A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Why would you think that? Ordinary logic ultimately lead to the formulation of quantum mechanics. That formulation is based upon mathematics and is perfectly logical. The superposition of possibilities follows naturally from this formulation. Why you think it is contrary to either reason or logic defies me.

What you seem to miss is that QM *is* a consequence of reasoning and logic as applied to the real world.

As for 'materialism', I'm not perfectly sure what you mean by the term here and to what extent it includes classical notions of what it means to be 'material'. But QM certainly is a description of the physical world and when I use the term materialism, QM is certainly a part of that model.

So, what do *you* mean by the term 'materialism'? How is it contrary to QM?

No, ordinary reasoning and logic do not lead to QM; specialized knowledge does, primarily higher mathematics. Did you note Viole's point that hard work had to be the prerequisite to an understanding of QM?

The notions of superposition, wave collapse, entanglement, and virtual mass are paradoxical to the ordinary mind, which is still having difficulty with Relativity (ie speed affects time, etc) and even Newtonian physics in some cases. Even Einstein was taken aback about entanglement, with his 'spooky actions at a distance' comment. Now, you probably think that scientific 'explanation' of the goings-on in the world of QM are perfectly rational, and while you can come up with all sorts of formulas and models, you still don't know what the hell you are looking at. You don't actually know what the universe actually IS. All you can do is to attempt to describe and predict its behavior, which in many cases, can prove daunting, as for example, the current problem in reconciling Relativity with QM. There exists today a handful of 'solutions', all different.

As I said, there are currently two main schools of thought re: particle theory. One, like yours, is based upon materialism, while the other says that all particles in the universe are none other than standing waves. I gave you a link for the latter theory which is filled with the math you like. Have you had a look at the Blaze Labs position on the matter?

Essentially, you had stated that, for all practical purposes, consciousness equates to nothing more than a set of complex electro-chemical reactions in the brain. That position is one of hard materialism, as most materialists don't go that far; they still recognize consciousness as a non-physical, non-material phenomena, but still as an emergent property of the material brain. To take the position that consciousness is nothing more than chemistry is just a clever way to circumvent the hard question of consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Technically, and I'm sure you know this, it is possible to have entanglement with aspects other than spin. Also, it is possible (if the orbital parity is odd), for the entangled state to be up/up or down/down.

Yes.

Don't you see the difference?

if not, at the risk of sounding condescending I have to ask you this: what is your level of knowledge of Quantum Mechanics?

By the way, I am sure entangled brains exist. For instance, I am sure that both Grinberg and Zylberbaum have each one of those

Ciao

- viole

Clever, but tell me: how do you explain the fact that the brain of Subject B, which received zero stimuli, was registering patterns almost identical to those of Subject A, even though isolated one from the other? Coincidence?

 

[Polymath257]

No, ordinary reasoning and logic do not lead to QM; specialized knowledge does, primarily higher mathematics. Did you note Viole's point that hard work had to be the prerequisite to an understanding of QM?

Which only goes to show that logic and reason are hard for the vast majority of people. That should be no surprise. That you contrast higher mathematics, which is the epitome of reason and logic, to reason and logic is telling. I do not expect reason and logic to be easy to people. Most people simply have never been trained to either. Even very basic logic is a huge barrier for most people.

The notions of superposition, wave collapse, entanglement, and virtual mass are paradoxical to the ordinary mind, which is still having difficulty with Relativity (ie speed affects time, etc) and even Newtonian physics in some cases.

Yes, reason and logic often go against intuition. Again, no surprise. There are many counter-intuitive results in mathematics, from the Banach-Tarski paradox, to issues with voting systems. Once again, I don't expect intuition to agree with reason and logic. Perhaps your issue is that you do.

with his 'spooky actions at a distance' comment. Now, you probably think that scientific 'explanation' of the goings-on in the world of QM are perfectly rational, and while you can come up with all sorts of formulas and models, you still don't know what the hell you are looking at. You don't actually know what the universe actually IS.

I'm not even sure it is a well-constructed sentence. What we observe is what it is. That means it isn't classical, but quantum. That is the 'reason and logic' as applied to what we actually observe.

All you can do is to attempt to describe and predict its behavior, which in many cases, can prove daunting, as for example, the current problem in reconciling Relativity with QM. There exists today a handful of 'solutions', all different.

Yes, we have multiple hypotheses. That is how reason and logic work when dealing with the real world. We *have* to observe, hypothesize, and deduce instrad of gazing at our navels and speculating without any testing.

As I said, there are currently two main schools of thought re: particle theory. One, like yours, is based upon materialism, while the other says that all particles in the universe are none other than standing waves. I gave you a link for the latter theory which is filled with the math you like. Have you had a look at the Blaze Labs position on the matter?[/QUOTE

Yes, I have. It is BS. Full on crank material.

Essentially, you had stated that, for all practical purposes, consciousness equates to nothing more than a set of complex electro-chemical reactions in the brain. That position is one of hard materialism, as most materialists don't go that far; they still recognize consciousness as a non-physical, non-material phenomena, but still as an emergent property of the material brain. To take the position that consciousness is nothing more than chemistry is just a clever way to circumvent the hard question of consciousness.

Unlike Chalmers (for example), I really do not think there *is* a 'hard problem' of consciousness. Yes, it really, really is just a physical phenomenon.

 

[viole]

Clever, but tell me: how do you explain the fact that the brain of Subject B, which received zero stimuli, was registering patterns almost identical to those of Subject A, even though isolated one from the other? Coincidence?

I don't know. That is the subject of a completely different line of evidence collecting and tests validation. I would need to know how the tests are performed and whether all precaution to avoid errors and bias have been taken care of. Was an independent team present to validate the tests, for instance. Have all pre-cautions like double blindness been implemented? Have professional been hired to check the claim and that no deceit is in place (magicians, for instance)? Were they really instantaneous? You need very high precision instruments to measure simultaneity over short distances. Could those test be repeated by another team under the same precautions?

I don't know. But I doubt it.

My point here is that, even if that claim was true, you cannot use QM to justify it. That would, if true, just violate QM and a whole lot of physical laws. Fine, but that requires a much higher level of evidence before we adios centuries of consolidated physics.

And if you (well, not you personally) insist to use QM to justify it, maybe with the objective of making it scientifically palatable to the sophisticated yet gullible audience, then that is a clear sign of intellectual ignorance (or dishonesty) that just contributes to cast a huge cloud of skepticism on the whole thing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

What we observe is what it is.

Bingo! No. What it is, is what the conditioned mind says it is, and from the get-go, science is one of the most highly controlled and conditioned views there are. But, alas, the scientist does not even realize he is embarking on such a conditioned view at the very first step. So your assessment that 'what we observe is what it is', is not what it is, but only what it is as seen through the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation, and because of this conditioning, we fail to see things as they actually are:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

"Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know. That is the subject of a completely different line of evidence collecting and tests validation. I would need to know how the tests are performed and whether all precaution to avoid errors and bias have been taken care of. Was an independent team present to validate the tests, for instance. Have all pre-cautions like double blindness been implemented? Have professional been hired to check the claim and that no deceit is in place (magicians, for instance)? Were they really instantaneous? You need very high precision instruments to measure simultaneity over short distances. Could those test be repeated by another team under the same precautions?

I don't know. But I doubt it.

My point here is that, even if that claim was true, you cannot use QM to justify it. That would, if true, just violate QM and a whole lot of physical laws. Fine, but that requires a much higher level of evidence before we adios centuries of consolidated physics.

And if you (well, not you personally) insist to use QM to justify it, maybe with the objective of making it scientifically palatable to the sophisticated yet gullible audience, then that is a clear sign of intellectual ignorance (or dishonesty) that just contributes to cast a huge cloud of skepticism on the whole thing.

Ciao

- viole

Viole, come on now: the EEG patterns are unmistakable. Look, ma, no wires. And the subjects were isolated via Faraday cages, a nice precautionary touch on the part of the researchers. I mean, even a caveman can do it, or your kids in the garage, even.

BTW, Amit Goswami was in on this experiment back in 1994. Since then, the experiment and its variants have been verified around the world by other bona fide researchers. I can provide references if you wish.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, we have multiple hypotheses. That is how reason and logic work when dealing with the real world. We *have* to observe, hypothesize, and deduce instead of gazing at our navels and speculating without any testing.

First the low blow of a 'masturbatory universe', and now the stereotype of navel gazing, an idea developed and spread as a joke amongst the ignorant, their noses pressed against the window pane, outside, looking in and laughing their fool heads off about things for which they haven't the slightest clue, their gazes locked onto those dancing and hypnotic cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave, fully convinced that theirs is the Gold Standard.

Meditators are focusing on the area just below the navel, called the hara. The Western concept of the center of consciousness is in the brain, but in the East, it is in the hara. So you might get a glimpse into what they are about, here is a little information:

Hara (tanden) - Wikipedia

If you have ever found yourself in a state of anxiety, you will notice that your breathing is rapid and shallow, and you may feel a knot in your abdomen. By focusing on your breath and calming it down, a transformation will occur. Your breathing will become slower, more regular, and deeper, generating a calm mental state. Your abdomen (hara) will go from a painful knot to a feeling of solidity, centering, and positive energy. That is the energy in the hara being in harmony. In the East, breath itself is consciousness, which is why the relationship between anxiety and shallow breathing exists.

 

[Polymath257]

First the low blow of a 'masturbatory universe', and now the stereotype of navel gazing, an idea developed and spread as a joke amongst the ignorant, their noses pressed against the window pane, outside, looking in and laughing their fool heads off about things for which they haven't the slightest clue, their gazes locked onto those dancing and hypnotic cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave, fully convinced that theirs is the Gold Standard.

Meditators are focusing on the area just below the navel, called the hara. The Western concept of the center of consciousness is in the brain, but in the East, it is in the hara. So you might get a glimpse into what they are about, here is a little information:

Hara (tanden) - Wikipedia

If you have ever found yourself in a state of anxiety, you will notice that your breathing is rapid and shallow, and you may feel a knot in your abdomen. By focusing on your breath and calming it down, a transformation will occur. Your breathing will become slower, more regular, and deeper, generating a calm mental state. Your abdomen (hara) will go from a painful knot to a feeling of solidity, centering, and positive energy. That is the energy in the hara being in harmony. In the East, breath itself is consciousness, which is why the relationship between anxiety and shallow breathing exists.

Completely irrelevant to what I was saying. My point was that to learn about the universe you have to actually interact with the universe. Just sitting and meditating won't do it. Don't get me wrong. Meditation is wonderful for the psychology: it helps relieve anxiety, produces motivation, etc. I just doesn't give understanding of the universe. Your treatise of the hara is simply not on topic.

Without observation, reason and logic have nothing to work with. That inevitably leads to dead ends and faulty conclusions. And that is exactly what happened to Plato. Plato's cave isn't different in kind from 'brains in a vat' or 'Descarrtes demon' or 'The Matrix'. In essence, ALL of them deny that it is possible to learn about reality thorugh the senses. And that is always a mistake. To learn about reality, we have to *look* at reality and the only way we have of even approximating that is through our senses. Yes, those senses are often faulty. But it is better than not looking at all.

YOu faulted science for having multiple hypotheses. We, that is how we learn. Not by focusing on one guess and adhering to it forever. But by formulating multiples guesses and seeing which of the many actually work and produce predictions that can be verified.

 

[godnotgod]

Completely irrelevant to what I was saying. My point was that to learn about the universe you have to actually interact with the universe. Just sitting and meditating won't do it. Don't get me wrong. Meditation is wonderful for the psychology: it helps relieve anxiety, produces motivation, etc. I just doesn't give understanding of the universe. Your treatise of the hara is simply not on topic.

Without observation, reason and logic have nothing to work with. That inevitably leads to dead ends and faulty conclusions. And that is exactly what happened to Plato. Plato's cave isn't different in kind from 'brains in a vat' or 'Descarrtes demon' or 'The Matrix'. In essence, ALL of them deny that it is possible to learn about reality thorugh the senses. And that is always a mistake. To learn about reality, we have to *look* at reality and the only way we have of even approximating that is through our senses. Yes, those senses are often faulty. But it is better than not looking at all.

YOu faulted science for having multiple hypotheses. We, that is how we learn. Not by focusing on one guess and adhering to it forever. But by formulating multiples guesses and seeing which of the many actually work and produce predictions that can be verified.

This post goes to reveal your complete ignorance about higher consciousness. To go inside is to establish an intimate connection with the intelligent, conscious universe.

You miss my point re: Plato's Cave: it's just a metaphor for the difference between the rational mind (shadows) and Enlightenment (The Sun).

Science does not reveal reality; it reveals data and facts ABOUT reality.

The experience of higher consciousness is not via the senses! It is transcendent of them, one reason it is referred to as being 'higher'. That doesn't mean it is 'out there' somewhere; but rather here, now, at all times. But due to mental conditioning which creates the subject/object split, we fail to see it. When this split is overcome, oneness with the universe is realized, any 'split' existing only in the mind, and not in reality itself. Science, OTOH, relies on the subject/object split as 'observer and observed'. The 'observer' can never not be part of the 'observed'. It's just an illusion, a highly controlled, mental construct creating a sculpted, limited view of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

This post goes to reveal your complete ignorance about higher consciousness. To go inside is to establish an intimate connection with the intelligent, conscious universe.

Yes, I know that is your claim. What you are actually doing is forming a 'intimate connection' with your imagination. Nothing more. The universe itself is not conscious or intelligent. It just exists.

You miss my point re: Plato's Cave: it's just a metaphor for the difference between the rational mind (shadows) and Enlightenment (The Sun).

Oh, I understand your metaphor. I just deny its applicability. I would say that a better usage is where those in the cave are those who only look within to find knowledge, while those who look outside of the cave of their selves can see reality better.

Science does not reveal reality; it reveals data and facts ABOUT reality.

And thereby, with testing and thought, as much of reality as we can ever know.

The experience of higher consciousness is not via the senses! It is transcendent of them, one reason it is referred to as being 'higher'. That doesn't mean it is 'out there' somewhere; but rather here, now, at all times. But due to mental conditioning which creates the subject/object split, we fail to see it. When this split is overcome, oneness with the universe is realized, any 'split' existing only in the mind, and not in reality itself.

And again, I call BS. What you are doing with 'higher consciousness' is simply using your imagination to get what you *consider* to be knowledge, but which is actually just a fantasy. Sorry, but these delusions are not reality. You 'experience this higher consciousness' with your imagination, which, I guess, is without the senses. But it is hardly reliable.

 

[Polymath257]

In the experiment by Alain Aspect in which one entangled photon responded instantaneously to the other, was there information transfer?

No, there was not. The correlations were produced before the measurements. There was no 'response'.

If the universe is a hologram, 'these things' are indeed possible in QM.

No, not even then.

The paper I linked to apparently IS using QM to explain it.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the reply. No time right now to respond to everything, but will later.

That you would even consider 'condescension' is playing mind games. There is no need to indulge in that.

Sorry, but calling out someone who clearly doesn't understand the topic under consideration isn't a mind game. Condescension is then a valid response.

No, I don't know the math; what the math and science mean should be explainable to anyone, or what use is it if known only to a few?

Anyone can learn the math. It is out there and freely available. It is only your own self holding you back from understanding.

Why you think the truth should be easily understood by everyone is beyond me. Or even explainable.

It is quite obvious that you do not have the slightest clue about cosmic consciousness, except to dismiss it as 'ridiculous'. What do you know, anyway? Not much, or maybe just too much baggage in the way.

I'm not pontificating, but I guess that's just the way you see it. I have nothing to sell here.

What you don't seem to understand is that we understand what you are saying. We simply think it is wrong. Yes, it is ridiculous.

I don't think the audience here is gullible or clueless at all; they are constantly challenging me, and i"m OK with that.

Suffice it to say for the meantime that there are many professionals who disagree with you re: cosmic consciousness as it relates to QM. We can talk about that later.

Professionals in what area? Psychology? Or being a media whore? Sure, you can find many of each. But go to actual physicists who actually know QM and you get a very different set of answers than those pandering to the woo-woo crowd.

All the guy in the video did was to explain the experiment and relay it's findings. Was his information erroneous? As for being clueless about QM, I don't think he mentioned it much in terms of the experiment he was trying to explain, which was primarily about nonlocality. In fact, on rechecking, he mentions it only once in relation to particle entanglement, but never relative to the brain experiment.

You criticize the high school teacher in the video from a position of false superiority, but I say he is a gem of a teacher. Science types are always talking about how we need to inspire young people, but a condescending attitude like yours is hardly conducive. Perhaps a quick dose of what higher consciousness has to offer will place science into the proper context of Reality, instead of trying to put Reality into the context of scientific knowledge. Doesn't quite fit.

A teacher making the connection between higher consciousness and QM is simply ignorant or lying. Actual QM, including Aspect's experiment and entanglement, has NOTHING to do with what you seem to think it does.

In other words, your statements show you don't have the slightest clue about QM.

Thanks for explaining how entangled particles behave. I understood everything you said.

Later.

I doubt that. Have you ever computed an inner product? If not, you do not understand QM.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but calling out someone who clearly doesn't understand the topic under consideration isn't a mind game. Condescension is then a valid response.

It's not the right approach from any intelligent person, but actually a flawed response.

Anyone can learn the math. It is out there and freely available. It is only your own self holding you back from understanding.

Why you think the truth should be easily understood by everyone is beyond me. Or even explainable.

Viole gave a brief explanation of entanglement without any math. Math is just the means, but the means must be interpreted. However, no math in the world is going to 'explain' what the true nature of Reality is, because the true nature of Reality is without symbol or word.

What you don't seem to understand is that we understand what you are saying. We simply think it is wrong. Yes, it is ridiculous.

Cosmic Consciousness is neither right nor wrong. It is non dual, and that you think it 'wrong' points to the fact that your idea of it is ridiculous. But please, go ahead and tell me why you think there is something wrong about something you have no understanding of? Can you do that?

Professionals in what area? Psychology? Or being a media whore? Sure, you can find many of each. But go to actual physicists who actually know QM and you get a very different set of answers than those pandering to the woo-woo crowd.

Actual physicists, like Amit Goswami, Neils Bohr, Fritzopf Capra, Sir Roger Penrose, Max Planck, Nassim Haramein, John Hagelin, Freeman Dyson, and many, many, many others who have seen through the fallacy of materialism.

A teacher making the connection between higher consciousness and QM is simply ignorant or lying. Actual QM, including Aspect's experiment and entanglement, has NOTHING to do with what you seem to think it does.

QM is not the issue the high school teacher in the video was talking about; he was talking about the non-local response of two entangled brains.

In other words, your statements show you don't have the slightest clue about QM.

Which statements are you talking about?

I doubt that. Have you ever computed an inner product? If not, you do not understand QM.

I don't see anything unclear about what Viole said about entanglement.

 

[godnotgod]

No, there was not. The correlations were produced before the measurements. There was no 'response'.

"...the experiment [by Alain Aspect] provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations."

Alain Aspect - Wikipedia

Sounds like a 'response' occurred to me.

No, not even then.

I think 'yes'.

"But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?
Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature."


The Holographic Universe

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I know that is your claim. What you are actually doing is forming a 'intimate connection' with your imagination. Nothing more. The universe itself is not conscious or intelligent. It just exists.

Imagination is a kind of thought. But what if, in the inner experience, one reaches a stage where there is no thought, and therefore, no imagination, occurring, but only the state of pure consciousness, in addition to a dissolution of the self. In that case, who is it that can be imagining anything?

You wouldn't say that an action like 'running' exists as a thing, would you, because the moment you put your finger on it as something that exists, it has already changed. And that is what the universe is: an action in constant transformation, appearing as a collection of 'things'.

To say that the universe is not conscious or intelligent is to speak from the POV of the subject/object split, a split that is only a mental construct, and not something that exists in reality. Where does this split exist between you and the universe?

Oh, I understand your metaphor. I just deny its applicability. I would say that a better usage is where those in the cave are those who only look within to find knowledge, while those who look outside of the cave of their selves can see reality better.

...or look outside of the box of their methodology, methodologies like science and religious doctrine, for example. And to look outside of them, is to turn inwards to the source which allows their existence.

And thereby, with testing and thought, as much of reality as we can ever know.

Yes, what we call 'limited mind', or the 3 blind men thinking the elephant is the ear, the trunk, or the leg. Tell me: how can you expect to ever know the whole via the method of science, which is dissection and reduction?

And again, I call BS. What you are doing with 'higher consciousness' is simply using your imagination to get what you *consider* to be knowledge, but which is actually just a fantasy. Sorry, but these delusions are not reality. You 'experience this higher consciousness' with your imagination, which, I guess, is without the senses. But it is hardly reliable.

And you are making this statement with a mind that is without flaw, correct? So what would you call that?

 

[Polymath257]

"...the experiment [by Alain Aspect] provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations."

Alain Aspect - Wikipedia

Sounds like a 'response' occurred to me.

The spins in different locations are *correlated*: if one is up, the other is down. That correlation is formed when the entangled particles are formed. So, when one side is measured to be 'up', the other side is guaranteed to measure 'down'. Now, we can change the 'angle of measurement' and get different degrees of correlation, but the *measurement* at one side doesn't allow information to transfer to the other. Both sides are random, but *when brought together* the correlation can be found.

An analogy: take a coin and split it in half. So you have one piece that is 'heads' and another that is 'tails'. Don't look at either, but send one half to your left and the other half to your right. people far enough away for light not to carry information then look at the half-coins. One measures 'tails'. Because of the correlation, the other must measure 'heads'. But no information went between the two sides. The correlation was formed when the coin was split.

 

[Polymath257]

Imagination is a kind of thought. But what if, in the inner experience, one reaches a stage where there is no thought, and therefore, no imagination, occurring, but only the state of pure consciousness, in addition to a dissolution of the self. In that case, who is it that can be imagining anything?

And who could possibly be conscious then? Answer: there can be no consciousness then.

You wouldn't say that an action like 'running' exists as a thing, would you, because the moment you put your finger on it as something that exists, it has already changed. And that is what the universe is: an action in constant transformation, appearing as a collection of 'things'.

'Running' is a property of the person running. ALL things are defined by their interactions. In that sense, ALL 'things' are verbs.

To say that the universe is not conscious or intelligent is to speak from the POV of the subject/object split, a split that is only a mental construct, and not something that exists in reality. Where does this split exist between you and the universe?

For the umpteenth time. At the skull.

...or look outside of the box of their methodology, methodologies like science and religious doctrine, for example. And to look outside of them, is to turn inwards to the source which allows their existence.

The source is not inward. True knowledge of reality can only come from outside. You can learn about your own delusions by looking within, but not about what the real world is like.

Yes, what we call 'limited mind', or the 3 blind men thinking the elephant is the ear, the trunk, or the leg. Tell me: how can you expect to ever know the whole via the method of science, which is dissection and reduction?

Because there is also the process of synthesis. In the case of the blind men, they were each looking at too small of a piece. They needed to collaborate and see where each was right and where each was wrong and assemble the pieces. The fact that all got different results is quite good enough to show they were all missing the big picture. That is always a sign more work is required to see what is really going on. And this happens frequently in science.

And you are making this statement with a mind that is without flaw, correct? So what would you call that?

Who said my mind is without flaw? All human minds are flawed. All sensory experiences are flawed. But that doesn't negate the fact that we can overcome those flaws and figure out what is going on.

 

[godnotgod]

The spins in different locations are *correlated*: if one is up, the other is down. That correlation is formed when the entangled particles are formed. So, when one side is measured to be 'up', the other side is guaranteed to measure 'down'. Now, we can change the 'angle of measurement' and get different degrees of correlation, but the *measurement* at one side doesn't allow information to transfer to the other. Both sides are random, but *when brought together* the correlation can be found.

An analogy: take a coin and split it in half. So you have one piece that is 'heads' and another that is 'tails'. Don't look at either, but send one half to your left and the other half to your right. people far enough away for light not to carry information then look at the half-coins. One measures 'tails'. Because of the correlation, the other must measure 'heads'. But no information went between the two sides. The correlation was formed when the coin was split.

I understand the info re: 'correlation', but my understanding is that when one photon was stimulated, something occurred with the other photon, even though many miles apart.

If, as you say, the angle of measurement is changed for one photon, does that mean different angles of correlation will be present for the other photon?

 

[godnotgod]

And who could possibly be conscious then? Answer: there can be no consciousness then.

Ah...when it rains, is there a god of rain, or is there just rain? The point is that there is no agent of consciousness; there is only consciousness itself. We are conscious, and yet, we, as humans, have formed a self-created idea that there exists an agent of consciousness called 'I', when 'I' is just an illusion. It is because of this 'I' that we assign consciousness to the brain.

'Running' is a property of the person running. ALL things are defined by their interactions. In that sense, ALL 'things' are verbs.

But where is this 'thing' you call a 'person'? What you are calling a 'person' does not actually exist: when we examine this 'person', what do we find on every level? action. We confuse form with things. A 'person' is none other than an energy-form, just as are ocean waves and whirlpools. There are no such things as ocean waves or whirlpools. What you call a 'person running' is just 'running', just as a mind thinking is only thinking itself, 'mind', being an illusion of consciousness.

For the umpteenth time. At the skull.

Oh, I forgot, consciousness for you is nothing more than a set of chemical reactions. Reductionism at its worst. However this chemical consciousness contains the external world within it's field. Besides that, you have not shown how these chemical reactions actually become consciousness. It's just a wild-haired hypothesis that has no real merit.

What you may not be aware of is that a non-local and universal consciousness that not only contains you entirely, but is within you, permeating every part of your body, and which may, in fact, be responsible for the chemical reactions in your brain you call 'my consciousness'.

Imagine a fish born into the sea. He does not have a clue that he is in the sea, nor that the sea is inside his body. Why? Because from the get-go, he is focused on two things: predators and food. The background of the sea is not apparent to him. Likewise, we are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but from the get-go, we are focused on food and our mother's touch. It's built into our biology, which, in reality, becomes one of the obstacles to becoming conscious of the sea of consciousness we exist within. The other obstacles are the developing sense of a local consciousness we call 'I', all reinforced by other 'I''s who are responsible for our social indoctrination, causing us to think, amongst other things, that we are conscious beings living in a dead, unconscious world with a brain that creates consciousness via chemical reactions. Pretty sterile view of life, and very, very sad indeed.

The source is not inward. True knowledge of reality can only come from outside. You can learn about your own delusions by looking within, but not about what the real world is like.

Nope. The input comes from the outside; but the knowledge about it always comes from within. Now, depending on whether your consciousness has been conditioned by some methodology or not, you will see the input differently. Or, to put it another way, the moment you begin to think about the input as an object, your result will reflect that kind of methodology; you will understand the input in terms of color, shape, behavior, etc., and be able to predict behavior based upon what you find. That is factual knowledge. But if you do not think about the input, but only see, via consciousness, until your seeing pierces the facade of form and other outward characteristics, you will then see it for what it actually is.

If what you say about delusions is true, then the brain is responsible for them, and would apply to science as well.

Because there is also the process of synthesis. In the case of the blind men, they were each looking at too small of a piece. They needed to collaborate and see where each was right and where each was wrong and assemble the pieces. The fact that all got different results is quite good enough to show they were all missing the big picture. That is always a sign more work is required to see what is really going on. And this happens frequently in science.

But what if the scientific method itself cannot yield the desired goal, and can only come up with mountains of information, but actually tells us nothing? In the end, we, as humankind, will know nothing more than when we began. All of the facts and data will amount to nothing. What if there is another pathway which opens the door to the secrets of the universe, but we just don't see it because the discursive grasping mind is always getting in the way, insisting that it's way is the right way?

Who said my mind is without flaw? All human minds are flawed. All sensory experiences are flawed. But that doesn't negate the fact that we can overcome those flaws and figure out what is going on.

If you can figure out what is going on, then the mind that is doing it is without flaw. What mind is that?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the info re: 'correlation', but my understanding is that when one photon was stimulated, something occurred with the other photon, even though many miles apart.

That is a mis-understanding, then. The measurements at the two ends are correlated. That is all. Nothing is made to happen on one end by events at the other.

If, as you say, the angle of measurement is changed for one photon, does that mean different angles of correlation will be present for the other photon?

Changing the angle changes the amount of correlation. But there is nothing at either side that gives information that can be transferred to the other side. Both sides are random. But they are correlated.