A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

I am not denying that Newton's theory are still being used today, because everything that I have learned in my civil engineering course, involved Newtonian physics of motion and gravity.

But there are still limits that Newton didn't foresee, when concerning large bodies in the cosmo, and any quantum particle smaller than electron.

I am not saying that Newtonian physics are obsolete, just that physicists of 20th century and onwards have extended the theory of gravity and motion.

For instance, Darwin had started evolution with natural selection, but later biologists not updated his own theory for the 20th century, but later biologists have discovered alternative mechanisms that Darwin has thought of.

We can look at General Relativity and Newton's physics as 2 distinct theories on gravity, or we can view as one theory on gravity as a system, with GR (and possibly the theoretical quantum gravity) as an extension of Newton's theory.

For me, it doesn't matter to me.

In fact, Newton's theory is the limiting case of both GR and QM. For GR, it is the limit as velocity and mass are 'small' and for QM, it is the limit as h goes to 0.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah, yes, another hottie.

But we were talking about Dark Energy and Dark Matter...hence, Portia Lin aka Two.

Hey...you never answered my question: what is the kind of mind you are using when determining that a view is a personal view?

 

[gnostic]

Hey...you never answered my question: what is the kind of mind you are using when determining that a view is a personal view?

Sorry, I can lose track with a thread this large. I don't mean to ignore any question direct for me.

Can you quote the original posts, so I have a bit of context before answering you?

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, I can lose track with a thread this large. I don't mean to ignore any question direct for me.

Can you quote the original posts, so I have a bit of context before answering you?

No, lost track of the originals, but basically, you were saying that all views are personal views and therefore flawed in some way. Then I asked you with what kind of mind or consciousness you were using to make that assessment.

 

[gnostic]

No, lost track of the originals, but basically, you were saying that all views are personal views and therefore flawed in some way. Then I asked you with what kind of mind or consciousness you were using to determine that assessment.

If any view is presented by one's thought alone, then yes, it is subjective.

If there are other people who have the same or similar views, the original view is still subjective, as are those who share the same views.

Just because there may be hundreds or thousands or millions of people with the same views, shared view doesn't mean views are not personal or subjective.

Don't get me wrong, personal views may be subjective, but it does have their advantages, because it is where individual idiosyncratic and creativity come from.

Without the subjective thought, writing, music and arts would be boring.

Being objective is a lot more difficult to be or to do, because it requires one to put aside one's personal feelings and opinions aside.

Some may think using logic alone would make one's thought being objective, but that's not entirely true, especially if one followed a political, social/cultural, philosophical or religious mindset, because you are actually taking side or favouring one group over others.

I think I have brought up these ideas before.

To give you some examples.

You know very well there are are many different types of philosophies or schools of thoughts out there, so there are bound to be differences, where they may conflict with rival schools.

So it is obvious that a follower of one school will think he or she belong to a superior school against all others. Philosophers will naturally defend their own schools, and they often to do by rationalised why their schools are superior.

That's not being objective and impartial.

It is the same when one followed a religious or political group against all others. People will naturally defend their political or religious views against other views, and they will rationalise why they defend it.

Though I considered myself "agnostic", I can see the merits of atheism and theism, but lately I have been more atheistic than theistic in the last 10 or more years. But that I am not the same person I was 15 years ago, where the reverse was true, where I was more theistic than atheistic.

Being agnostic, don't make me objective or impartial, because I am still choosing a stance. It is just not with theism or atheism.

But my agnosticism is only my positional stance in regards to religion, and nothing else. It is entirely different story with politics, social issues, philosophy or science. My agnosticism don't concern with any of my political or any non-religious viewpoints.

Being objective, for me is not about logic alone, but logic with evidences. It is the evidence that make claim "objective", not the logic.

The more evidences you have, the more probable it is, but the reverse can be true. If the evidences are against the statement or claim, then it less probable, therefore debunking your statement or claim.

The only areas that use empirical evidences is when scientists follow the scientific method. This is where the evidences dictate the conclusion, not the personal opinions.

I don't know if this would answer your question, but I am afraid that's all I can give you, and that's the way I think...subjectively.

 

[godnotgod]

If any view is presented by one's thought alone, then yes, it is subjective.

If there are other people who have the same or similar views, the original view is still subjective, as are those who share the same views.

Just because there may be hundreds or thousands or millions of people with the same views, shared view doesn't mean views are not personal or subjective.

Don't get me wrong, personal views may be subjective, but it does have their advantages, because it is where individual idiosyncratic and creativity come from.

Without the subjective thought, writing, music and arts would be boring.

Being objective is a lot more difficult to be or to do, because it requires one to put aside one's personal feelings and opinions aside.

Some may think using logic alone would make one's thought being objective, but that's not entirely true, especially if one followed a political, social/cultural, philosophical or religious mindset, because you are actually taking side or favouring one group over others.

I think I have brought up these ideas before.

To give you some examples.

You know very well there are are many different types of philosophies or schools of thoughts out there, so there are bound to be differences, where they may conflict with rival schools.

So it is obvious that a follower of one school will think he or she belong to a superior school against all others. Philosophers will naturally defend their own schools, and they often to do by rationalised why their schools are superior.

That's not being objective and impartial.

It is the same when one followed a religious or political group against all others. People will naturally defend their political or religious views against other views, and they will rationalise why they defend it.

Though I considered myself "agnostic", I can see the merits of atheism and theism, but lately I have been more atheistic than theistic in the last 10 or more years. But that I am not the same person I was 15 years ago, where the reverse was true, where I was more theistic than atheistic.

Being agnostic, don't make me objective or impartial, because I am still choosing a stance. It is just not with theism or atheism.

But my agnosticism is only my positional stance in regards to religion, and nothing else. It is entirely different story with politics, social issues, philosophy or science. My agnosticism don't concern with any of my political or any non-religious viewpoints.

Being objective, for me is not about logic alone, but logic with evidences. It is the evidence that make claim "objective", not the logic.

The more evidences you have, the more probable it is, but the reverse can be true. If the evidences are against the statement or claim, then it less probable, therefore debunking your statement or claim.

The only areas that use empirical evidences is when scientists follow the scientific method. This is where the evidences dictate the conclusion, not the personal opinions.

I don't know if this would answer your question, but I am afraid that's all I can give you, and that's the way I think...subjectively.

There is something that knows what is subjective or objective. I am asking: 'what is that something?'; what is the kind of mind or consciousness that knows both?

You know, when you go into a paint store with a sample of your paint you want to have matched, the clerk places your sample under a laser eye that compares your sample with a neutral sample it has onboard the computer. Are you getting the picture?

 

[gnostic]

There is something that knows what is subjective or objective. I am asking: 'what is that something?'; what is the kind of mind or consciousness that knows both?

You know, when you go into a paint store with a sample of your paint you want to have matched, the clerk places your sample under a laser eye that compares your sample with a neutral sample it has onboard the computer. Are you getting the picture?

Subjective is personal opinion, belief, faith, taste, etc.

Objective is where it is independent of opinions, like the device that compare and match colours, like your paint shop scenario.

To give another example of objective.

If I have new land, without any livestock, and went and bought some for my farm. Let say then, I purchased 10 cows and 24 pigs. What is objective, is like same two independent inspectors come to my farm, and count the numbers of pigs and cows.

Both inspectors should get exactly 10 cows and 24 pigs, and record the numbers for their record-keeping. They can also compare the number of animals against my receipt of purchase; the receipt should show when I purchase them, how many there are, and from whom did I purchase the animals from, etc.

Would the number of cows and pigs change, next week, if another 5 different inspectors come to my farm?

It shouldn't...unless one of the pigs give birth to a litter of piglets, or one or two of the animals died before next week's inspections.

None of it is based on personal opinion or belief. All that are required to be objective, is being able to count and have the ability to read the receipt of purchase.

You don't need to meditate and you don't need to imagine the number of cow and pigs I have on my farm.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Subjective is personal opinion, belief, faith, taste, etc.

Objective is where it is independent of opinions, like the device that compare and match colours, like your paint shop scenario.

To give another example of objective.

If I have new land, without any livestock, and went and bought some for my farm. Let say then, I purchased 10 cows and 24 pigs. What is objective, is like same two independent inspectors come to my farm, and count the numbers of pigs and cows.

Both inspectors should get exactly 10 cows and 24 pigs, and record the numbers for their record-keeping. They can also compare the number of animals against my receipt of purchase; the receipt should show when I purchase them, how many there are, and from whom did I purchase the animals from, etc.

Would the number of cows and pigs change, next week, if another 5 different inspectors come to my farm?

It shouldn't...unless one of the pigs give birth to a litter of piglets, or one or two of the animals died before next week's inspections.

None of it is based on personal opinion or belief. All that are required to be objective, is being able to count and have the ability to read the receipt of purchase.

You don't need to meditate and you don't need to imagine the number of cow and pigs I have on my farm.

If you reread the gng's post, you will see that you did not answer the first question that was asked of you.

To rephrase it, let us say there are two apples in front of you and you take a bite out of one.....what is it that is aware of the number of apples present, and the taste of the apple?

 

[gnostic]

If you reread the gng's post, you will see that you did not answer the first question that was asked of you.

To rephrase it, let us say there are two apples in front of you and you take a bite out of one.....what is it that is aware of the number of apples present, and the taste of the apple?

The person who is conscious and thinking, should be able to distinguish between what is personal opinion or taste (subjective) and what are the number of apples before you (objective).

Consciousness and mind can go hand-in-hand, together, unless a person is dreaming about seeing 2 apples, in which case, the mind is active, but he is in semi-conscious state. In which case, the apples are figment of one's imagination.

An unconscious person wouldn't be aware of the 2 apples, let alone taste it.

The question is why should consciousness be disconnected with the mind?

 

[godnotgod]

Subjective is personal opinion, belief, faith, taste, etc.

Objective is where it is independent of opinions, like the device that compare and match colours, like your paint shop scenario.

To give another example of objective.

If I have new land, without any livestock, and went and bought some for my farm. Let say then, I purchased 10 cows and 24 pigs. What is objective, is like same two independent inspectors come to my farm, and count the numbers of pigs and cows.

Both inspectors should get exactly 10 cows and 24 pigs, and record the numbers for their record-keeping. They can also compare the number of animals against my receipt of purchase; the receipt should show when I purchase them, how many there are, and from whom did I purchase the animals from, etc.

Would the number of cows and pigs change, next week, if another 5 different inspectors come to my farm?

It shouldn't...unless one of the pigs give birth to a litter of piglets, or one or two of the animals died before next week's inspections.

None of it is based on personal opinion or belief. All that are required to be objective, is being able to count and have the ability to read the receipt of purchase.

You don't need to meditate and you don't need to imagine the number of cow and pigs I have on my farm.

So, to re-iterate:

What is it that is seeing/recognizing/knowing both that which is objective and that which is subjective, BUT IS NEITHER OBJECTIVE NOR SUBJECTIVE?

Another way of looking at the question, is to ask: If you fall into a mountain lake, how do you know the water to be cold?

You can provide a subjective response or an objective one. But in either case, something immediately knows the water to be cold PRIOR to the mind being able to define it.. What is that something?

You burn your finger on a hot stove. Before you know what has occurred, there is only 'OUCH!'. Only afterwards do you realize what has occurred: 'Oh! I burned my finger!'. But 'you' did nothing of the sort! There was only 'finger-burning' without a 'finger-burner'. What is it that knows immediately that the stove is hot BEFORE the mind thinks a single thought about the experience?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The person who is conscious and thinking, should be able to distinguish between what is personal opinion or taste (subjective) and what are the number of apples before you (objective).

Consciousness and mind can go hand-in-hand, together, unless a person is dreaming about seeing 2 apples, in which case, the mind is active, but he is in semi-conscious state. In which case, the apples are figment of one's imagination.

An unconscious person wouldn't be aware of the 2 apples, let alone taste it.

The question is why should consciousness be disconnected with the mind?

Still not quite there....what is it that is exhibits subjective and objective awareness?

 

[gnostic]

Still not quite there....what is it that is exhibits subjective and objective awareness?

I gave you my answer.

I have stated quite clearly that both mind and consciousness are both the processes of the brain. (In my older replies, not these recent ones.) That consciousness don't exist outside of the brain or body. And I have further added that I have seen no evidences to support the consciousness existing outside of the brain, or transcending it.

You both disagree that fine by me, but neither you, nor gng can provide any evidence for your claim, so they are merely your personal opinions and belief.

All you and gng are doing is playing word games with consciousness. And we are getting nowhere. So I am tired of this game and playing by your rules. I have given you my replies only to have you both continually moving the goalpost.

I am not going to answer any more, if you are not happy with my replies, then tough.

You want more, then provide verifiable evidences and not your unsubstantiated reasoning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you my answer.

I have stated quite clearly that both mind and consciousness are both the processes of the brain. (In my older replies, not these recent ones.) That consciousness don't exist outside of the brain or body. And I have further added that I have seen no evidences to support the consciousness existing outside of the brain, or transcending it.

You both disagree that fine by me, but neither you, nor gng can provide any evidence for your claim, so they are merely your personal opinions and belief.

All you and gng are doing is playing word games with consciousness. And we are getting nowhere. So I am tired of this game and playing by your rules. I have given you my replies only to have you both continually moving the goalpost.

I am not going to answer any more, if you are not happy with my replies, then tough.

You want more, then provide verifiable evidences and not your unsubstantiated reasoning.

Well hold on buster, how is it reasonable to claim that because you had stated that both mind and consciousness are both the processes of the brain in some earlier post that I am unaware of, you did not think it necessary to answer my question?

So let us accept that you presently understand that it is mind that exhibits subjective and objective awareness, my next question is what is mind? What are you, the living thinker, in this context of mind? Are you the mind, are you separate from mind?

These are not trick questions, we are exploring together what and who we really are when it comes to mind and consciousness, so please don't go.

 

[godnotgod]

I gave you my answer.

I have stated quite clearly that both mind and consciousness are both the processes of the brain. (In my older replies, not these recent ones.) That consciousness don't exist outside of the brain or body. And I have further added that I have seen no evidences to support the consciousness existing outside of the brain, or transcending it.

You both disagree that fine by me, but neither you, nor gng can provide any evidence for your claim, so they are merely your personal opinions and belief.

All you and gng are doing is playing word games with consciousness. And we are getting nowhere. So I am tired of this game and playing by your rules. I have given you my replies only to have you both continually moving the goalpost.

I am not going to answer any more, if you are not happy with my replies, then tough.

You want more, then provide verifiable evidences and not your unsubstantiated reasoning.

Firstly, neither you nor science know that mind and consciousness are processes of the brain. That idea is still only hypothetical. Besides that, science does not even know how to define them, let alone establish their source as the brain. Emergent Theory is not a bona fide scientific theory in the scientific sense.

Secondly, I provided you a peer reviewed paper proving that consciousness is non-local. This experiment has been replicated around the world in varying formats by other researchers. You keep ignoring this. Why?

Thirdly, you keep trying to define objectivity and subjectivity, but that was not the question. The question was what is it that is aware of both of them, and yet is neither. You blindly keep plunging back into duality. You haven't answered the question.

Try again, but this time, reflect for a moment on the nature of the question, and don't jump so quickly. There are no tricks here, as you seem to think. OK?

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Firstly, neither you nor science know that mind and consciousness are processes of the brain. That idea is still only hypothetical. Besides that, science does not even know how to define them, let alone establish their source as the brain. Emergent Theory is not a bona fide scientific theory in the scientific sense.

Secondly, I provided you a peer reviewed paper proving that consciousness is non-local. This experiment has been replicated around the world in varying formats by other researchers. You keep ignoring this. Why?

Thirdly, you keep trying to define objectivity and subjectivity, but that was not the question. The question was what is it that is aware of both of them, and yet is neither. You blindly keep plunging back into duality. You haven't answered the question.

Try again, but this time, reflect for a moment on the nature of the question, and don't jump so quickly. There are no tricks here, as you seem to think. OK?

I've been wondering about that consciousness outside the brain thing, can you please re-post the link to that paper?

 

[gnostic]

Well hold on buster, how is it reasonable to claim that because you had stated that both mind and consciousness are both the processes of the brain in some earlier post that I am unaware of, you did not think it necessary to answer my question?

If it wasn't you, then it was to godnotgod. This thread is massive, and it is not easy to keep track what the I wrote to whom.

But it doesn't matter now, because I am fed up with replying to you.

Beside that, you haven't provided single evidence about the super-charged consciousness, and neither has godnotgod. So it is nothing more than baseless belief.

 

[gnostic]

Firstly, neither you nor science know that mind and consciousness are processes of the brain. That idea is still only hypothetical. Besides that, science does not even know how to define them, let alone establish their source as the brain. Emergent Theory is not a bona fide scientific theory in the scientific sense.

Secondly, I provided you a peer reviewed paper proving that consciousness is non-local. This experiment has been replicated around the world in varying formats by other researchers. You keep ignoring this. Why?

Thirdly, you keep trying to define objectivity and subjectivity, but that was not the question. The question was what is it that is aware of both of them, and yet is neither. You blindly keep plunging back into duality. You haven't answered the question.

Try again, but this time, reflect for a moment on the nature of the question, and don't jump so quickly. There are no tricks here, as you seem to think. OK?

That's a load of craps.

When some people have head trauma, it could cause brain damage, and that could affect a person's consciousness and thinking process, so that evidences of consciousness being tied to brain.

If I was to bash your head in, do you think you really think Your consciousness would not be affected?

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

That's a load of craps.

When some people have head trauma, it could cause brain damage, and that could affect a person's consciousness and thinking process, so that evidences of consciousness being tied to brain.

If I was to bash your head in, do you think you really think Your consciousness would not be affected?

What's the matter with you?
Why are you so invested in this conversation that you would even say something violent like "bash your head in"?
I wanna learn why people who post here speak so authoritatively and in such finalistic terms as if there's NO DOUBT it's out there and exists, no matter what it is.
I also want to know why i refer to myself as "i" or "Myself" at all. Ya know why i use the little 'i'? Cuz that's about what i feel is relevant and necessary to describe the concept enough to be understood by others of my species. I'm a body taking the time to post anything at all on any of this and wondering why?
I think, and i say just "think" that saying "i" is NOT any sign of consciousness outside the brain, but the fact that we ask this question at all could possibly indicate a level of consciousness outside the brain. Let's not forget about our very low amplitude electromagnetic and heat emissions, none of which are uselessly undifferentiated simple heat emissions. We should understand that if we can have a physical energy emissions spectrum that can be felt and detected at several feet, then we have a lot of information coming at us which could definitely be perceived as something like telepathy when it really isn't, but something built into the human body and brain and nervous system which is no less remarkable. Then there is stuff like dreams that come exactly true. Hmmmm.
Can't make that happen, but there it is. Information going the wrong way in time.... What kind of physics is that?
And then there's the coincidence phenomenon posted right up there on my profile....
I'll start by saying there may really be no such thing as time, but since i'm a hominid (ape) living on a planet where the hominids on it measure their concept of time by the very regular and predictable rotation of the planet and it's orbital period period around the central star which is also very regular and predictable, i will refer to time normally as most hominids do in terms of our globally accepted system of measurement of duration known as time measured in years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds.
If i/we did not spend such effort on measuring time, i would have never spotted the coincidence phenomenon, but my clocks showed it to me by certain numbers showing up repeatedly and in perfect time correlation to the situations they occurred during that there was a pattern which led me to see and discover other correlations between various natural phenomena which can occur repeatedly, yet are somehow random and they are! I have no way of knowing what will occur in my day and neither does anyone else to any precision or certainty. Yet repeating coincidences occur frequently enough that even they become predictable in a way. This has all raised many uncomfortable questions for me because many if not all of these repeating coincidences require an explanation after evidence of them has been collected. The trail of time correlated physical evidence as a diverse and rather large number of items that are all tied together by a specific system of geometry, size correlation between all items as well as a specific set of colors, which all associated themselves with various concepts that i was to later learn about in depth, one by one, color by color, all by COMPLETE FREAKING COINCIDENCE!
REALLY?!
Do you think for a minute i considered any of this possible when i first encountered it? HELL NO!
What did that do for me? It seemed to... no, it DID, it made the coincidences with specific people much more intense and much scarier. It was the people too that caught my attention, always the same kind of person with the same physical attributes to an oddly narrow variance. After this had happened many times while i was aware of it and actively observing it i thought it would be productive to ask police officers if they had ever seen the specific people i described at any specific types of calls. I only asked once because that policeman knew exactly what i was asking about and said he had seen them at many calls involving fights as spectators and very frequently as first responders. I asked him what he thought when he encounters them and he said he typically worries for them because they seem more likely to get involved and get hurt than most other types of folks by far.
I can't make this schist up, i can't make it happen. I can only spot timeframe and location points where it's likely to occur once in a while.
Simple rule to how i detect it, for any physical occurrence of it, it's either a 1 or a 0, it's either there or it isn't.
If it's a 1, check for symmetries with other incidences, evidences.
Every symmetry is a 1 and the number of symmetries is only limited by the complete number of specific incidences and physical items i have as reference points to all of this. I have no idea what that number is now, it's been a while.
If there are more than three symmetries the chances typically increase that there will be others and they are precise to beyond what i physically and statistically 'know' to be basically impossible.
Unfortunately for us who cling close to science and evidence, this appears, figuratively speaking, to be the tip of the iceberg, but hey, I'm not running any giant ship into it or anything. I'm gonna GPS the ship's autonavigation to this iceberg's position and movements and have a good close look, though.
I should have brought consciousness to the point of this, so i'm editing.
These coincidences with specific people at specific types of correlating events should not happen the way they do if all these folks and incidences are NON RELATED. ... And they Are non-related people places and incidences all showing a type of reflection of this one single set of information being addressed in the coincidences. Any incident or piece of evidence that consists of information that matches that of any other odd occurrence of a coincidence will yield even more specific information if it is traced and investigated to it's origin and it's the information about the origin that ends up correlating with everything else in this set of information. One set of information emitted by multiple sources, all physically and even historically related to that set of information, each occurring time synchronous to other information coming in new situations and coincidences, all of which are completely random.
That's called Non-locality if i understand it right and i think that may be a function and property of consciousness as i've heard it described in other's speculations.
Once something weird happens three times, i investigate and i ALWAYS find something interesting and physically useful to the point that i'm almost giddy with delight when it does. If it's doing that, then i needed to be paying attention to this all along.
My set of information is coming from a specific set of people from Spain near the Pyrenees, straight south of Lourdes, France, best landmark that's easy to see on a map. Now here's a real problem, the people in Spain lived around a thousand years ago, yet they were able to describe their origins and give me their names.

"Ra...mir..o. ...Ramiro", it came in.... ( JUST YIKES )
"Ok," i said to who or whatever was talking to me, i said "ok, what's the lady's name?" "Er... ma... sind... a, ....Ermasinda"

Needless to say, this daytime waKING EXPERIENCE SENT ME RUNNING HOME TO MY COMPUTER TO GOOGLE IT AND THERE HE WAS! ...!!! ..!
WTF!?
HOw is this happening???!!!
I'll go on if you're interested, but i gotta stop now, i'm making too many mkistakes, hope posting this wasn't one of them., if this is a real as it appears to be, then everyone has a right to know about it.

 

[godnotgod]

That's a load of craps.

When some people have head trauma, it could cause brain damage, and that could affect a person's consciousness and thinking process, so that evidences of consciousness being tied to brain.

If I was to bash your head in, do you think you really think Your consciousness would not be affected?

You can also bash a TV set in, but that does not destroy the TV signal.

 

[ChristineM]

You can also bash a TV set in, but that does not destroy the TV signal.

Are you equating a radio receiving device and its signal to an organic brain?