A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

I am afraid you are out of kilter.

Just because you have 'stated repeatedly' that consciousness originates from within the brain does not make it so. That is just dogma, and you have no basis for making such a statement.

If consciousness does not exist outside the brain, then tell me where your consciousness leaves off and the external unconscious world begins. Simple question you have failed to answer, probably because YOU are the one full of BS.

The science applied to the quoted experiment is standard science, and does not have it's source in anything beyond that.

The video simply describes that experiment, which proves that there exists nonlocal signal-less and instantaneous communication between two entangled brains.

You are in denial, gnostic, of FACTS.

You don't even know what you're saying, gnostic. I have never, ever made any claims of the supernatural. That refers to a power above nature. All the while, gnostic, I have only ever referred to a power WITHIN nature. You are quite deluded. Now start paying attention to what is ACTUALLY being said to you, instead of making things up in your own mind. I am getting quite fed up with correcting you and your erroneous logic. Now get your head straight before posting your distorted crap.

Now answer my question: where does your consciousness end and the external world begin?

If you believe in consciousness being outside of the brain, then it is supernatural and pseudoscience, which is akin to astral projection.

If you believe in ESP, remote viewing or any other psychic abilities, then you do blelieve the pseudoscience supernatural.

If you believe in the transcendent consciousness, cosmic consciousness, then you believe in the supernatural.

If you believe in ultimate reality, then you believe in the supernatural.

None of the above in the realm of the nature, but only exist your deluded fairyland fantasy.

Facts required evidences, not your make-believe delusions.

 

[gnostic]

What i am saying is that your analogy between tv and brain is faulty.

Perhaps godnotgod think we are Teletubbies.

 

[`mud]

I'm reading some this and I'm greatly impressed by the ultimate ingnorance exressed here.
Beyond reality lies foolishness, insanity is next !
Guess who is right !

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps godnotgod think we are Teletubbies.

Ahh, an answer that makes sense of @godnotgod using that experiment and making entanglement by radio wave claims. Thank you.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm reading some this and I'm greatly impressed by the ultimate ingnorance exressed here.
Beyond reality lies foolishness, insanity is next !
Guess who is right !

You have any particular gripe or is it just general griping for gripings sake?

 

[Polymath257]

From a cursory Google search, it appears that many would disagree with you, and that your position is behind the times, as you still cling to the old materialist paradigm.

"The 'particle' conception of matter (from ancient Greeks) has caused many problems and paradoxes for modern Physics ... Strangely, it is only in the past 20 years that a pure Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) has been properly examined. We then find (by replacing 'particles' with Spherical Standing Waves) that the natural laws originate from the behavior of the waves and the properties of space.

Crackpot alert! The content of your link is bogus.

It will also become clear that the classic point-particle model of charge and mass substance cannot satisfy either the logic of science or the many puzzles of physics. The model is only an historical relic and its presence in the 'Standard Model' of physics is an obstacle to progress....

First, I agree that the classical notion of a particle does not fit with modern physics. But neither does the classical notion of a wave. Both need to be modified in light of quantum mechanics.

Every 'particle' corresponds to a 'wave' and every 'wave' corresponds to a 'particle'. Specifically, the waves describe the probability of detecting a particle. They are probability waves.

...The 'Particle' is two identical spherical waves traveling radially in opposite directions so that together they form a spherical standing wave. The wave which travels inward towards the center is called an In-Wave, and the wave traveling outward is an Out-Wave. The nominal location of the ‘Particle’ is the Wave-Center, but as must be true for any charged Particle, it has presence everywhere in Space because the charge forces extend throughout the Universe. [ie it is holographic]...

+

=

In-Wave + Out-Wave = Standing Wave

...The solid crystal array is a matrix of atoms held rigidly in space. How are the atoms suspended in space? We must conclude that the crystal’s rigidity derives from fixed standing waves propagating in a rigid wave medium....

...we see 'photons' as discrete Standing Wave interactions. Thus the transitory modulated waves traveling between two resonances create the illusion of the 'photon particle'.

Physics: Simple Solution to Wave Particle Duality Paradox. Spherical Standing Wave Causes Particle Effect at Wave-Center

Sorry, but this is wrong. In stable situations (like electrons in atomic orbitals), you can think of the probability wave as being a type of standing wave, but for free particles this is no longer the case.

The rest is sheer crackpottery.

 

[Polymath257]

That is what you have been led to believe, but it is still only a scientific hypothesis called 'Emergent Theory', which is not actually a scientific theory.

Can you tell me at which point your consciousness leaves off and where the outside 'unconscious' world begins?

Can you tell me the point at which the running computer program leaves off and the outside world begins?

Your very question assumes things that are false.

And can you also tell me: is The Universe a collection of things that are IN The Universe, or it is those very things themselves?

That depends on context. Both are valid ways of using the word. I have also used it where the universe is all things throughout space and time.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you tell me the point at which the running computer program leaves off and the outside world begins?

Your very question assumes things that are false.

.

Your analogy is erroneous. 'computer program' is collection of commands and directives which order data; consciousness is a state of being before thought. Of course programs are restricted to computer. But how is non-physical consciousness, (assuming as correct, your position that it originates in the brain), restricted to the physical brain, and where does it leave off, and the unconscious external world begin?

 

[godnotgod]

That depends on context. Both are valid ways of using the word. I have also used it where the universe is all things throughout space and time.

How is the universe a vessel that contains 'things'? In this case, the universe would only be empty space, and empty space is never used to describe 'universe'.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

The universe consists of zero energy, manifested in terms of positive and negative energy which cancel each other out.

 

[godnotgod]

If you believe in consciousness being outside of the brain, then it is supernatural and pseudoscience, which is akin to astral projection.

If you believe in ESP, remote viewing or any other psychic abilities, then you do blelieve the pseudoscience supernatural.

If you believe in the transcendent consciousness, cosmic consciousness, then you believe in the supernatural.

If you believe in ultimate reality, then you believe in the supernatural.

None of the above in the realm of the nature, but only exist your deluded fairyland fantasy.

Facts required evidences, not your make-believe delusions.

Supernatural - Wikipedia
Supernatural - Wikipedia
The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) includes all that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other types of spirits and other non-material beings, or to things beyond ...

I am not referring to a phenomenon ABOVE nature, as 'super-natural' implies; I am referring to that which is WITHIN nature itself. Reality is non-dual; it is One. There is nothing separate that is above anything else. There are many things within nature that science cannot explain. The current findings of Quantum Physics are some of those inexplicable (via ordinary logic and reason) phenomena. How do you 'explain' that matter is a 'superposition of possibilities' in ordinary thought?

 

[godnotgod]

The universe consists of zero energy, manifested in terms of positive and negative energy which cancel each other out.

That, in a nutshell, or is it a not-nutshell?

So are you saying that the universe is essentially Nothingness?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

That, in a nutshell, or is it a not-nutshell?

So are you saying that the universe is essentially Nothingness?

Matter is positive energy,
Gravity is negative energy.
Sum of matter and gravity is zero energy.

The sum total is Nothingness.
The 'parts' are Something.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see the distinction. They contribute to life because they are the structural and dynamic that underlies life.

No, they are not mere contributors; they become part of that which is alive itself without which there can be no life. But in regards to your position, at which point do they go from non-life to life; from unconscious to conscious?

 

[godnotgod]

Matter is positive energy,
Gravity is negative energy.
Sum of matter and gravity is zero energy.

The sum total is Nothingness.
The 'parts' are Something.

So Everything comes out of Nothing.

Thank you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Matter is positive energy,
Gravity is negative energy.
Sum of matter and gravity is zero energy.

The sum total is Nothingness.
The 'parts' are Something.

You're probably aware that that concept has a name: Zero-energy universe

The idea is familiar. Suppose that your net worth is zero. Somehow, you get a mortgage loan of $200,000 and buy a $200,000 home with it.

Now. you have a home with positive value, a debt of equal negative value, and still have a net worth of zero.

Have we created something from nothing? I'd say yes in one sense, and no in another.

 

[godnotgod]

If so, then they have a *very* different conceptualization of 'consciousness' than I do.



Well, life and consciousness are aspects of how certain collections of physical things interact. Consciousness involves the storiage and processing of information and life involves the ability to grow and reproduce (neither are technical definitions, obviously).



I don't see 'material' as being problematic unless you insist that to be material means what classical philosophy taught. But I don't see 'intelligence' at the quantum level: only reactivity according to natural laws. Intelligence is a matter of ability to process information in a dynamic way.

But aren't all things in the universe the result of information processing? That would mean that intelligent consciousness is required. 'Reactivity' is essentially information processing. You seem to want to separate information processing from growth and reproduction. How is that possible?

 

[ChristineM]

But aren't all things in the universe the result of information processing? That would mean that intelligent consciousness is required. 'Reactivity' is essentially information processing. You seem to want to separate information processing from growth and reproduction. How is that possible?

That's a big jump of faith from natural processes to god magic without any link. Care to explain in detail?

 

[godnotgod]

You are the one pointing fingers and trying (and failing) to make fun of an perfectly natural practice.

So lets get this straight before you w@nk yourself silloy

Polymath said
"I always loved the masturbatory universe model!"

To which you replied
"What's that you say? You can relate to such an idea on a personal basis?" Trying to use masturbatory universe model as ad hominem.

I intervened with
"Whatever turns you on"

Since then you have relished (positively danced a schoolyard jig) object Mocker's and finger pointing. Typical signs of sexual repression's reinforced with religious dogma.

Childishly pathetic

I am not the one who associated the prolific universe with the act of masturbation; Polymath did, and then you chimed in. So both of you exhibit typical signs of sexual repression reinforced with religious dogma. Quaint. Stop trying to pass the buck, a pathetically childish activity.

s**t detectors: ON

 

[godnotgod]

That's a big jump of faith from natural processes to god magic without any link. Care to explain in detail?

It is YOU that is making the 'jump of faith'.*

Where there is information, there must necessarily exist something to process that information. Information is present in the universe from the get-go, where no brains existed as yet. If you disagree, demonstrate how information can be processed without intelligence or consciousness, nay, how it can even exist period.

*BTW, that's 'leap of faith', not 'jump of faith'. 'Jump of faith', according to several scientific studies, has been associated with masturbatory tendencies still lingering in some adults, acting out childhood sexual repressions, all of which require a 'leap of faith' in order to transcend such immature states of mind. Such 'leaps of faith' are, in and of themselves, masturbatory by nature, and sometimes exhibit themselves via association with, for example, sudden explosions of a universal dimension, otherwise known as 'El Grande Bungatorre', or 'Bigga Banga'.