A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Again, you are playing word games.

I gave you my answer, so if you are not satisfied with the answer, then that’s your problem, not mine.

You're copping out, gnostic.

I asked you what the impetus was for the scientist's inquiry, and you launched into an explanation of the scientific method. That is not what I asked about.

If you can't answer the question, just say so. It seems to me that you simply have never examined why the scientist launches his inquiry to begin with. You only know what he does afterwards. I am only asking the question to prompt you into thinking about it more deeply. Just wanting me to go away because you don't have an answer does nothing toward understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

You keep telling us, that science is limited, which I actually happened to agree, because it doesn’t work on emotions (eg anger, love, jealousy, etc), behaviours, because not everyone are exactly the same. Some follow similar guidelines, but others are erratic, because human nature have so many variables.

When people paint and draw, it is art, not science. Science is limited in art.

But this thread is about the universe and cosmology, so we have science vs religion/mysticism views. So human emotion and art don’t deal in this areas.

Again, again, you keep saying science is limited, as are logic, reason, analysis, thought/mind, that it cannot go where the transcendent consciousness can. You think consciousness can directly perceive reality better than science or scientists. Hence, aren’t saying mysticism is better than science, is it not so?

You keep telling us that the evidences science have, are nothing more than illusion, not the capital “R” Reality. Do you not think that?

You keep telling me that I hold on to science, theories and their evidences don’t concern with the “real” Reality. That you grasp view beyond that of science. Aren’t you saying mystics are better at understanding reality than science?

This whole quote below, is you ditching science as illusions, and mysticism being better at it than science:

My quote you posted does not say that the mystical view is better than the scientific view; it just says that it is different, and creates different results. Having said that, what I AM saying, is that science has the cart ahead of the horse in the very methodology it employs. It thinks it can understand the nature of reality via dissection and reduction, and this kind of sterile thinking is reinforced via the very methods it employs. The sad thing is, is that science and technology have become, in part, enslaved by government and the monied interests. For example, science and technology have a somewhat lofty view of space exploration, but in reality, the primary objective is the militarization and exploitation of space to serve nationalist interests like security, and private interests for profit.

The approach of science is to try to explain the whole in terms of it's 'parts', as if the universe and nature were some sort of machine, while the mystic attempts to explain all 'things' in terms of the whole. In the eye of the mystic, the multitudinous forms all have a common, singular and underlying Reality, and that Reality is the focus of the mystic; OTOH, the focus of the scientist are the many forms which are the outcome of the underlying Reality. However, recent science is coming closer and closer to what is called The Unified Field as the source of all universes. But the scientist still clings to a subject/object split in his pursuit. He fails to understand that he himself, what he thinks of as a separate, impartial observer, is part and parcel of the the very thing he is attempting to investigate, which he sees as dead unconscious artifact. While the scientist is not wrong or inferior in the eye of the mystic, the mystic understands that the scientist only possesses a limited, skeletal view of something much greater than that which the scientist's mind can conceptualize. So, while it is true that complex chemical reactions occur in the brain, it does not mean that consciousness is 'just so much chemistry', or that we are 'nothing more than meat-bags', as the atheists like to portray the human being as being.

I'm glad you brought up art. There is a certain amount of science in art; in the materials, techniques, color mediums, solvents, brush types, etc. But all the science and technology the artist employs in his art is secondary to the message he is trying to convey. He even puts himself aside, if he is really honest. This is also true in the spiritual experience. Posture, breath control, diet, koans, etc. are conducive to meditation which can culminate in the spiritual experience of Satori, Samadhi, Kundalini, and other transcendent states of consciousness. The Buddha once inquired of his monks whether a raft built to reach a distant shore should be discarded or retained once the other shore was reached, the raft being a metaphor for the teaching which is the vehicle to attainment of the enlightened state. I am a wood finisher, and have tried to teach my apprentices that technology is not in the tools and equipment they use, but in their hand and eye. Science is not the goal, but only a limited tool with limited results. It does not tell the whole story. The astronomer Michio Kaku commented in his frustration over failing to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics that 'nature is smarter than we are'. But this is a good thing, because it turns one's attention back upon the observer, who is attempting to uncover mysteries of the universe with his intellect, which only culminates in paradox. Phd's in Zen centers find themselves sobbing on their meditation mats when they find they can't 'figure it out' with their brain. This is the beginning of wisdom via humility.

 

[gnostic]

Science is not the goal, but only a limited tool with limited results. It does not tell the whole story.

I have said it was, SU.

Science is indeed a tool of acquiring VERIFIABLE knowledge.

The whole point of me, bringing up the Scientific Method and Falsifiability with my earlier reply to you, the importance of verification that the explanations are true, by the mean of observation (eg evidences, experiments, test results, etc).

No knowledge of the natural world are considered true, until you have mean of testing them, and it succeed in testing or validating them.

But...

(A) ...if the experiments failed or go against the explanation/prediction, repeatedly,

or (B) if the evidences refute the explanation/prediction,

or (C) if the explanation/prediction is untestable,​

...then, there the explanation/prediction are not probable.

Thats how scientists determine which knowledge is factual and which isn’t.

Quietly frankly, I have no interests in your conspiracy theory about the evil governments or corporations, or the mad scientists. I am only interested in the science.

There are things that I haven’t accepted yet, such as the numbers of fields in theoretical physics, like String Theory, M-Theory, Multiverse, the Big Crunch, the Big Bounce, the eternal universe, etc, because they might have the complex mathematical equations (proofs) to prove each one, but in each one, they lacked the necessary evidences to verify them.

I preferred knowledge with verification through observation, evidences or experiments, not your flimsy claims of transcendent consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I have said it was, SU.

Science is indeed a tool of acquiring VERIFIABLE knowledge.

The whole point of me, bringing up the Scientific Method and Falsifiability with my earlier reply to you, the importance of verification that the explanations are true, by the means of observation (eg evidences, experiments, test results, etc).

The knowledge you refer to, ie; 'factual knowledge', is only verifiable via the scientific method. That in no way means there does not exist other kinds of knowledge that science cannot test via it's methodology, does it? Science can ONLY test for phenomena that is detectable via sensory awareness, or via extensions of sensory awareness, such as telescopes or Geiger counters, for example. This factual knowledge is the result of the accumulation of facts and data about the phenomenal world. It can tell us how this world behaves and then predict it's behavior, but it cannot tell us what it actually IS. True science would not say that other kinds of knowledge do not exist; it would only say that it cannot test for them. But you, who value science so highly, are saying that such other knowledge is just a belief, just because you cannot test for it with science. Is that logical? Is that scientific? No. A real scientist with an open mind would never say such a thing. You are misrepresenting the scientific method by doing so.

No knowledge of the natural world are considered true, until you have mean of testing them, and it succeed in testing or validating them.

So the Sun does not exist until you can test for it?

But...

(A) ...if the experiments failed or go against the explanation/prediction, repeatedly,

or (B) if the evidences refute the explanation/prediction,

or (C) if the explanation/prediction is untestable,​

...then, there the explanation/prediction are not probable.

Thats how scientists determine which knowledge is factual and which isn’t.

However, today's scientific theories that have been determined via 'facts' sometimes turn out to be false when more facts illuminate the situation:

" We create a certain theory and then there is the honeymoon with the theory. For a few years things go perfectly well. Then reality asserts itself. Reality brings up a few things and the theory gets into difficulty because we had excluded a few facts. Those facts will protest, they will sabotage your theory, they will assert themselves. In the eighteenth century science was absolutely certain, now it is certain no more. Now a new theory has come: the theory of uncertainty.

Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason."
Osho

It's an age-old problem. The scientist, for some strange reason, thinks he can determine the nature of the whole by dissecting it and reducing it to what he thinks are it's parts, and then analyzing it's parts. Someday, he thinks, he will have accumulated enough facts and data to come to an overwhelming conclusion to say: "Ah-HA! So THAT'S it! I knew it all along...."

Quietly frankly, I have no interests in your conspiracy theory about the evil governments or corporations, or the mad scientists. I am only interested in the science.

Conspiracy theory? Where have you been? Ever hear of Star Wars?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-ever/

There are things that I haven’t accepted yet, such as the numbers of fields in theoretical physics, like String Theory, M-Theory, Multiverse, the Big Crunch, the Big Bounce, the eternal universe, etc, because they might have the complex mathematical equations (proofs) to prove each one, but in each one, they lacked the necessary evidences to verify them.

I preferred knowledge with verification through observation, evidences or experiments......

Right, and until you can prove your existence, via evidence and testing via 'complex mathematical equations' (OOOOH!), you don't exist., but that's probably because you never existed to begin with.

 

[godnotgod]

Science is indeed a tool of acquiring VERIFIABLE knowledge.

The whole point of me, bringing up the Scientific Method and Falsifiability with my earlier reply to you, the importance of verification that the explanations are true, by the mean of observation (eg evidences, experiments, test results, etc).

No knowledge of the natural world are considered true, until you have mean of testing them, and it succeed in testing or validating them.

I preferred knowledge with verification through observation, evidences or experiments, not your flimsy claims of transcendent consciousness.

Is that so?

Well, below is a graph which proves that the test subjects in the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum SCIENTIFIC experiment exhibited brain non-local communication, wherein the EEG patterns were transferred from Subject A to Subject B non-locally, while the subjects were completely isolated one from the other. You say you put your faith in scientific fact. This is scientific fact. So you accept it, correct?

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Tiapan]

The earth spins, the other planets and moons spin, the sun spins, stars spin, galaxies spin, the universe spins.
Canadian and russian calculations have estimated the current rotational rate of the universe.
It is tiny, measured in only metres per second.

Hubble demonstrated the universe is expanding.
The estimated age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

So in earlier times the universe was smaller, but also spinning faster,
(law of conservation of angular momentum eg an ice-skater spinning who closes and opens her arms, spins faster and slower)

If we extrapolate back 13.7 billion years the universe was very small but spinning incredibly fast.
At some point the matter on the outer edge of this tiny spinning universe would approach the speed of light.
There is an axiom in physics that says matter cannot exceed the speed of light. It is a finite limit.

This would indicate the universe could only shrink to a certain size before either the Law of conservation of angular momentum or the Law of the Speed of Light Limit would be violated.
By my calculations that figure is about 30,000kms in diameter.

So did this tiny energetic proto-universe pop out of nothing?
Maybe, but if so, how do you explain the massive angular momentum suddenly appearing?

The only logical conclusion I can make is that this titanic angular momentum has come from a previous imploding spinning universe in an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction over billions of years with no beginning or end.

Cheers

 

[Tiapan]

Is that so?

Well, below is a graph which proves that the test subjects in the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum SCIENTIFIC experiment exhibited brain non-local communication, wherein the EEG patterns were transferred from Subject A to Subject B non-locally, while the subjects were completely isolated one from the other. You say you put your faith in scientific fact. This is scientific fact. So you accept it, correct?

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

interesting has the experiment been replicated else where, what was the sample set, was there any music playing in the distance?
Cheers

 

[godnotgod]

interesting has the experiment been replicated else where, what was the sample set, was there any music playing in the distance?
Cheers

Yes, the experiment has been replicated with modifications and refinements.
No music as far as I know.
Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper published in Physics Essays, 1994 for your examination:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

I can find references to other versions of this experiment, if you wish.

And here is the video Gnostic has come to despise, LOL, describing the experiment by a high school teacher:

 

[gnostic]

Is that so?

Well, below is a graph which proves that the test subjects in the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum SCIENTIFIC experiment exhibited brain non-local communication, wherein the EEG patterns were transferred from Subject A to Subject B non-locally, while the subjects were completely isolated one from the other. You say you put your faith in scientific fact. This is scientific fact. So you accept it, correct?

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

godnotgod...do you know of any scientists, who are not involve in parapsychology?

Even if a person has background, the qualification and experience in science, but get into parapsychology, then he (or she) is no longer working in science.

As I said before some times ago in this thread, parapsychology isn’t science. Nor is any occultism.

This Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum whom you are trying to impress me, is another quack, involving himself in telepathy and shamanism.

As Tiapan said, have any real scientists, like neuro-specialists can repeat Jacobo’s experiments.

You forget that it is only true science, if the experiments can be repeated.

And I don’t accept science with faith, but from evidences. I have not had faith in quite sometimes.

Call it what you will...nonlocality communication, telepathy or remote viewing, all of which are pseudoscience.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod...do you know of any scientists, who are not involve in parapsychology?

Even if a person has background, the qualification and experience in science, but get into parapsychology, then he (or she) is no longer working in science.

As I said before some times ago in this thread, parapsychology isn’t science. Nor is any occultism.

This Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum whom you are trying to impress me, is another quack, involving himself in telepathy and shamanism.

You create a strawman by first labeling the experiment as 'parapsychology', and then proceed to knock it down. Is that a scientific or logical approach? It is quite ignorant to associate 'quack' with telepathy and shamanism, when you know squat about either. You're just mouthing off your biases with a closed mind. 'Thienthe' has become a religion for you.

If scientific methods are utilized in testing for nonlocality, is that parapsychology, or is it science? You are the one who defined 'the scientific method', which was employed in this experiment, but you want to deny that it is science. Is the scientific method valid for some types of subject material, and invalid for others, depending on what your beliefs are?

Please note that the world-famous physicist, Amit Goswami, who wrote a textbook on Quantum Physics, was instrumental in setting up the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment. His name is printed at the top of the peer-reviewed paper in the Physics Essays .pdf document I provided, if you want to take a look. Here is what he said about the experiment and how it was set up:

"Quantum physics, besides discontinuity, gives us another amazing principle to operate with—non-locality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/s). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian thinking precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated through quantum nonlocality. The Physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators demonstrated this in 1982. The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is—a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time.

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signal less, nonlocal) communication. After twenty minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unifying intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an “evoked potential” is extracted with the help of a computer upon subtracting the noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject’s brain onto the EEG of this subject which now gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signal-less communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential.

The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important—nonlocality of consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one brain can lead to the choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner’s brain? The neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in London has replicated the experiment since then."

The Scientific Evidence for God Is Already Here, So What Are You Doing About It? - Center for Quantum Activism

Life Beyond Death

As Tiapan said, have any real scientists, like neuro-specialists can repeat Jacobo’s experiments.

You forget that it is only true science, if the experiments can be repeated.

See above, in red.

Here is an article on the topic of brain nonlocality, with a good number of references to experiments similar to that of Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum. There are a good number of others as well.

http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(12)00219-4/fulltext#back-bib19

And I don’t accept science with faith, but from evidences.

Is the graph below evidence, if not proof?

I have not had faith in quite sometimes.

You have faith in the 'scientific method'.

You have faith, that in the next moment, you will draw breath.

Call it what you will...nonlocality communication, telepathy or remote viewing, all of which are pseudoscience.

Is that what The Church told Copernicus when he presented the heliocentric model of the solar system?

I have no interest in impressing you; I simply want to point out that science is not the only valid form of knowledge, and that it is valid only within a very narrow scope, but in context of Reality itself, takes on a very different appearance. It's like going from black and white to living color.

 

[gnostic]

You create a strawman by first labeling the experiment as 'parapsychology', and then proceed to knock it down. Is that a scientific or logical approach? It is quite ignorant to associate 'quack' with telepathy and shamanism, when you know squat about either. You're just mouthing off your biases with a closed mind. 'Thienthe' has become a religion for you.

You know nothing about what I think or what I believe.

I am not associating shamanism as quack, but people (the so-called scientists) who think they can use science to verify shamanism to be quacks. I have absolutely no problem with shamanism from an anthropological position.

I have the highest respect for anthropologists studying and researching shamanism, because it is part of learning the cultural history where shamanism are practiced.

However, Jacobo isn’t an anthropologist. He is a deluded psychologist, involved in pseudoscience parapsychology.

 

[godnotgod]

You know nothing about what I think or what I believe.

I am not associating shamanism as quack, but people (the so-called scientists) who think they can use science to verify shamanism to be quacks. I have absolutely no problem with shamanism from an anthropological position.

I have the highest respect for anthropologists studying and researching shamanism, because it is part of learning the cultural history where shamanism are practiced.

However, Jacobo isn’t an anthropologist. He is a deluded psychologist, involved in pseudoscience parapsychology.

Why do you criticize those scientists who use legitimate scientific methodology to investigate shamanism and other areas of the mind, when you are the one who keeps demanding evidence to show that these same areas are authentic? It would seem to me that you would encourage such investigation and testing wholeheartedly. If a legitimate scientist approaches these areas with the tools of science, then why do they suddenly become quacks? It seems you have already made up your mind and closed the door because you harbor preconceived biases, and cling to science as your security blanket for safety.

I have shown you evidence and proof via the graph of brain activity from 2 subjects, one superimposed over the other showing strikingly similar, almost identical, EEG patterns, resulting from a scientifically controlled experiment, executed over 100 times. The general details of the experiment has been described to you. A recognized, bona fide physicist was instrumental in setting up the experiment. It has been published in a peer reviewed journal, which I provided. It has been replicated. Variations of it have been executed by others. I have provided references. Do you still deny what the experiment proves, that consciousness is non-local? If 'yes', then you approve of science only when it agrees with your opinions about what science is about, and disapprove when it is applied to things you have biases about, and are completely ignorant of. In fact, you denigrate the very thing you claim to honor. You respect science only insofar as it agrees with your world view, which is one of extreme skepticism, but your view is a hard, brittle view of reality, which does not even qualify as intellectual, because your logic is so terribly flawed, while you have closed the door on the intuitive mind, a shame, really, in light of the fact that you are Asian, as I understand it, and are in complete denial of your own rich cultural treasures. The more and more I see of your posts, the more I am convinced that the problem is one of metaphysical anxiety, where you have simply made a trade-off, going from the extreme of religious belief to that of hard-core materialism. This is an age old problem. The Buddha noted this controversy during his life, and realized both were extreme views, and so rejected both, going on from there to realize his own Enlightenment.

Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum: Biography
Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum was born in Mexico City in 1946. Grinberg decided to study the human mind when he was 12 years old, after his mother died from a stroke. He studied psychology at the Science Faculty of UNAM. In 1970, he went to New York City to study psychophysiology at the Brain Research Institute. He earned a Ph.D. at the E. Roy John Laboratory.

When he went back to Mexico, he founded a laboratory of psychophysiology at the Universidad Anáhuac. He installed another laboratory of this kind in UNAM in the late 1970’s. He founded the Instituto Nacional para el Estudio de la Conciencia (INPEC) in 1987, financed by UNAM and CONACYT. Jacobo published several of his books through INPEC. Grinberg wrote more than 50 books about brain activity, witchcraft, shamanism, telepathy, and meditation.

Jacobo tended to put his reputation as a scientist in danger when he tried to use the scientific method in shamanism studies. He combined two in his professional work, always trying to understand the “magic world”.

The Sintergy Theory
Grinberg's sintergy theory states that there is a continuous space of energy and the common human can only perceive a part of it. The result of this process is what everyone understand as "reality". This theory is supported by quantum physics and physiology laws. This theory tries to answer the question of the creation of the experience. It is based in years of brain experiments and conscience studies. The book where it is mentioned, "El Cerebro Consciente", was translated into seven languages.

Jacobo Grinberg - Wikipedia

Doesn't sound like a quack to me.

 

[godnotgod]

You claimed there is an influence from one side to the other. There is not. Both sides are random. That doesn't change. Both sides always have identical polarization (because of the way the entanglement is done). That never changes. The correlation is simply that of two identically polarized photons going through filters that are differently oriented.

I'm sorry, but there is just too much contradictory information that points to the idea that if you shoot two entangled electrons out of a single source in opposite directions, and then change the direction of spin on one of them, regardless of how distant they are, the other simultaneously changes direction as well. That is non-locality. IOW, there is a change on the other end when this end is stimulated in some way, contrary to your position that there is 'no influence from one side to the other'. This is why Einstein was so taken aback, and what he described as being 'spooky ACTION at a distance'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, the experiment has been replicated with modifications and refinements.
No music as far as I know.
Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper published in Physics Essays, 1994 for your examination:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

I can find references to other versions of this experiment, if you wish.

And here is the video Gnostic has come to despise, LOL, describing the experiment by a high school teacher:

Where has this paper been published? I can't find any references to it in PubMed, PubPsych or ArXiv. So far, I can only see that it was included in "Physics Essays" in 1994, but that journal's reputation is somewhat suspect at best.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ Physics Essays volume 7, number 4, 1994 About the Journal - Physics Essays Publication

 

[ImmortalFlame]

^ Physics Essays volume 7, number 4, 1994 About the Journal - Physics Essays Publication

Like I said, they have a reputation for publishing off-the-wall articles with little actual review or citation. I'm wondering if there are any other journals the findings were published in, or any repetitions of the experiment with the same results.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry, but there is just too much contradictory information that points to the idea that if you shoot two entangled electrons out of a single source in opposite directions, and then change the direction of spin on one of them, regardless of how distant they are, the other simultaneously changes direction as well. That is non-locality. IOW, there is a change on the other end when this end is stimulated in some way, contrary to your position that there is 'no influence from one side to the other'. This is why Einstein was so taken aback, and what he described as being 'spooky ACTION at a distance'.

No, the other doesn't *change* direction of spin. The *measurement* of one determines the spin of both.

 

[godnotgod]

No, the other doesn't *change* direction of spin. The *measurement* of one determines the spin of both.

OK, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There is a body of information on the net contradicting your position.

If what you say is true, no one would be in amazement at the findings.

Actually, you are changing the meaning of what I said. I did not say that 'the other changes direction of spin';, which implies that they spin in opposite directions. I said that, when you change the direction of spin on one, 'the other simultaneously changes direction as well.'

 

[godnotgod]

Like I said, they have a reputation for publishing off-the-wall articles with little actual review or citation. I'm wondering if there are any other journals the findings were published in, or any repetitions of the experiment with the same results.

Amit Goswami, the now famous Quantum physicist, was part of the original Jacobo Grinberg set of experiments, and in this article:

The Scientific Evidence for God Is Already Here, So What Are You Doing About It? - Center for Quantum Activism

tells us that:

"The neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in London has replicated the experiment since then."

...but I don't have the reference to his publication at the moment. You will need to research it if you want authentication. However, his confirmation of the Jacobo experiments is mentioned by others as well.

...and, in this article:

http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(12)00219-4/fulltext#back-bib19

...you will find references to a good number of related publications for this kind of testing, along with the original Jacobo .pdf document you can download and read. Just scroll down to the bottom of the article. There are others besides these, and I can find them if you want more.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Amit Goswami, the now famous Quantum physicist, was part of the original Jacobo Grinberg set of experiments, and in this article:

The Scientific Evidence for God Is Already Here, So What Are You Doing About It? - Center for Quantum Activism

tells us that:

"The neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in London has replicated the experiment since then."

...but I don't have the reference to his publication at the moment.

So, why do you believe it?

You will need to research it if you want authentication. However, his confirmation of the Jacobo experiments is mentioned by others as well.

...and, in this article:

http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(12)00219-4/fulltext#back-bib19

...you will find references to a good number of related publications related to this kind of testing, along with the original Jacobo .pdf document you can download and read. Just scroll down to the bottom of the article. There are others besides these, and I can find them if you want more.

I asked for peer-reviewed scientific journals this specific paper was published in. You said it was. So what are the journals?