch up after my impending holiday. Right now I need to shift my attention to the mundane tasks of getting my bike ready, packing my climbing gear and getting my mind focused on how to get to the more earthly peaks and summits within my reach...
Sounds fun enjoy!
When you say "it's" are you referring to perception or substance? Could you explain this in a simpler way?polytrip said:
I think you're meaning "the very experience of existence that we each feel leads us to deduce that our perceptions are based on and refer to substance (by substance do you mean matter, or do you include thought and visions?). The existence of this substance is as basic as the conclusion that we exist at all, meaning that if the substance doesn't exist then neither must we, and if we don't exist then neither must the substance."
If that's what you mean, then I almost agree, because I think it's pretty likely that if we don't exist then neither does the substance. But I'm not sure if it's right to say 'as basic' because I think the universe would still be here without us, because science says it was here before conscious beings evolved. Science says the substance came first and our consciousness arose out of it... assuming my belief that science is right about that to be correct, and assuming that consciousness is not a property of all matter. But consciousness being a property of all matter is one idea that I would not discount. So I guess I'm not prepared to agree with that statement entirely if I've deciphered its meaning as you intended!
So all I'm prepared to agree on is that I exist!
"Cogito ergo sum", "Je pense, donc je suis", "I think, therefore I am", or "I am thinking, therefore I exist" to translate Descartes. The rest is mere belief. I believe that this is not all in my head and that I am living in this universe... it seems probable to me that this is true, but I can't say for sure that this is right. When in a dream, one is unaware that one is dreaming, and everything in the dream makes sense at the time, so it is possible that science is just part of the dream logic. I believe that I definitely exist, and I go through my life on the assumption that the rest of the universe as it appears in the state I refer to as 'conscious reality' does too.
I believe that others exist too because when I have tried to will the world to work as I want it to, I have been statistically unsuccessful. I believe that an anthropomorphic god like in the conventional religions does not exist because the nature of existence itself completely contradicts their descriptions of their gods and the universe and afterlife etc (so called compassionate god in a world full of suffering etc), and science which has proved itself to be more reliable than religion contradicts their creation stories, and philosophy which has proved itself to be more logical and critical than religion has given birth to alternative ethics such as the human rights movement which seem freer and fairer than religious moral codes (regarding homosexuality and other deviancies from the norm, capital punishment, dietary restrictions etc).
Polytrip, you're going to have to spit it out because otherwise your posts are going to get lost in the maelstrom, and I really want to hear what you think!
ohayoco said:
I actually inadvertently found something interesting just now.
Alchemy And Metallic Medicines In Ayurveda
books.google.be
"Alchemy And Metallic Medicines In Ayurveda"
by Vaidya Bhagwan Dash
Under indications for gold bhasma, it says it is indicated for schizophrenia (spelled chizophrenia).
Indeed the first part of this is the same as the famous 'cogito'. Descartes concluded that, because in the midst of this raging storm of uncertainty, you can at least be certain of your own existence, there must be a god.ohayoco said:
Uncertainty is indeed like some sort of acid that you cannot put inside any container because it eats it's way through everything, so i can understand that he saw this last resort as something of a godgift.
I think that science has influenced how we think nowadays, so in many ways Descartes' road and ours part at that 'proof-of-god's-existence'.
This is for instance because we think different of matter nowadays.
The first part is that you can be certain that you exist...Then some things that follow from this; that you can know things with certainty; that your perceptions are real; that you are aware of your own existence, etc.
So you now know that your perceptions are at least as real as your own existence.
At that moment we could be still: in 'the matrix', only 'god's dream', hallucinating, etc.
But we can say more.
This is, i think because we look different now at matter and energy, and not because of what we know, but of how our knowledge has altered our way of thinking.
In the midst of all our uncertainty we could make a list of all things that we know, exist. This would be a list of different things with different quality's but they all share the same underlying quality; that we know they are real;They share the feature of existence itself.
Of everything that's on the list it would be simply impossible not to exist, because there are things we can say on existence itself as well. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same way, existence is bounded by those kind of rules. This would even be true for god.
If something exists and we can now it exists; it must be bounded, for if it where endless, we would not be able to see it; it must have a shape and features; it must have a location, occupy a space, etc.
For everything that we know exists, therefore, even our perceptions, we must aknowledge that it has the underlying property of existence and detectability wich means that it can interact, that forces can be exercised upon it, that it can counterbalance these forces, thus exercising force itself.
That it can interact with us means that, at least at some level,it is made out of the same 'stuff' as we are. That it has material properties.
So our perceptions could be made by the programmer from 'the matrix', some evil demon, god himself, or be what they seem to be, but in all cases they must have material properties themselves and they must relate to things that have material properties (wich still could be the electrons flowing through the matrix' hardware system, our brains, god's brain, or whatever).
So the question is then: does everybody agree that everything that exists has material/energetic properties?
Then there is still room for different views b.t.w.
Then there is still room for different views b.t.w.
It's clear information could travel faster then the speed of light without violating relativity. It's also speculated that light ITSELF may travel slightly faster then the known speed of light itself without violating relativity, if you take in acount that einstein only meant photon's with certain known energy's.
Furthermore, relativity as i understand it never talks about the actual speed of light but only about the perception of the speed of light, since the speed of light itself cannot be the same exactly as relativity states.
I think burnt is trying to make a point about pseudoscience being used by especially new-age type of people.
I wouldn't worry to much about that; the phoney proffesors are not likely to get a position at princeton.
Furthermore, relativity as i understand it never talks about the actual speed of light but only about the perception of the speed of light, since the speed of light itself cannot be the same exactly as relativity states.
I think burnt is trying to make a point about pseudoscience being used by especially new-age type of people.
I wouldn't worry to much about that; the phoney proffesors are not likely to get a position at princeton.
Well, you could prove certain statements about god to be wrong. It's clear that if god can influence things in this world, if he has mad this world for instance, his influence is quantized and has material properties.burnt said:
This however does not disqualify many other statements or speculations about god.
The fact that i have a counscious mind, whether it's just my brain causing it or not, proofs that counsciousness can exist within the material realm and leaves open the possibility for other forms of counsciousness; if my brain can generate counsciousness, why would any other system in the universe not be able to do the same?
Quantum mechanics and relativity completely leave the possibility of the existence of a god open. It's clear that it could not be a god capable of anything, like some believe. It's clear that even god has it's boundaries.
The whole wave/particle discussion only shows that there is only so much we can know.
I said before that there never will be a grand-unifying-theory.
Einstein tried to unite the two major theories of his time with relativity, later on scientists tried to unite relativity and QM and it looks that those attempts will lead to other new theories that won't unite; string theory and quantum-loop-gravity.
Science is great, but it's greatness is partly based on that it says very clear what it's scope of certainty is...and thus what it leaves open.
970Codfert
Rising Star
If it has anything to do with complexity that generates the conscious experience, I think the universe itself is certainly a candidate.
To Fiashly:
Poor reading comprehension and zealotry? Man alright I am turning the tables around on you because you've gone too far accusing me of mis-interpreting science.
But first just because a scienctist like Dr. Stenger is an atheist and has the courage to speak out against religion and quantum quackery doesn't mean he has "hidden agendas". Sure he makes money selling his books but a lot less then wack jobs make selling books about "quantum healing" or whatever other garbage is out there now. Read his work before you attack him. I found it to be very good and well thought out and straight forward. I've read plenty of the other sides work and always had major objections with it as does any real physicist who I have spoken to about it. Regardless the man has spent his whole life studying quantum mechanics and particle physics and has taken the time and effort to explain why the quantum spiritualists are mis-using science for their own purposes.
Your misconstruing my words which you have done more then once to accuse me that I do not know what I am talking about it and now I guess I will explain myself more clearly point by point.
I know that at the subatomic scale quantum mechanics contradicts newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is deterministic quantum mechanics is not. What I meant is that quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate the macroscopic world. If it did there would be no macroscopic world. Many things that happen in the subatomic world DO NOT work the same way in the macroscopic world. Hence why newtonian physics is still useful to describe things in our everyday scale and in our everyday world and why quantum mechanics is useful to describe things in the subatomic world.
In the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the path of a particle is not determined until its measured. Nothing about that sais the particle itself doesn't exist. If you shoot out one electron it exists you just don't know where it goes or where it ends up or what path it takes until you measure it. Where it ends up is also in-deterministic you can never know. If you take a large number of measurements you will get a statistical distribution of where the particles end up. That's what is shown in the very first post I made in the picture of a more modern double split experiment with electrons being shot one at a time. Its the same with radioactive decay. Why do you think a half life for radioactive atoms is a set value? Because its a statistical accumulation of quantum events in this case radioactive decay. Due to the uncertainty principle you are limited in what you can say about location and momentum the more you measure one the more you interfere with the other. So again what am I not understanding?
Although in the mathematical wave function yes it can exist everywhere. But that's just math an electron can't beam from the earth to the sun and back faster then the speed of light. That violates relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't need to violate relativity in fact most explanations of quantum events like entanglement that involve violating the speed of light are not often taken seriously. There are OTHER explanations to entanglement. If you consulted the literature or read some of the things I have been posting links too you would know that but instead you seem hell bent on showing that I am some kind of moron who has no say in the matter.
Now to get into the philosophy of this some have taken it to mean that until a consciousness measures it there is no objective reality. That view was NEVER the original intention of Bohr or any of the other scientists who worked on this stuff. So far it seems that there is an objective reality out there. Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove or suggest that there is no objective reality.
You keep accusing me of not understanding the science by pulling out words that I say and saying they are wrong and then essentially redescribing everything in a correct manner (you are describing what happens correctly but you are not explaining it completely or discussing recent research and you are suggesting QM violates relativity which is doesn't) to prove that I am wrong. But what you are not doing is saying what I am saying is wrong. You just keep saying "you don't get it" and then you reexplain everything. I didn't start this post to explain quantum mechanics I just wanted to show how quantum mechanics doesn't prove any of this holistic universal consciousness nonsense and I brought up a simple experiment done with electrons (its the same with photons) that shows the wave particle duality is somewhat of a misnomer. But as you say you don't claim that quantum mechanics explains spiritual knowledge so yes we are not disagreeing on that. Most physicists describe subatomic events with particles. The wave function is math its not suggesting that waves travel instantaneously all over the universe.
If you mean traditional understanding by newtonian yes in the subatomic world then yes its very different. Again what are your grounds for accusing me of not understanding??
See now you did it again. You accuse me of misinterpreting the science or not understanding it when all I was saying was exactly what you just said! My point however which you clearly didn't get because you are so bent on accusing me of being an an illiterate idiot was that Einstein tried to suggest that things like entanglement violated relativity and couldn't be real. My point was that entanglement is real and Einstein was wrong about that and they were not able to disprove quantum mechanics. Both relativity and quantum mechanics agree with every observation.
So what the fuck? You have done this throughout this entire discussion. Accused me of saying something wrong then re-explained it and say you "see your wrong" when in fact I am largely saying the same things you are! I really don't see what your getting out of doing that its not contributing to the discussion and all it does is make it seem like I am completely wrong so anything I say can't be taken seriously when you aren't even being fair. Your accusing me of saying things that are wrong and then you go and say basically the same thing or bring up some other aspect that I wasn't even discussing to say that I am wrong.
Its not fair and I am going to have to say that for purposes of this discussion when you accuse me of being wrong about something I want all the specifics laid out. All you do is say I am wrong and then reexplain something that might not even be what I was originally talking about. Like in my first post I wasn't talking about the traditional double split experiment I was talking about more modern work.
But what I do want to say is that entanglement does not suggest that superluminal communication between the particles is happening and it doesn't need to violate relativity (read the literature you are accusing me of being completely illiterate about to see why that is!).
Again wow you accuse me of being wrong but its you who does not consult the literature.
Look the seemingly non local behavior of particles being in more then one place at the same time can still be understood without disregarding the notion that particles follow paths in space and time. Now by saying that I am not suggesting that the behavoir of particles is classical or deterministic or newtonian and it also does not require non locality or signals to move faster then the speed of light.
If you consulted the literature and understood that more advances have been made in this field you would know what I am talking about. But since you obviously don't and only seem to want to point out that I am an idiot I guess I will post some literature but BEWARE an atheist wrote it so it must be wrong!
I meant whats in the model is generally regarded as what matter is made up of (matter and energy whats the difference? E = MC^2). There are lots of other particles too though.
The photon is massless yet its real we can describe it. But yes its a force particle so its not necessarily matter like how you defined it but its still real is what I mean. There are other force particles (the photon is a force particle it describes electromagnetic force) like the W and Z bosons which mediate the electroweak force. Massless particles like photons are still real and thus I consider them matter (but again that differs from the traditional definition of matter) so when I say materialism they are within that frame. They don't need mass to interact with matter as they have energy and momentum. Particles don't need mass to be real things.
Its not me who needs to go back to the drawing board. You don't either the way you explained things was correct. But what you should do is read on and realize not all your explanations or interpretations are correct. Stop accusing me of not understanding the science I am using to explain certain aspects of my goal in this discussion. I am not a physicist so I may not use all the right words in the right way or may not always be that clear or may have even glossed over a few things without fully explaining them but I have provided information to back up everything that I have said most of which I got from other people because like I said I am not a physicist I don't study this stuff but I have had friends who have and I like to read what physicists have to say on these issues plus consult the raw scientific literature for either confirmation or other ideas.
Poor reading comprehension and zealotry? Man alright I am turning the tables around on you because you've gone too far accusing me of mis-interpreting science.
But first just because a scienctist like Dr. Stenger is an atheist and has the courage to speak out against religion and quantum quackery doesn't mean he has "hidden agendas". Sure he makes money selling his books but a lot less then wack jobs make selling books about "quantum healing" or whatever other garbage is out there now. Read his work before you attack him. I found it to be very good and well thought out and straight forward. I've read plenty of the other sides work and always had major objections with it as does any real physicist who I have spoken to about it. Regardless the man has spent his whole life studying quantum mechanics and particle physics and has taken the time and effort to explain why the quantum spiritualists are mis-using science for their own purposes.
Your misconstruing my words which you have done more then once to accuse me that I do not know what I am talking about it and now I guess I will explain myself more clearly point by point.
I know that at the subatomic scale quantum mechanics contradicts newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is deterministic quantum mechanics is not. What I meant is that quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate the macroscopic world. If it did there would be no macroscopic world. Many things that happen in the subatomic world DO NOT work the same way in the macroscopic world. Hence why newtonian physics is still useful to describe things in our everyday scale and in our everyday world and why quantum mechanics is useful to describe things in the subatomic world.
In the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the path of a particle is not determined until its measured. Nothing about that sais the particle itself doesn't exist. If you shoot out one electron it exists you just don't know where it goes or where it ends up or what path it takes until you measure it. Where it ends up is also in-deterministic you can never know. If you take a large number of measurements you will get a statistical distribution of where the particles end up. That's what is shown in the very first post I made in the picture of a more modern double split experiment with electrons being shot one at a time. Its the same with radioactive decay. Why do you think a half life for radioactive atoms is a set value? Because its a statistical accumulation of quantum events in this case radioactive decay. Due to the uncertainty principle you are limited in what you can say about location and momentum the more you measure one the more you interfere with the other. So again what am I not understanding?
Although in the mathematical wave function yes it can exist everywhere. But that's just math an electron can't beam from the earth to the sun and back faster then the speed of light. That violates relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't need to violate relativity in fact most explanations of quantum events like entanglement that involve violating the speed of light are not often taken seriously. There are OTHER explanations to entanglement. If you consulted the literature or read some of the things I have been posting links too you would know that but instead you seem hell bent on showing that I am some kind of moron who has no say in the matter.
Now to get into the philosophy of this some have taken it to mean that until a consciousness measures it there is no objective reality. That view was NEVER the original intention of Bohr or any of the other scientists who worked on this stuff. So far it seems that there is an objective reality out there. Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove or suggest that there is no objective reality.
You keep accusing me of not understanding the science by pulling out words that I say and saying they are wrong and then essentially redescribing everything in a correct manner (you are describing what happens correctly but you are not explaining it completely or discussing recent research and you are suggesting QM violates relativity which is doesn't) to prove that I am wrong. But what you are not doing is saying what I am saying is wrong. You just keep saying "you don't get it" and then you reexplain everything. I didn't start this post to explain quantum mechanics I just wanted to show how quantum mechanics doesn't prove any of this holistic universal consciousness nonsense and I brought up a simple experiment done with electrons (its the same with photons) that shows the wave particle duality is somewhat of a misnomer. But as you say you don't claim that quantum mechanics explains spiritual knowledge so yes we are not disagreeing on that. Most physicists describe subatomic events with particles. The wave function is math its not suggesting that waves travel instantaneously all over the universe.
If you mean traditional understanding by newtonian yes in the subatomic world then yes its very different. Again what are your grounds for accusing me of not understanding??
See now you did it again. You accuse me of misinterpreting the science or not understanding it when all I was saying was exactly what you just said! My point however which you clearly didn't get because you are so bent on accusing me of being an an illiterate idiot was that Einstein tried to suggest that things like entanglement violated relativity and couldn't be real. My point was that entanglement is real and Einstein was wrong about that and they were not able to disprove quantum mechanics. Both relativity and quantum mechanics agree with every observation.
So what the fuck? You have done this throughout this entire discussion. Accused me of saying something wrong then re-explained it and say you "see your wrong" when in fact I am largely saying the same things you are! I really don't see what your getting out of doing that its not contributing to the discussion and all it does is make it seem like I am completely wrong so anything I say can't be taken seriously when you aren't even being fair. Your accusing me of saying things that are wrong and then you go and say basically the same thing or bring up some other aspect that I wasn't even discussing to say that I am wrong.
Its not fair and I am going to have to say that for purposes of this discussion when you accuse me of being wrong about something I want all the specifics laid out. All you do is say I am wrong and then reexplain something that might not even be what I was originally talking about. Like in my first post I wasn't talking about the traditional double split experiment I was talking about more modern work.
But what I do want to say is that entanglement does not suggest that superluminal communication between the particles is happening and it doesn't need to violate relativity (read the literature you are accusing me of being completely illiterate about to see why that is!).
Again wow you accuse me of being wrong but its you who does not consult the literature.
Look the seemingly non local behavior of particles being in more then one place at the same time can still be understood without disregarding the notion that particles follow paths in space and time. Now by saying that I am not suggesting that the behavoir of particles is classical or deterministic or newtonian and it also does not require non locality or signals to move faster then the speed of light.
If you consulted the literature and understood that more advances have been made in this field you would know what I am talking about. But since you obviously don't and only seem to want to point out that I am an idiot I guess I will post some literature but BEWARE an atheist wrote it so it must be wrong!
I meant whats in the model is generally regarded as what matter is made up of (matter and energy whats the difference? E = MC^2). There are lots of other particles too though.
The photon is massless yet its real we can describe it. But yes its a force particle so its not necessarily matter like how you defined it but its still real is what I mean. There are other force particles (the photon is a force particle it describes electromagnetic force) like the W and Z bosons which mediate the electroweak force. Massless particles like photons are still real and thus I consider them matter (but again that differs from the traditional definition of matter) so when I say materialism they are within that frame. They don't need mass to interact with matter as they have energy and momentum. Particles don't need mass to be real things.
Its not me who needs to go back to the drawing board. You don't either the way you explained things was correct. But what you should do is read on and realize not all your explanations or interpretations are correct. Stop accusing me of not understanding the science I am using to explain certain aspects of my goal in this discussion. I am not a physicist so I may not use all the right words in the right way or may not always be that clear or may have even glossed over a few things without fully explaining them but I have provided information to back up everything that I have said most of which I got from other people because like I said I am not a physicist I don't study this stuff but I have had friends who have and I like to read what physicists have to say on these issues plus consult the raw scientific literature for either confirmation or other ideas.
Now back to the discussion. I want to leave this quantum mechanics nit picking aside unless there are any more legit and clear criticisms. From now on I am not going to answer them with long winded explanations but just provide literature. Its taking up too much space and I want to move on with the discussion.
That's the assumption I am running on for now.
That depends on what god is. If god is just whatever made the universe (even if its nothing) then sure I can't disqualify that at all.
But if god acts in the world then some aspect of its acts must be detectable or observable. If his acts are as clear and important in the everyday world as theists claim then it surely must be observable. Unless god is some wacko trickster who is just playing games with us but I don't even know if that would work for an explanation.
I wouldn't say ANY system but certainly there should be other systems that generate consciousness. I think other animals are conscious for example. Maybe not in all the same ways we are but for sure there are overlaps and similarities.
That's the assumption I am running on for now.
That depends on what god is. If god is just whatever made the universe (even if its nothing) then sure I can't disqualify that at all.
But if god acts in the world then some aspect of its acts must be detectable or observable. If his acts are as clear and important in the everyday world as theists claim then it surely must be observable. Unless god is some wacko trickster who is just playing games with us but I don't even know if that would work for an explanation.
I wouldn't say ANY system but certainly there should be other systems that generate consciousness. I think other animals are conscious for example. Maybe not in all the same ways we are but for sure there are overlaps and similarities.
I think we can all agree that the term "God" can be refered to as the energetical force (whatever it is is still up in question) behind the veil of creation.
And i think we can disagree on the idea of a personal God that sits up in the sky... Thats old and battered.
And i think we can disagree on the idea of a personal God that sits up in the sky... Thats old and battered.
if I was to accept the fact that quantum mechanics does happen at a very small quantum level, but doesn't extent into our "world"(which I am undecided on), I would still have to assume that it at least tell us that the very nature of the universe is much more peculiar than we had though, what that could ultimatily say about us who knows?...but still, the outcomes of those quantom effects should still carry over creating the foundations of our "reality", right?(I personally dont know, this stuff is getting beyond me, I have training in philosophy, not physics)
So maybe our reality is "stable", but the foundation, the root of this reality is not..is this what you are trying to say burnt?
All I want to say here is that reality IS here, and that is special enough, the process SHOULD be secondary when it comes to spiritualism. Celebrate LIFE, not the details.
I also agree with what someone said before about complexity being a possible candidate for conciouness, and that if so, the universe should be a good candidate for that.
But if what you are saying is so burnt, that humans and other animals I assume are the forefront of conciousness..than what about its progression? What about where conciousness will be in 100, 1000, 10000000 years from now?..surely it still exists within the confines of the "universe"..and if the mathematical constants guiding the universe do not change, than whatever it is that conciousness may become was really already there to begin with, just waiting to be discovered, so to speak. I have no reservations on what it is that conciousness is to become, but who knows..maybe it's big.
So maybe our reality is "stable", but the foundation, the root of this reality is not..is this what you are trying to say burnt?
All I want to say here is that reality IS here, and that is special enough, the process SHOULD be secondary when it comes to spiritualism. Celebrate LIFE, not the details.
I also agree with what someone said before about complexity being a possible candidate for conciouness, and that if so, the universe should be a good candidate for that.
But if what you are saying is so burnt, that humans and other animals I assume are the forefront of conciousness..than what about its progression? What about where conciousness will be in 100, 1000, 10000000 years from now?..surely it still exists within the confines of the "universe"..and if the mathematical constants guiding the universe do not change, than whatever it is that conciousness may become was really already there to begin with, just waiting to be discovered, so to speak. I have no reservations on what it is that conciousness is to become, but who knows..maybe it's big.
DeadLizard
Rising Star
tl;dr
)
I think the universe is infinite in all dimensions and that creationist belief systems, and the term "God" in particular, have robbed mankind of thousands of years of development.
But, ya know, thats just my opinion. Believe whatever ya want cuz idunno, lol.
I don't agree to give validity to any form of creation myth, especially the "energy force (or ya kno insert wuteva you like cuse I dont no, lol...)" b.s I see everywhere these days.(is this a new cult and how do i joinDMTtripn2Space said:
)I think the universe is infinite in all dimensions and that creationist belief systems, and the term "God" in particular, have robbed mankind of thousands of years of development.
But, ya know, thats just my opinion. Believe whatever ya want cuz idunno, lol.