God for scientists
Offline Hi All 
Long time no see.
Here is my late "gift" for all atheists.
A little long but worth reading.
--
I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named "matter" in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.
When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said - “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.
Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.
I’ll use part of the Big Bang theory to make my point.
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time..
Note that some of you can be deceived from the “particle” part in the “wave-particle” name.
That entity is not particle. It is entity said to behave either as wave or as particle, but behavior is not consistence.
Therefore, it would be safer to think of it as wave.
Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference
I can imagine the difficulties many of you would have comprehending my idea.
It is not that difficult to understand that your observation makes the things appear in their sensible nature. Your minds are like medium, in which the wave turns into particle and becomes interactive sensible part of your surrounding.
The mind as part of the “awareness-wave” (God) can observe its own interference thus creating delusion about existence out of the self.
From this point on, the science can be right in most of its conclusions, but also very wrong in some of its bases.
Religious people BELIEVE that God created the world.
Creation implies deliberate action, intention.
The world wasn’t intentionally created therefore we can not call it creation.
It is appearance.
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.
You read about many such awakened people who brought the knowledge for God in this world.
That knowledge was given in different times to people with different intellectual levels and the explanations about God had to mach the intellectual capability of the auditory.
People with low intellectuality tend to accept old explanation without questioning and become blind religious followers.
The need for salvation brings obedience to rules, which was (and still is) used by the church for self-interests.
Possible argument:
- We may not hear the sound but it is still there. We can not say that only what is heard is sound.
Answer to the above:
The “sound” word has no absolute value because it describes our perception for certain vibration frequency.
That is valid for any word, which describes our perceptions.
Why our senses have no absolute value?
Lets take “red” (the color) for example.
It is word for color.
We named a range of light spectrum with the name “red”.
We agree on the fact that most humans can recognize that certain range, but we can not know how each of us see the color with that name.
Therefore, we conclude that perceptions have no absolute value.
In other words, one must not put absolute value for what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
It is only our perception of the wave interference, which we call Universe.
To make it even more clearer I’ll reverse it: The Universe is wave interference and our senses are making us see it the way we see it.
And now to make it complete: The Universe is wave interference + conscious observation
We can not apply noise, and light as property of the Universe, because for sentient being without the ability to see and hear it is not noisy and visible.
To say that the noise and the light are still there is illogical knowing that we are using not absolute values.
The absolute values are in the length and the phase of the interfering waves not in our perception of those values.
Another possible argument:
- Do you know what “wave function collapse” is?
Answer to the above:
Yes I know.
In not simplified language, I mean that we as measuring (observing) tools are defining the value to which the set of calculated probabilities will collapse. All around us is set of systems interfering with each other and us. We are defining the values for the wave function collapse of all that systems.
- Login to post comments
Offline Truden wrote:To suggest that the only self evident thing is 'mind' makes no sense.
The only self-evident thing is MIND.
For the rest you need proof.
So, prove that matter is matter.
You can not imagine how ignorant you sound.
- Login to post comments
Offline You can not imagine how ignorant you sound.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline Just don't come to me with LOGIC, my friend.
So, are you saying that you are illogical? Are you saying that you are unable to logically argue this matter, so you don't want me to use logic to bolster my side of it? If we refuse to lose logic, then we simply can't debate. Apperently there can be no meaningful discussion with you. Once you denounce logic, it is all over.
I can turn your words against you, by telling you "You don't get evidence that something is itself"
I agree. You don't get evidence that something is itself. You merely state that A=A is a fundamental axiom and move on. So let's do this: A is matter, A=A. Now we are done; unless you denounce the use of logic again.
The only self-evident thing is MIND.
If you are appealing to solipsism, then why are you asking for evidence of anything? You will denouce evidence if you are a solipsist. Are you playing a game here? You simply can not be a solipsist that demands evidence. Either you reject the concept of there even being such a thing as evidence and embrace solipsism, or you don't accept solipsism and you value evidence as a means of determining truth. You can't have it both ways.
I don't argue the structure of matter.
I argue the nature of the "wave-particle"
OK, but don't use the word 'solid' in relation to subatomic particles. It just doesn't make any sense. I have already clearly explained what it means to be 'solid' to you and I have also explained why that word can't be applied to subatomic particles. Don't become the new Paisley and ignore everything that everyone says and repeat the same obviously wrong statements again and again.
You have no base to defend your position.
My position that matter is matter (A=A, a fundamental axiom of logic) and my position that it makes sense for non-solid subatomic particles to make solid matter (see my previous post containing a lengthy description of this) is doing just fine. Except for announcing that you think Neoplatonism it correct, I don't think you have actually argued in support of your position. You demand proof that matter is matter (it is hard to begin to describe how wrong that statement is) and you repeat that Neoplatonism is correct again and again. It would seem to me that you are the one who has no base to defend his postion.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
- Login to post comments
Offline Truden wrote:Is that all? You're not going to explain how it is that I can't imagine how ignorant I sound? How is it that I'm ignorant? Did you want to explain? Or are you satisfied that I'm too ignorant to imagine it? Ad hominems are a poor form of argumentation, Truden.You can not imagine how ignorant you sound.
Since I know that Truden can't argue his own case, let me do it for him:
You just disagreed with Descartian solipsism. Since Truden values some conception of a spiritual mind that is the only form of existence, he doesn't like that. Being Truden he is incapable of arguing against your statement, so instead he whipped out that insult. The fact that minds exist is self-evident. The fact that you are reading this and thinking about it is flawless proof that your mind exists. Solipsists state that we can't be sure whether or not existence is some kind of Matrix-like illusion; so we can only be certain that our mind exists and nothing else. So they don't like it when people like you or me state that the universe objectively exists. I mean, it pretty obviously objectively exists, but they don't like that people get to appeal to evidence of this or that in a debate. If you present evidence that they don't like they will denounce it as being merely a product of our minds. Now, what is weird about this one case is that Truden is demanding evidence while simultaneously supporting solipsism. So it is pretty odd that he announces that matter is just a by-product of our minds, and then demands evidence concerning the nature of matter. I hope I've made it clear about how wrong it is for a solipsist to demand evidence of something.
Once the descent into solipsism begins, the debate is pretty much over. I've never seen someone get through to a solipsist. What are you going to do, present enough supporting evidence to convince them that you are correct? Isn't all that evidence just a creation of your mind? And isn't the Mind the only thing that really exists? Once you get into that discussion it is all over. Add in the fact that Truden has rebuked my use of logic, and you have a really pointless debate.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
- Login to post comments
Offline Truden wrote:Just don't come to me with LOGIC, my friend.
So, are you saying that you are illogical? Are you saying that you are unable to logically argue this matter, so you don't want me to use logic to bolster my side of it? If we refuse to lose logic, then we simply can't debate. Apperently there can be no meaningful discussion with you. Once you denounce logic, it is all over.
Why did I say that? Because you'll make it difficult for you, since your arguments don't have logical base.
Truden wrote:I can turn your words against you, by telling you "You don't get evidence that something is itself"
I agree. You don't get evidence that something is itself. You merely state that A=A is a fundamental axiom and move on. So let's do this: A is matter, A=A. Now we are done; unless you denounce the use of logic again.
You are deceiving yourself with words.
I don't mind the "matter" word or the matter as presence.
If we name that presence "matter" then it is "matter" and then A=A as presence, not as the word which you think has specific nature.
Now, the argument is about that SPECIFIC nature of matter.
Your understanding about the nature of matter is that it is not related to mind (conscious).
You have to prove that your understanding about matter covers the real nature of matter.
Prove it against my understanding that matter is conscious appearance (mind creation).
Your understanding has no explanation about the wave-particle. You only have explanation about its behavior.
My understanding treats the wave-particle as awareness-wave which through self-interference creates pattern which we call matter. It is observable by the mind, because it is mind creation.
- - -
I am not solipsist>
I don't have to be one in order to know the simple truth that all things are reference to mind.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why must I back it up?
Because it not only lacks specificity, it presumes that mind exists before matter, which you have yet to demonstrate. The only mind we know about is the human mind. Matter can be shown to exist prior to the human mind's development. I don't think I need to state formally that matter preceded mind.
edit: forgot who I was talking to - using logic and radiometric dating, one can figure out that matter existed before the human mind.
We have two interpretations now. Let see which one will stand the logic.
We just did. Matter preceded mind. If you're arguing that the human mind (that is, the only mind we know and call "consciousness" ) preceded matter, then I'm not sure I can help you with logic.
But you can not prove that without mind matter exists.
You're right. Your version of pantheistic solipsism is not refutable through a proof. One difficulty with it, though, is that matter does not change despite increases or decreases in the human population.
What ever you say, remember that the MIND makes this Universe the way you see it.
Which mind would that be? If you're going to insist on logic and proof, I'm afraid I'll have to insist that you be specific. Also, making a statement with an unclear term in it can be misleading.
I keep repeating the "interpreted value" term and you keep not paying attention to it.
That's because it's meaningless. When a computer repeatedly tests the radioactive decay of an element, in the absence of a human observer, does that demonstrate that the computer has a mind?
I think that you don't even have an idea about quantum mechanics and what am I talking about.
I have a decent understanding of quantum mechanics, and precisely no idea what you are talking about.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Your understanding has no explanation about the wave-particle. You only have explanation about its behavior.
You keep saying this, as though it means something. What would qualify as an "explanation" of the wave-particle duality? It's an observation itself.
My understanding treats the wave-particle as awareness-wave which through self-interference creates pattern which we call matter. It is observable by the mind, because it is mind creation.
Let's see if I understand your hypothesis. You're suggesting that something called an "awareness-wave" which you have not adequately described in physical terms interferes with itself to create a pattern we call matter. And observation and the creation of matter are the same thing? Or does the mind create the matter first, and then observe it?
I am not solipsist. I don't have to be one in order to know the simple truth that all things are reference to mind.
It makes sense that you're not a solipsist, but it's difficult to tell exactly what type of thinking you're espousing, here. You haven't really defined "mind" in your use of the term. Are you referring to the Platonic νοῦς ?
It's hard to follow what you're trying to say because your terms are unclear. If you're suggesting that minds are required to form a universe, then at some point, humanity would have had to develop the universe before it existed. So that's a problem.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Once the descent into solipsism begins, the debate is pretty much over.
Not entirely true. The human mind angle is fairly solid. It brings in the scientific epistemology, though, which is apparently the most difficult thing in the universe to grasp.
If the human mind is the only mind we know about (and as far as I know, we don't generally call other things "mind" ) and through radiometric tests that remain consistent over thousands and thousands of repetitions, we can date a variety of things as existing before the existence of humans (roughly, say 150,000 years ago, give or take) how did our minds create that, when I can't even go a whole week without dropping something on the ground?
Honestly, we're so incredibly imprecise in our lives, and yet regardless of the population, or concentrations of populations, gravity continues to act on the earth and sun, and apparently can do so even before our minds enter into the equation (presumably in gleefully cold anticipation of our mindly arrival).
Why would the mind not act like a mind?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Because it not only lacks specificity, it presumes that mind exists before matter, which you have yet to demonstrate.
You are asking me to explain AGAIN everything that I already explained in the opening of this topic and all the comments up to here.
The question of what is first - matter or mind, can be solved only with logic, because we will be stuck in the circle of mind (all proves are presented to the mind)
Existence is reference to mind and to the mind it is “something that is not I”. Since “existence” is reference to mind, it is second (after the mind).
There is no way to prove the contrary.
We already discussed the value of all scientific measurements.
The apparatus record data. They don’t record “matter”, “time” or “space”.
The recorded data is interpreted by the mind as “matter”, “time” or “space”.
(That is why I started with the tree in the woods)
Remember what the Bible say: "without form, and void".
Remember what I said: "awareness-wave interference".
This is what the aparatus "measure".
You (the mind) give the "value" (form and void).
So, such approach does not help your interpretation and does not solve the problem since you define it as “philosophical”.
You are missing the fact that my interpretation does not deal with the mind as personality (personal mind), but as base which creates self-interference and can observe it from the position of the “personal mind”
All is mind picture. We are points of observation of the self-interference of the mind.
Like a night dream – the mind creates the dream and observes it from one point of view.
In my interpretation, the points of view are many.
Better approach to the solution of the problem, is to prove that mind does not depend on matter.
We know that the nerve system depends on the brain, but we cannot prove that when the brain die the mind die too.
We can prove though, that mind is not dependent on the brain by referring to “out of body” experience and the phenomenon “reveling past” and “predicting future”.
Science does not accept such phenomenon as evidence, because it affects all scientific interpretations on Universe, life and consciousness.
Now after we have two interpretations on the nature of matter, I can use it in support of my interpretation.
I can use all the results from the experiments conducted with Vanga and Vera Kochovska as evidence that mind exist independent of matter. I’m sure that there are plenty such people who’s out of body experience can support my interpretation. Science has enough information to accept interpretation like mine as alternative.
Theists are subject to ridicule for their failure to provide reasonable base for their belief.
In the same time, science acts ridiculous by rejecting evidences because they are not scientific.
Well, scientific evidences do not comply with the philosophical knowledge, and from that point of view it is away more ridiculous than the idea for God.
In other words, science is acting like child who proves that sour is sour, because it is sour.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since I know that Truden can't argue his own case, let me do it for him:[...] and you have a really pointless debate.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline You are asking me to explain AGAIN everything that I already explained in the opening of this topic and all the comments up to here.
I'd like you to explain it in terms that are specific. Your terms are so general that they are neither true nor false.
The question of what is first - matter or mind, can be solved only with logic, because we will be stuck in the circle of mind (all proves are presented to the mind)
Existence is reference to mind and to the mind it is “something that is not I”. Since “existence” is reference to mind, it is second (after the mind).
That's largely because you've made "mind" some kind of general-purpose homogeneous object. That doesn't actually happen in any documented sense. The only place you can find that assumption is in Platonic philosophy and its various derivatives. "Mind" is nonsensical in your argument, because it's a hypothetical entity you're using to reinforce your imagined structure of the real universe.
We can say that human beings have minds if we like, and that's how we describe their behaviours, but to decide that "mind" is a universal makes absolutely no sense.
There is no way to prove the contrary.
Certainly you're correct that I cannot prove you wrong. That doesn't mean you're right. In fact, one of the reasons this idea is ridiculous is that it cannot be proven wrong by its very nature. The scientific mind is willing to accept statements that can be proven wrong. Those that cannot are not very helpful.
I could equally say that we are all part of the imagination of a Great Cosmic Moose, and it would have the same validity as your claim that "mind" is somehow responsible for matter. You cannot prove that the Great Cosmic Moose is, in His infinite power, able to conjure matter before our eyes. It's not a helpful hypothesis for that very reason.
Remember what I said: "awareness-wave interference".
You still haven't clarified that statement in any way that could be testable, you just keep repeating that awareness of matter is a perception of matter, and somehow it gets created by "mind", which is still a nonsensical entity.
This is what the aparatus "measure".
You (the mind) give the "value" (form and void).
If I'm the mind, then you have a further problem of not knowing very much about my mind. Your assumption that my mind would be the same as any given mind is problematic because my mind's behaviour is not the same as that of other minds.
So, such approach does not help your interpretation and does not solve the problem since you define it as “philosophical”. You are missing the fact that my interpretation does not deal with the mind as personality (personal mind), but as base which creates self-interference and can observe it from the position of the “personal mind”
So then "mind" is something that any observing creature, like crows or mice or lizards have?
In my interpretation, the points of view are many.
Again, I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that there is a very precisely shared experience by a collection of minds that cannot process their own environment with precision. Only when scientific groups are organized can this very precise (e.g. gravitational constant, speed of light in a vacuum, etc.) behaviour be observed. That's stark evidence against the idea that the general "mind" of which you speak.
Better approach to the solution of the problem, is to prove that mind does not depend on matter.
That's unprovable, too. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that it's not going to lead to knowledge. The only minds that we know of are correlated to matter (that is, our nervous systems). There is, therefore, a 100% correlation between mind and brain. The only place we're going to find a mind is when a brain is active.
We know that the nerve system depends on the brain, but we cannot prove that when the brain die the mind die too.
No, the brain is part of the nervous system, and we observe the absence of mind after someone dies. 100% of the time, when a person's brain dies, we witness the loss of their mind.
We can prove though, that mind is not dependent on the brain by referring to “out of body” experience and the phenomenon “reveling past” and “predicting future”.
If you can predict the future, you can collect $1,000,000 from James Randi. Out-of-body experiences aren't evidence of anything.
Science does not accept such phenomenon as evidence, because it affects all scientific interpretations on Universe, life and consciousness.
Science doesn't accept such phenomenon as evidence because it's not evidence. "I felt like I was out of my body" isn't evidence for anything, it's a subjective experience, like, "Chocolate tastes good" or "The colour green is pleasing". You wouldn't be able to disprove that either of those statements are true, but again, they impart no knowledge.
Now after we have two interpretations on the nature of matter, I can use it in support of my interpretation.
I can use all the results from the experiments conducted with Vanga and Vera Kochovska as evidence that mind exist independent of matter. I’m sure that there are plenty such people who’s out of body experience can support my interpretation. Science has enough information to accept interpretation like mine as alternative.
If you can show evidence that mind exists independently from matter, I'd be impressed. Largely because our concept of what constitutes a mind is not by any means specific. I believe we have three interpretations of the nature of matter. You forgot the Great Cosmic Moose, which dreams all things into being, including matter.
Theists are subject to ridicule for their failure to provide reasonable base for their belief.
In the same time, science acts ridiculous by rejecting evidences because they are not scientific.
Science does not reject evidence, science rejects things that are not evidence. Evidence would be a reasonable basis for belief. What you're suggesting is that "Chocolate is good" should be the basis for a study.
Well, scientific evidences do not comply with the philosophical knowledge, and from that point of view it is away more ridiculous than the idea for God.
You can't honestly believe this. The philosophy of science has created the only truly effective epistemology around, so so how does science not comply with philosophical knowledge?
In other words, science is acting like child who proves that sour is sour, because it is sour.
Science does not prove anything. Proof is for mathematics and logic (and, perhaps not coincidentally, alcohol). Sour is sour because that's axiomatic.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Jormungander wrote:Yeah, I was afraid of something like that. Tell me, is he as incoherent as he seems or is it just my mind?Since I know that Truden can't argue his own case, let me do it for him:[...] and you have a really pointless debate.
Yeah, he is incoherent, but maybe that is just because he is having trouble expressing himself in English. That would be a charitable interpretation of his posts. The non-charitable interpretation would be that he hides behind vague terms and confusing language to try to prevent us from pointing out exactly what is wrong with what he states. An even less charitable interpretation is that his ideas really are just non-sense. So he can't help but write down incoherent ramblings when describing what he believes. I'm afraid the latter interpretation is probably the correct one.
No offense Truden, but I really do think that you write down a lot of incoherent nonsense.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
- Login to post comments
Offline No offense Truden, but I really do think that you write down a lot of incoherent nonsense.
Thus the Cosmic Moose Theory, which I feel is superior to Neoplatonic thought. Moose beats Plato, as anyone who's played Plato-Moose-scissors knows.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I'd like you to explain it in terms that are specific. Your terms are so general that they are neither true nor false.
Which part of my explanation does not look "specific"?
That's largely because you've made "mind" some kind of general-purpose homogeneous object. That doesn't actually happen in any documented sense.
Listen, my friend, open your mind and take in account that we are discussing new INTERPRETATION.
200 hundred years ago science did not have documented the wave-particle.
Another think to have in mind - if you discuss physics, you must read something about it and if you discuss philosophy you better read more than "something".
Don't' make me feel stupid to answer your childish "philosophical" statements.
If your goal is to lose the point in few hundred comments and no one to understand the subject of this topic, then you are doing quite a good job.
The only place you can find that assumption is in Platonic philosophy and its various derivatives. "Mind" is nonsensical in your argument, because it's a hypothetical entity you're using to reinforce your imagined structure of the real universe.
The whole philosophy is put on the mind as base. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "Philosophy".
Mind is not "hypothetical". It is the very thing that makes you say this nonsense.
You ask me about the "awareness-wave interference:
You still haven't clarified that statement in any way that could be testable
If you ask me one more time this question, I'll assume as abuse.
If you know what awareness is, what wave is and what interference is, then the term is self-explanatory.
The test is done and it is known as wave-particle.
I made it clear few comments before this that we are arguing on the nature of the matter and more specifically on the "wave-particle". Go back and read it. You'll find out that I don't argue the scientific results but the conclusion.
PLEASE, before asking do search in the topic and make sure that it is not answered.
No, the brain is part of the nervous system, and we observe the absence of mind after someone dies. 100% of the time, when a person's brain dies, we witness the loss of their mind.
We don't observe absence of mind. We observe absence of reaction to nerve stimulation and inability of the body to maintain life functions. Science has no clue of how "will" is created by the brain.
A simple thing like picking up your hand for no reason but by will, is still mystery for science.
- - -
Out of body experience can be proven and it is proven.
The one who experience it can describe events and actions of the people around and even far from the place.
Future was predicted and past was revealed from Vanga for more than 60 years (until year 1996).
There are thousands of witnesses, oficial documents, movies and books for these predictions and revealings.
I'm sure that we can find many more such predictions, but the one million wasn't claimed because either people don't know about it, or simply don't care about money.
If I was to win that money I'd tell that sucker to shovel them up in his ass.
I'd recommend to everybody not to take yourselves too serious and to take in account that we are having conversation here, which will not prove to the world that God exists or doesn't exist.
This is one of the many web sites, with one of the many forums, where people are having discussions or fun.
Nothing can be proven over the Internet. Even the recently tested Vera Kochovska is not proof in such conversation. You have to go and look at the documents, talk to the professors, meet Vera in person and only then you'll have the proof for yourself.
Until then you will find reason not to accept.
- Login to post comments
Offline Dude, you're so not getting it.
First off, wavefunction collapse doesn't necessarily need consciousness.
I'll repeat this, since it seems like such a difficult concept for you. Wavefunction collapse doesn't necessarily need consciousness.
Secondly, even IF wavefunction collapse needed consciousness:
1 Just because the universe is collapsed now doesn't mean it was always collapsed.
2 Post collapse is the CURRENT state of the universe. Thus there must be consciousness NOW (how, look at all the people).
3 Post collapse WAS NOT the INITIAL state of the universe. Thus there NEED NOT BE consciousness back then
Here's a timeline, in case you're a visual learner
Big Bang (no consciousness, universe is uncollapsed)------->many billion years of uncollapsed---->consciousness, accompanied by collapse--->present.
As you can see, I have been arguing against your initial assumption (point one), and then I have been arguing against your conclusion assuming your initial assumption. This demonstrates that not only is your argument based on a false assumption, it is also invalid even if your assumption is correct, and both are do to your misunderstanding quantum mechanics (especially your insistence on sticking with a very nerrow interpretation that is not even mainstream, and then misunderstanding that interpretation). Quantum mechanics does not support the god hypothesis in any way. It does not require some big guy to watch the universe.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry for being away for sometime but I have probably missed the email with the notification about the answer of Zaq.
Please accept my apology, Zaq.
Dude, you're so not getting it.
First off, wavefunction collapse doesn't necessarily need consciousness.
That's not the pillar of my interpretation, but since you want to argue it, I'd like you to give me an example, please.
Secondly, even IF wavefunction collapse needed consciousness:
1 Just because the universe is collapsed now doesn't mean it was always collapsed.
2 Post collapse is the CURRENT state of the universe. Thus there must be consciousness NOW (how, look at all the people).
3 Post collapse WAS NOT the INITIAL state of the universe. Thus there NEED NOT BE consciousness back then
I think that you are missing few points here, Zaq.
I didn't say that the Universe was always collapsed.
Even the Bible say that it wasn't, because it was without form and void.
We may have consciousness without the possibility to observe and then no collapse is needed.
The observing consciousness collapses the wave-function.
Do you understand now that your three points are irrelevant to my interpretation.
As you can see, I have been arguing against your initial assumption (point one), and then I have been arguing against your conclusion assuming your initial assumption.
After my answer this is irrelevant too.
And one very important think to know, Zaq.
Not having the collapse does not mean that we have NOTHING.
Everything is sill there but it is not known where and in what form.
The mind through observation "creates" the form and "place it" in space.
FORM is reference to mind. Space too.
If there is no observing mind there wouldn't be such concept as FORM.
Without observing mind there is no form and void, there would be nothing to refer as to "existence" even.
But that is difficult philosophy.
I'll stick to science with you guys.
- Login to post comments
Offline If Helen Keller fell over in the woods...
lol! (Soz. I couldn't contain myself.)
Blogged to shit again....
Ok I admit scanning very quickly and seeing mention of "God"... I'll just offer a question comment:
I take it the thread-poster is a Pantheist.
Only I wish Pantheists would stop redefining the goddamn dictionary and saying "Nature is my God."
For fuck's sake. Nature is nature, and cut out the god shit. If you need religion so damn bad, at least do one the uses Webster's or something like it.
This isn't the 16 Century (yet), and nobody's gonna stone you if you don't say "god".
- Login to post comments
Offline I take it the thread-poster is a Pantheist.
I disagree with the religions but I'm not Pantheist.
God is only a word which we use for the thing which is the Source of Universe.
I already offered "The Source" as name for God in this discussion.
Nature is result, it cannot be called The Source (God).
That is the whole point - humans knowledge is incomplete and the knowledge about The Source can improve their life in all ways.
Even science can benefit from it.
- Login to post comments
Offline I already offered "The Source" as name for God in this discussion.
So you've accepted Plotinus completely at this point, have you?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline treat2 wrote:I take it the thread-poster is a Pantheist.
I disagree with the religions but I'm not Pantheist.
God is only a word which we use for the thing which is the Source of Universe.
I already offered "The Source" as name for God in this discussion.
Nature is result, it cannot be called The Source (God).
That is the whole point - humans knowledge is incomplete and the knowledge about The Source can improve their life in all ways.
Even science can benefit from it.
But whatever the ultimate nature of whatever preceded the Universe as we know it, it can only be pretty much pure speculation, AKA guesswork.
If it can't be investigated by any scientific technique, you are saying that there are no consistent, observable consequences that can be shown to be logically due to this proposed 'Source', and consistently pointing to a particular form of such a thing. So there is no coherent way it can inform real knowledge, ie the current conclusions and theories generated by systematic investigation, AKA 'The Scientific Method'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline But whatever the ultimate nature of whatever preceded the Universe as we know it, it can only be pretty much pure speculation, AKA guesswork.
We use Logic and intelligence.
Use them without prejudice.
If there is knowledge about The Source, study it.
It can be known as experience or as knowledge from logic.
Excuse me for the poor example, but only the travelers can know more than one world.
The citizens can know the other world by thrust and logic.
If it can't be investigated by any scientific technique, you are saying that there are no consistent, observable consequences that can be shown to be logically due to this proposed 'Source', and consistently pointing to a particular form of such a thing. So there is no coherent way it can inform real knowledge, ie the current conclusions and theories generated by systematic investigation, AKA 'The Scientific Method'.
Isn't this topic about science and God (The Source)?
We came down to one simple interpretation - wave-particle is awareness-wave.
Can we prove which interpretation is right?
Can science take your side and prove my interpretation wrong?
You don't even know how fragile science is.
Read this topic, and see how little it takes to make Einstein look like a stupid child.
- Login to post comments
Offline We came down to one simple interpretation - wave-particle is awareness-wave.
Can we prove which interpretation is right?
Can science take your side and prove my interpretation wrong?
Yes. Let's just go one step at a time: your assertion is that a wave-particle is an "awareness-wave". The wave-particle duality is a well-documented expression of physical description. So that's fine.
Can you briefly explain the "awareness-wave" and why it's equivalent to this description of empirical results?
I know you gave a kind of description in your original post, but you never explained how the wave-particle duality is the same as your rather vague phrase "awareness-wave".
If you want to use "logic and intelligence", then I'm going to walk you through the logic part.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline So you've accepted Plotinus completely at this point, have you?
No, I haven't.
I don't see myself connected to any philosophical doctrine, although some of them have matching points with my understanding.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes. Let's just go one step at a time: your assertion is that a wave-particle is an "awareness-wave". The wave-particle duality is a well-documented expression of physical description. So that's fine.
Can you briefly explain the "awareness-wave" and why it's equivalent to this description of empirical results?
I know you gave a kind of description in your original post, but you never explained how the wave-particle duality is the same as your rather vague phrase "awareness-wave".
If you want to use "logic and intelligence", then I'm going to walk you through the logic part.
I already went with you through all posible points.
Just read back my conversation with you and my comments in this topic.
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:Can you briefly explain the "awareness-wave" and why it's equivalent to this description of empirical results?
I know you gave a kind of description in your original post, but you never explained how the wave-particle duality is the same as your rather vague phrase "awareness-wave".
I already went with you through all posible points.
Just read back my conversation with you and my comments in this topic.
Not once have you been specific about it, though. Do you want to use logic or not?
The wave-particle duality is the observation that matter and energy exhibit wave-like and particle-like properties. Okay.
An "awareness-wave" is what, awareness in wave form? Are you just substituting "awareness" for particle? What behaviour of an "awareness-wave" is equivalent to something behaving as a particle-wave?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
From my experience ( I am older than you), I can't take those accounts simply on face value. At the very least I would need to have much more specific detail, including exactly what was predicted and exactly what events occurred which you saw as fulfilling the prediction.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
We can talk about it with private messages.
It's 2:24 am in South Africa now and I'm going in the bed
I suppose this works if you define sound in terms of our response to the waves, probably in neurological language. However, even in quantum mechanics the same does not necessarily hold for all matter. Wavefunction collapse may not necessarily require conscious observation. Consider this. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, but my walkman is sitting there in record mode, does it make a sound?
Could not the people in China be causing the moon's wavefunction to collapse even when Einstein is not looking?
"We do not have mathematical proof" is different from "the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation." Can you prove that there can never be a mathematical system to handle singularities? The difference is between what we have now and what we can create in the future. Just because math can't currently handle it doesn't mean that math will never be able to handle it.
The same is true of science and the big bang. Science may not now be capable of explaining the big bang, but that does not mean that science will never be capable of explaining the big bang.
Furthermore, your assertion that "every wave emission needs a source" is not necessarily correct. This idea is typically derived from conservation of energy, but conservation of energy could allow for a spontaneous creation of positive and negative energy from nothing. Furthermore, quantum fluctuations give us an example of similar spontaneous and random events that are essentially causeless.
Finally, your assertion of God as a conscious wave that interferes with itself. The problem is that QM doesn't necessarily need conscious measurement. It may be possible for a complex but non-conscious system to interfere with itself. And, once again, just because science is currently missing something, doesn't mean science will never find it. Postulating God to explain where science has not yet succeeded will inevitably fail as science progresses.
Because I have studied QM (including the mathematics of QM) quite a bit, I not only comprehend your idea but also understand where it fails. All of the above, including my own responses, has assumed what we generally call the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, which is standard. However, there are several other interpretations that do not have existence issues of unobserved phenomenon. My favorite is superposition. Simply put, the unobserved, rather than having no existence, has every possible existence. Its existence then settles down into one possibility when observed. Thus the early unobserved universe existed in every possible state. It only settled down once it reached sufficient complexity to collapse its wavefunction. If we then postulate, as you have done, that such a collapse requires consciousness, then it's no wonder the universe contains conscious beings. Such a universe is the only possible state post-collapse.
This part is more confusing to me. How could God have collapsed (and thus created) the universe without being aware of the universe? Also, how could God have given people truth about the world if it is unaware of the world?
QFT. I concur, but we do not need a god for this to be true.
The key is to translate our words into the scientific explanation. Once we realize that "sound" means "vibrations picked up by the ear," we have an absolute "value" (do you mean definition here?). Similarly, we can say that something is red without worrying about how it is neurologically handled by different people, so long as we realize that "red" really means "this specific range of wavelengths"
Again you're relying on the Copenhagen Interpretation coupled with the idea that consciousness is necessary for wavefunction collapse. For more refutation, I beseech you to investigate something known as the Pilot Wave interpretation. In this interpretation, observables exist with definite values regardless of whether or not they're being observed. The caveat is that we sacrifice locality. Observations have the power to change these observables. Still, in this interpretation the universe exists whether or not we're looking.
I believe it was Feynman who said that anyone who claims to understand QM doesn't. You know what "wave function collapse" is according to one part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, but you fail to consider other interpretations of QM. The fact is that NOBODY really knows what wave function collapse is.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Thank you for the time you took to answer, Zaq.
I appreciate it.
Thank You.
The above quote is your pearl.
No one has ever come to me with such clear logic.
As you could notice, I don’t say that there is NOTHING as Universe.
I only say that what we observe is our INTERPRETATION ( “Perceptive Universe” )
We both agree that the Universe was “out there” before we observed it.
I called it “awareness-wave”.
If we postulate that Universe with conscious beings is the only possible Universe, we must include the consciousness in The Beginning in order to make the Universe possible.
Otherwise, the Universe wouldn’t exist, according to the postulate.
And here we come to the Consciousness in The Beginning.
It would be much easier for you to start from the fact that we don’t study and don’t prove absolute values, but interpreted values.
The values recorded from your walkman are digital or analog representation that you would never be in touch with except as interpretation of your perceptions, which interpretation in this case would be SOUND. Even the walkman does not have the REAL value recorded, because we created it (the walkman) based on our knowledge about the sound and matter.
The matter itself is another intepretation of our perceptions.
What we know about matter?
Ask your senses.
Density and boundaries – perceptions again.
Don’t you feel like you are closed in a circle?
Can your logic take you out of it?
Matter and consciousness - what is first and what is second?
We know, but we cannot entirely understand it before we include the consciousness as main part of the Universal foundation.
The rest of your arguments are already answered in my previous comments.
Don’t bother about The Source who doesn’t even know what "existence" is.
Lets go step by step if you are willing to walk.
Way to twist my words
I said a conscious universe would (assuming conciousness collapses wavefunctions, which is NOT necessarily true) be the only possible universe POST COLLAPSE.
That does not mean the universe needed to start with a consciousness. It could have started uncollapsed.
You need to stop correlating wavefunction collapse with consciousness. Science does not say that only consciousness can cause wavefunction collapse. You are running of one very narrow piece of one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Try using the Pilot Wave, Many Worlds, or Superposition interpretation, instead of the Copenhagen. You will not reach the same conclusions.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Well, since post collapse is state of the Universe, it (the state) should be valid for all times.
You understand that it could not be valid if consciousness does not exist at all times.
Otherwise it would appear that the consciousness changes the Universe by giving new state (value) of the universe.
That wouldn't be in your favor too and it is actually one of my supportive arguments - consciousness gives interpreted value to the Universe.
You have to chose which of my arguments do you want to argue.
This topic lost momentum, which is to show that there are no more arguments.
I saved for last my “prediction” for the validation of the “theory.
Here it is:
It is written (predicted) in the scriptures, that God is Spirit (mind) and that we exist in God.
It is written (predicted) that the Universe is made by the words of God (let there be) which obviously is mind created world.
The “awareness-wave” which I proposed is consistent with the above.
The “wave-particle” proves the prediction that the universe is made out of NOTHING.
If you’d like to argue the “nothing” word you must provide something observable which causes the BEHAVIOR.
The science can not prove the wave-particle as entity but only as behavior.
Behavior without entity, which causes it, is possible only for the mind.
Therefore the “wave-particle” is “awareness-wave”.
I’ll not answer arguments like “that is crazy”.
If you don’t agree use reason and provide proofs for your “theory”.
This topic deserves to be pinned in the Forum and be available for cleverer atheists to participate in the disproval of my theory.
If you don’t pin it I’ll take it as a sign that you don’t want to discredit your atheistic BELIEF.
I think that you need to more clearly explain what you mean by this. I don't think that this is a coherent argument. How does the wave properties of particles prove that the universe is made of nothing? Doesn't that merely prove that the universe is made out of wave-like particles. "Particles have wave properties" does not mean that "particles are nothing." Particles are somethings that have wave properties.
What causes their behavior? I don't know about others here, but in my studies at my university we always explain the behavior of matter as reducing the amount of free energy in a system. Find the lowest energy state for a system and you have found its equilibrium state. The system will have to approach that state. We have a few ways of measuring the free energy of a system (ie: it is observable). Last quarter I took a phase transformations class and we always described the free energy of phases in terms of the Gibbs energy (also known as the Gibbs free energy). The kinetics of the system reaching its equilibrium state is a whole other topic, but that too explains the behavior of matter.
Come on Truden, did you really think that scientists haven't already figured out how to explain what causes the behavior?
Don't be an asshole. You didn't even write a coherent argument. Why should they make this one of the pinned threads that is always at the top of the threads list? What is so amazing and important about this thread that it deserves to be pinned?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Nothing Is the absence of something. If there is no something then how can there be a nothing? If you are saying that the universe is nothing then you seem to be implying that the something is somewhere else. You seem to be saying that God is that something, or as you put in the “awareness-wave” is that something.
If the criteria for proving that something is something is it being directly observable then how do you justifie your belief that god is something? Can you observe the awareness wave? Frankly you argment sucks. I don't thing it's crazy it's just stupid.
That's not a prediction, it's a restatement of Neoplatonic metaphysics, which has nothing to do with predicting at all. Your terms are also unclear.
Again with the Neoplatonism. Once again, unclear terms, an unclear epistemology, and a meaningless ontology.
It sure is. It's just as vague, and has no physical referent.
Look who knows so much! First you're an expert in sub-atomic physics, and now an expert in the mind!
Non sequitur.
Haha! Oh, that you would.
I don't need a theory of my own to falsify yours. The only problem is that yours can't be falsified, because it's not even a coherent hypothesis, much less a theory. How would we test your idea that God is Spirit, and we exist in God? How would we test that? If we can't, it's not even a hypothesis.
It's still not a theory, and cleverer atheists will know that.
Which belief would that be? The belief that gods are nonsense? Go for it - try and discredit the atheistic belief that gods are nothing but psychological remnants. Have a good time. See, I at least made a statement you can falsify: "Gods are nothing more than psychological remnants." See if you can falsify that.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
@Jormungander,
The “particle” part in the name does not make the wave-particle to be PARTICLE.
It is neither particle nor wave.
It is dual behavior.
An entity has stable observable state.
We can calculate probable values for the state of the system but that does not make it particle.
The energy measuring of a system is based on theorized values but even if they have absolute values (provable values), measuring does not prove entity behind the behavior. It predicts the result from the behavior.
I don’t want to extend this to the new measurements on the slowing speed of the light.
Then you’ll be left with no energy measuring.
Come on, Jormungander, did you really think that science knows everything?
Listen, my friend, when you argue the Bible you don’t refer to it as “Neoplatonik metaphysics.
If you say that is ridiculous to belief that God created the world, you obviously accepted it as statement, not as philosophy.
At that time the statement couldn’t use today’s scientific language, but the prediction about future discovery is there.
Oh no, I'm very interested in this. The speed of light is slowing down? Please tell me about how that is being determined. We can measure the speed of light merely by looking at Io (the moon of Jupiter) and seeing how offset Io's position is from where it should be. The offset is because we are looking at Io's image from the past (due to the time it takes the light to reach us). Knowing the distance between us and Io and knowing the offset allow us to (with little accuracy) measure the speed of light. There are also other, far more accurate methods used. The Io thing is just fast and easy to do. People have been using that one for centuries. And guess what? The speed of light has remained constant. I'll need a link to published work showing how this new slower speed of light was calculated.
Also, when I talk about determining the system's state of lowest possible free energy, that doesn't rely on e=mc2. If you want to describe how matter behaves it is oddly simple: matter approaches a state of lowest free energy. There are a few ways of measuring free energy that I use, and they don't involve converting matter into energy. Rather they are things such as the Gibbs energy, or the Helmholtz energy (though honestly, I can't even remember the last time I used that one) or you can calculate the distance between atoms that gives the atoms' electrons the lowest potential energy and other things like that. So I can measure the free energy in a system even if light is slowing down. But then light isn't slowing down, so I'm not even constrained by that.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Why not? You were just outlining Neoplatonic metaphysics. Why should I not say that?
I have no idea what that means.
What prediction? You never made a prediction.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That is crazy.
The Bible did...don't you remember those incredibly detailed and accurate descriptions of the natural world?
See, it's a theory describing, uuuuuhhh, Quantum Mechanics and the unknown forces in the Big Bang, just like how Genesis describes abiogenesis, Mark describes agnosia, and Ecclesiastes describes the circulation of Earth's atmosphere.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jormungander, the measurement (Gibbs function) does not SHOW entity. It is “the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system”
Gibbs function gives result for the work exchanged by the system with the surrounding between initial and final state of the system.
I don’t say that NOTHING causes the double behavior.
I’m saying that physics uses made up name for behavior known only as mental image from conscious behavior.
This behavior fits the idea that the Universe is mind creation and explains the statement in the Bible.
Science cannot give logical explanation. It only measures the results and detects the phenomenon caused by the conscious behavior, which creates everything around us.
Here you can read about the slowind down speed of light.
I'm not discussing this issue though.
Exactly what are you looking for? I'm now confused as to what you want us to do. If descriptions of how we determine how matter behaves is not what you want, exactly what do you want from us?
This is why HisWillness said you are just regurgitating neoplatonist philosophy. You are just restating it again and again.
It is useful for a lot more than just that. Find an expression for the Gibbs energy for a certain system and then solve to find the lowest possible Gibbs energy. The system will approach whatever state your solution shows. You can know ahead of time how a system will act just by solving for the lowest Gibbs energy. Couple that with determining the rate of change in your system (which is kinetics, a whole other story) and you will know how matter acts ahead of time. And using the expression for Gibbs energy to find equilibrium is just an example of how you could find it. There are other methods of knowing how a system will act. If this kind of useful and capable means of describing how matter acts is not what you are asking for, then what are you asking for? Can you define the 'entity' that this is not explaining? Unless you are very clear about what you are talking about, we won't even know how to respond.
There must be some confusion over what a 'Published article' is. I meant an article published in a scientific journal. Linking me to a creationist liar on worldnetdaily.com isn't the same. And if you are unable to discuss the issue, then you shouldn't have brought it up. Though I understand why you would want to forfeit on this matter; since you are so obviously wrong about the speed of light not being constant.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Hahaha! Using an article by a creationist in a christian conspiracy theory rag as a reference, priceless. Not to mention incredubly stupid. Just as stupid as WorldNutDaily itself.
My question is not how matter behaves.
The question is, what is behind the behavior, which we call matter.
My argument is that matter is created as mind interference (delusion, dream, mental appearance… )
Try to separate your argument “matter is matter” from my argument, which is “matter is conscious creation”
Then give me scientific proof that matter is mater.
I’m afraid that such proof was broken with the appearance of the nonsolid entity.
Going in to quantum mechanics only give us INTERPRETATION about the BEHAVIOR, which I say is caused by awareness-wave interference.
Mind interference can be observed only by the mind, and here we are, observing it.
So-o-o, I don’t want anything from you.
I am giving you new interpretation on “wave-particle”
As for the link that I gave you, I don’t want to discuss it because I don’t need it as supportive.
I gave you that particular article because from there you can get names and do your won research on it. You know how to use Google, do you?
God doesn't exist. Check out this link:
http://www.atheist.net/article/article_358.html
I'm giving you this link so you can get a better idea as to why God doesn't exist. You can follow their links to get further information and do your own reasearch on it.
Thanks, I'll do so
Oh no, that's not how things work. You don't get evidence that something is itself. Identity in logic is that A=A. So matter is matter, by basic logic. I don't have to prove that something is itself.
You are using the word 'solid' in a very wrong way. Solid is a phase of matter. It is not something that can be applied to subatomic particles. Haven't we already been over this? The whole solid=a phase of matter arising from electrical interactions and not something that makes any sense to even try to apply to subatomic particles.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
This is just bizarre. How exactly are you going to back up the idea that matter is conscious creation? Are you just going to keep saying it, and figure we'll get tired of asking you to provide some evidence that it could be the case? The only consciousness that we know of (and call "consciousness"
is our own. Human consciousness. Are you suggesting that we create matter? Because that would be weird.
Except that you don't understand quantum mechanics, so you're hardly the right person to ask about quantum mechanics.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Just don't come to me with LOGIC, my friend.
Matter is matter in reference to mind.
I can turn your words against you, by telling you "You don't get evidence that something is itself"
The only self-evident thing is MIND.
For the rest you need proof.
So, prove that matter is matter.
That was valid before my interpretation.
Now I can use the same explanation by changing few names.
You have to understand that now you can not use the old interpretation as argument.
You have to provide evidence or logical explanation as for why my interpretation is wrong.
It does not help to keep saying "because solid is phase of matter, and because we can measure this or that"
I don't argue the structure of matter.
I argue the nature of the "wave-particle"
You have no base to defend your position.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Why must I back it up?
What about you?
We have two interpretations now.
Let see which one will stand the logic.
I already said: mind created image can be observed by mind.
But you can not prove that without mind matter exists.
What ever you say, remember that the MIND makes this Universe the way you see it.
I keep repeating the "interpreted value" term and you keep not paying attention to it.
Except that you don't understand quantum mechanics, so you're hardly the right person to ask about quantum mechanics.
I think that you don't even have an idea about quantum mechanics and what am I talking about..