A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

"The difference is that" they are completely different, and any presumed comparator shows either straw man or deliberate ignorance.

Why should i explain? I was not there,but there are several possible reasons. Both subjects were able to see or hear the same thing is just 2. Expectation is another. Also yes, random chance is a possibility considering in similar (esp) experiments random chance can account for up to 37% success rate.

However i am not saying such entanglement cannot exist, there certainly is not enough on evidence to make such a claim. What i am saying is that your analogy between tv and brain is faulty.

Again, I am not making such an analogy. You are not paying attention, and are instead listening only to the dialogue in your own head. I repeat: the analogy is between HOW the TV and the brain receive signal, NOT between the actual TV and brain perse. Understand? I am comparing a process, not things.

No. Both subjects were NOT able to see and hear the same thing. Again, you are not paying attention. Subject A was subjected to auditory, visual, and electrical stimuli; Subject B heard, saw, nor felt NOTHING. Only his BRAIN detected what Subject A saw, heard, and felt as reflected in 'strikingly similar' EEG readings.

"... The experiment conducted by neurophysiologist Grinberg-Zylberbaum ... The Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain; The Transferred Potential, Physics Essays 7,(4), 1994. ... demonstrate the existence of a macroscopic quantum system in the human brain through the demonstration of ... non-local correlation between brains ... In this experiment two subjects ... meditated together for twenty minutes. A total of seven pairs of subjects of both sexes, with ages from 20-44 years participated in the study. After meditation and while maintaining their "direct communication" (without speech), they were placed in semi-silent, electro-magnetically shielded chambers separated by 45 feet. ... Both subjects were connected to EEG instruments and 100 random flashes of light were presented to subject A, while both remained reclined with semi-closed eyes. Subject B was not told when the light was flashed for subject A, and control correlation checks were also made at random times with no light flashes. The results indicated that, "after a meditative interaction between two people who were instructed to maintain direct communication (i.e. to feel each other's presence even at a distance), in about one out of four cases when one of the subjects was stimulated in such a way that his/her brain responded clearly (with a distinct evoked potential), the brain of the non-stimulated subject also reacted and showed a transferred potential of a similar morphology....

... The striking similarity of the transferred and evoked potentials and the total absence of transferred potentials in the control experiments leave no room for doubt about the existence of an unusual phenomenon, namely, propagation of influence without local signals*. ... It is also extremely significant that the occurrence of transferred potential is always associated with the participants' feeling that their interaction is successfully completed (in contrast to the lack of transferred potential, when there is no such feeling). The interaction that correlates the subjects under study is entirely an interaction via non-local consciousness. ... none of the subjects B ever reported realizing any type of conscious experience related to the appearance of the transferred potential ...".

*ie; 'signal-less non-local communication'

Quantum Consciousness

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Very good, and that is analogous to the universe, which only APPEARS to be something 'real', when, in reality, may actually be an apparition, what the Hindus have been calling 'maya' for over 4000 years, and an apparition, or illusion, CAN be 'created' (manifested) from sheer Nothing, because it IS nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Consciousness is similar to a process running on the architecture. It isn't an exact analogy, but it works well. Since it is a process in the brain, it is limited to the brain in the same way a computer process is limited to the computer it runs on.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

I don't think there is a hard line for this. As the chemical interactions get more complex, they get to the point where they can reproduce and maintain homeostasis. They are them alive.

In a similar way, as the processing of information gets more complex, it eventually has a representation of the external world and that is then consciousness.

Whether a planarium is conscious is a matter of definition, I suspect. But it is clearly alive.

 

[Polymath257]

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'.

Who said anything about a vessel? Each thing in the universe is a part of the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, I am not making such an analogy. You are not paying attention, and are instead listening only to the dialogue in your own head. I repeat: the analogy is between HOW the TV and the brain receive signal, NOT between the actual TV and brain perse. Understand? I am comparing a process, not things.

No. Both subjects were NOT able to see and hear the same thing. Again, you are not paying attention. Subject A was subjected to auditory, visual, and electrical stimuli; Subject B heard, saw, nor felt NOTHING. Only his BRAIN detected what Subject A saw, heard, and felt as reflected in 'strikingly similar' EEG readings.

"... The experiment conducted by neurophysiologist Grinberg-Zylberbaum ... The Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain; The Transferred Potential, Physics Essays 7,(4), 1994. ... demonstrate the existence of a macroscopic quantum system in the human brain through the demonstration of ... non-local correlation between brains ... In this experiment two subjects ... meditated together for twenty minutes. A total of seven pairs of subjects of both sexes, with ages from 20-44 years participated in the study. After meditation and while maintaining their "direct communication" (without speech), they were placed in semi-silent, electro-magnetically shielded chambers separated by 45 feet. ... Both subjects were connected to EEG instruments and 100 random flashes of light were presented to subject A, while both remained reclined with semi-closed eyes. Subject B was not told when the light was flashed for subject A, and control correlation checks were also made at random times with no light flashes. The results indicated that, "after a meditative interaction between two people who were instructed to maintain direct communication (i.e. to feel each other's presence even at a distance), in about one out of four cases when one of the subjects was stimulated in such a way that his/her brain responded clearly (with a distinct evoked potential), the brain of the non-stimulated subject also reacted and showed a transferred potential of a similar morphology....

... The striking similarity of the transferred and evoked potentials and the total absence of transferred potentials in the control experiments leave no room for doubt about the existence of an unusual phenomenon, namely, propagation of influence without local signals*. ... It is also extremely significant that the occurrence of transferred potential is always associated with the participants' feeling that their interaction is successfully completed (in contrast to the lack of transferred potential, when there is no such feeling). The interaction that correlates the subjects under study is entirely an interaction via non-local consciousness. ... none of the subjects B ever reported realizing any type of conscious experience related to the appearance of the transferred potential ...".

*ie; 'signal-less non-local communication'

Quantum Consciousness

You made the post giving the analogy, no matter what your reasoning you made they post and all the waffle in the world is not going to take that away

 

[ChristineM]

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'.

Why must it be necessary for an intelligence to process information?

You are making the claim, you show yours first.

Still obsessed with masturbation i see.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Correct but you are the one who picked up the ball and ran with it, and ran, and ran

And ran

And are still running

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Well, as you say, interaction is a form of information processing, but not all interactions require intelligence. So your claim that all information processing requires intelligence is faulty.

So, for example, when two objects exert a gravitational interaction on each other, no intelligence is required for that interaction. But it is still a type of reactivity. It is also neither 'growth' nor 'reproduction'. The interaction can, however, encapsulate information (for example, energy level of the system).

All that is required for information and information processing is a causal interaction where the result limits the possible causes leading to that result. That limitation is a form of information. And further interaction that maintains the limitation on prior causes is information processing whether or not it involves intelligence.

 

[Polymath257]

Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields.

Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.

Real talk: Everything is made of fields

Yes, every particle type corresponds to a field type and every field type corresponds to a particle type.

So there are electron fields, essentially described as probability waves for detecting electrons (the particles).

And yes, the degree of excitation of that field tells how many particles there are.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Yes. Just like the atoms that make up a copper wire become part of that copper wire and without which there would not be a copper wire. At what point does a collection of copper atoms become a copper wire?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Simple. Information is produced in any causal interaction where the result is limited in the types of causes it has.

So, for example, a ball-shaped hole through a window provides information on the size and type of ball that went through that window. Any interaction that preserves the form of that hole will also preserve that information. If it changes the form of the hole, but in a way that still places limits on the ball, then the information was 'processed' into another form of information. This can clearly happen even without an intelligence.

*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'.

Wow. I make a quick joke and you focus on it. Someone certainly has problems with sexuality here.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Which is partly why I prefer the computer 'process' over the computer 'program'. A process is a running program.

I don't know whether you would calla process 'physical', but I would. But then, I also consider consciousness to be a physical phenomenon.

Just like the computer process is limited to the computer hardware, so consciousness is limited to the hardware in the brain: the neurons, etc.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Consciousness existing outside of the brain, without evidences to support it, is supernatural.

Your claims that the universe is conscious and possess intelligence are the very idea of anthropomorphic superstition, and that lead to the belief in supernatural.

Psychic abilities, like remote viewing or ESP, where you believe that there is communication between brains, have been tested before, particularly at the heights of psychic crazes in the 70s and 80s, where even governments and military got involved in the US, UK and the former Soviet, and found no conclusive evidences, abandoned their projects.

In the US, the project to research remote viewing, started with the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), in the 1970s, then when the CIA believe China and the Soviet were running such programs, to gather intelligence through psychics, got involved with SRI project, only to drop it, but the Air Force got involved and picked up the project in the late 70s. Military intelligence dropped it by mid-90, only to return to the CIA control.

Eventually, the whole project got canned because during the whole musical chair, where the project got passed around, in 3 decades of research and testings, not once those psychic viewers provided a single useful intelligence.

When SRI was in sole charge of the program before CIA got involved, there seemed to be high rate of successes in the 1970s than in the 90s. When they investigated why the numbers of successes in testings had dropped, it was discovered that SRI had cheated, by leaving clues and cues to viewers.

The whole remote viewing turned out to be a dud, and yet we still have people who continue to pursue this delusional fairytale.

But going back to the supernatural deal. Psychic abilities or psi power also falls under the supernatural category.

 

[godnotgod]

Why must it be necessary for an intelligence to process information?

You are making the claim, you show yours first.

Still obsessed with masturbation i see.

Yes, I find your attraction to it to be quite fascinating.

So how long have you suffered from sexual repression?

The content of the information must be identified in order to 'make sense' out of it prior to processing. But even before that, the existence of any information is present because it is slated to fulfill some function down the road. 'Something' must know that beforehand. DNA is a good example. Consciousness codes and stores such information for readily available processing. Consciousness creates brain matter as a means for storage of certain autonomic functions that can go on in the background automatically, so consciousness can focus on what is immediate and up front, such as a tiger about to spring from the bushes. If consciousness had to deal with heart beat, breath control, digestion, etc up front, it would lose its focus on what is immediately at hand.

 

[godnotgod]

Correct but you are the one who picked up the ball and ran with it, and ran, and ran

And ran

And are still running

mmmmm.....no....I never mentioned it at all. T'was thee and Poly that tossed out the first ball of dung, which became bigger and bigger as it rolled downhill. All I ever said was that the universe was prolific. Poly could not resist his childish tendencies and now you and he are wallowing in the quagmire, while I sit up here on the hill LMAO.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is similar to a process running on the architecture. It isn't an exact analogy, but it works well. Since it is a process in the brain, it is limited to the brain in the same way a computer process is limited to the computer it runs on.

Nope. You are referring to MIND, not consciousness. Consciousness is not a process. Mind as the thought process analogous to the computer program. I am not speaking about mind, but consciousness. So with that understanding, how is consciousness limited to the physical brain? In fact, how can a physical brain contain and limit that which is non-physical, namely, consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

You made the post giving the analogy, no matter what your reasoning you made they post and all the waffle in the world is not going to take that away

Are you deaf?

Last time:

THE ANALOGY IS NOT...I REPEAT...NOT..BETWEEN TWO THINGS CALLED BRAIN AND TV; IT IS BETWEEN THE WAY THEY RECEIVE INFORMATION, THAT BEING AN EXTERNAL NON-LOCAL SOURCE.

Look at the graph I posted. What do you see that is obvious beyond any doubt?

 

[godnotgod]

Who said anything about a vessel? Each thing in the universe is a part of the universe.

That was one option you cited, but the other was that of the universe containing a collection of things, which you cited as one possibility. I only asked how that is possible, that's all. Return to your post so you can see that you said it was a matter of context which was the case.

 

[godnotgod]

Which is partly why I prefer the computer 'process' over the computer 'program'. A process is a running program.

I don't know whether you would calla process 'physical', but I would. But then, I also consider consciousness to be a physical phenomenon.

Just like the computer process is limited to the computer hardware, so consciousness is limited to the hardware in the brain: the neurons, etc.

Except for one very important thing you are overlooking: computers must be programmed by intelligent and conscious humans.

If consciousness is a physical phenomenon, what is its mass, weight, size, color, shape, etc.?