A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

So you accept it because you feel it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs?

The spiritual experience is not a set of beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. The researcher's credentials are always considered when examining their research, and in this case, Mr. Zylberbaum has sufficient credentials to establish him as a bona fide researcher. Add to this the fact that a pretty renowned Quantum physicist, Amit Goswami, lent HIS credentials and title to the experiments lends even more credibility to the paper, not to mention the actual procedures of the experiment themselves.

And the results of these experiments have been replicated where?

from the Wikipedia article you referenced:

The journal was abstracted in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015.[1] After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new edition of the Web of Science.[2]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

• Chemical Abstracts Service
• China National Knowledge Infrastructure
• Scopus

That doesn't address what I asked.

Here's a lead for you:

Spiritual Science

This is just a book that mentions of the paper. Where is the repetition of the experiment?

and here:

How Quantum Activism Can Save Civilization

Also just a book that mentions the paper. Where is the actual corroboration you said existed?

You might also be interested in this content:

journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/download/154/119

This is a pseudo-science publication masquerading as peer-reviewed science. It isn't even listed in the SJR.

Again, the mainstream scientific community generally ignores and/or avoids this type of content as they consider it to be in the realm of pseudoscience, and don't want anything to do with it. They consider association with such content to be putting their careers at risk.

That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true. If someone genuinely did these experiments and could reliably reproduce these results, and this had been done repeatedly, as you assert, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. There is no massive, scientific conspiracy to suppress this stuff, and there would be absolutely no reason to whatsoever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The spiritual experience is not a set of beliefs.

A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.

You've admitted bias.

 

[gnostic]

I don’t think you understand the concept of peer-review, godnotgod.

Being peer-reviewed, is supposed to be independent review of the experiments by the peers, peers as in scientists that of the same fields or related fields.

So the scientist in question can submit for evaluate his works, not submitted his own works for publication.

The webpages that you have quoted seemed to indicate that Grinberg self-published his “findings” at Physics Essays, not have them actually reviewed by peers.

"In 1994, Grinberg came up with an even more compelling way to demonstrate this effect. Most of the experiment was the same–two people meditated together for twenty minutes and then went into separate, shielded rooms. Now, however, he flashed bright lights in one participant’s eyes–causing them to expeience sudden shocks. Each time he ran the experiment, one hundred different flashes of light were given at random. Twenty-five percent of the time when he flashed the light in one person’s eyes, the other person had a very similar brainwave “shock”–at the exact same time. Grinberg’s control subjects did not show any such connections. This was a stunning discovery–and the results were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. (9)"

Consciousness, Eternity and Universal Mind
*****

"Grinberg published these results in Physics Essays, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal. And though this evidence was painstakingly collected in more than fifty experiments over a five-year period, he received a great deal of criticism."

http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/

And these two links, go on about to say Physics Essays is a “highly respected” and “prestigious” peer review journal.

The question is why do these blogs or webpages feel the need to advertised how prestigious and respected this journal is? Both sounds like self-promotions of both Grinberg and Physics Essays, but light in details of actual evidences.

As ImmortalFlame keep repeatedly requesting from you, where are “many” the independent replications of the experiments of Grinberg?

So far, you have mentioned only one person had replicated Grinberg’s test results - Peter Fenwick.

However, there is one reference to the experiment by Peter Fenwick, who has apparently replicated the original Jacobo experiments. I do not currently have any link to a peer-reviewed essay of the experiment by Mr. Fenwick. You will need to do some footwork on your own if you want to go fetch it.

You, yourself, admitted that you could not find Fenwick’s experiment, just that it is referenced somewhere.

That’s hardly verification of Grinberg’s claim, if you cannot provide actual peer to analyse, evaluate and review either Grinberg’s works or that of his peers (eg Fenwick).

All you have done is given ImmortalFlame a run-around, and expect IF to chase it.

And the graph you posted up to me, and the same one again to ImmortalFlame.

Some graphs, the same ones you keep repeated posted up, is just ONE proof, which hardly amounted to showing the results of 50 or so experiments. It is just analysis of ONE experiment, not 50.

And as ImmortalFlame pointed out, anyone can make graphs...

Anyone can make a graph of whatever they want. Whether it's actually factual or based on anything real is what really matters. Where is your evidence that these graphs are credible?

...but where are the many evidences to claim to exist.but where are the many evidences to claim to exist?

 

[gnostic]

Or, mainstream scientists simply don't think that such papers are worthy of serious consideration. The lack of ground-breaking research here is pretty clear. If something truly interesting cropped up, other scientists would rush to the idea, en masse. That they are not taken in by this sort of research is telling.

That just it, godnotgod can only mention two other scientists involved with Grinberg and his so-called experiments: Amit Goswami and Peter Fenwick.

And these two are just as questionable as Grinberg.

Goswami being personally involved in Grinberg’s original experiments, hardly qualified as independent source.

And godnotgod failing to produce Fenwick’s replicated test results that supposedly should verify Grinberg’s experiment, turn out to be nothing more than a nonexistent dud.

Not to mention that both Goswami and Fenwick have published works that many have criticised for being pseudoscience, hardly inspired me to consider any of them to be unbiased, since both believe in this consciousness being possible to exist outside of man’s brain and sensory perceptions.

 

[gnostic]

A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.

That’s what I have been trying to tell godnotgod for weeks.

But he seemed to think transcendent consciousness can apprehend the capital “R” Reality directly, that are outside of belief and outside of ordinary sensory perceptions, logic and evidences.

All that is a matter of belief, but he seemed to think he is outside of that.

He cannot be reasoned with, because his own belief in his superpower have clouded his judgment.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Not useful? I guess ALL of solid state physics, including what we know about semi-conductors isn't very useful. I guess what we know about chemical bonding isn't useful. Or about how light interacts with matter, or nuclear physics, or specific heats, etc, etc, etc.

QM is just a more accurate way of measuring all those phenomena, right?

Let me just ask one question based on all the disinformation and fluff. (or maybe the truth, i dunno)

Say i "prepared" an entangled pair of electrons at my lab and one of them is taken to your lab.
I call you saying my electron i just measured with a up spin. You now have it's entangled partner, and you reply that you are now measuring your electron showing a down spin at your lab across town. (Am i ok so far?)

What will You see happen to your electron if I change the spin of my electron to down while you are simultaneously and continuously watching your electron during the moment i change the spin of my electron?

 

[gnostic]

That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true.

Which is what he has been doing.

He seemed to think Goswami and Grinberg are untouchable because of their credentials as scientists.

But scientists are not beyond approach.

Everyone of them, geniuses or not, revolutionary or not, have to challenged, have to be questioned. Their works have to be tested, repeatedly.

People challenged Einstein, Hawking and Penrose all the times, but none of them ever cry conspiracy. But anyone who dared challenge godnotgod’s favorite scientists are considered conspiracy theorists.

As YmirGF pointed out, if the works of Grinberg and Goswami are so revolutionary, why are there many more scientists flocking to their banners about transcendent consciousness?

Why aren’t the scientific community flooded with empirical evidences that verified and validated their works?

I barely hear a whimper from the scientific community that any of their works proven to be groundbreaking. Until godnotgod brought up their names, I would have never known that they existed.

And yet, godnotgod sound the chorus about Goswami being renowned or foremost quantum physicist, and yet I know nothing of him, until godnotgod kept throwing superfluous to his name around as if it was a talisman.

If Goswami is as foremost in the Quantum Physics circles, as gng have claimed, then why have so little people in that circle heard of him?

 

[godnotgod]

Burden of proof is with you. Prove that they were submitted for peer review and have been replicated by other scientists.

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed publication. JGZ submitted his paper to PE for publication, and in doing so, automatically exposes it to peer review. The paper itself is proof, from his POV, since it is the result of SCIENTIFIC investigation and testing in accordance with scientific principles and procedures. So the ball is in YOUR court, not his or mine, in terms of any 'burden of proof'. If you have examined the methodology employed, and find it erroneous or flawed in some way, then you are at liberty to disprove what he considers his proof. But that is not what you are doing; you are attacking the publication he submitted his paper to.

I have now provided the names of 4 researchers who are reported to have replicated and authenticated the experiment. Personally, I have no need to investigate further, since my spiritual experience is the standard, and not an experiment that is only a shadow of, it being for those who need such things to be convinced. But I think you are taking things much too far, and that is simply because, no matter what evidence is presented, you will demand even more evidence, due to your bias against such content as being authentic in the first place.

So if YOU want validation, be my guest. The ball is in YOUR court, as well as the burden of proof. Validation for me is not the experiment, but the spiritual experience itself. The experiment is just an extra. And, BTW, that is how mystics see what is coming about today in science as well; they don't NEED science to validate what they already know to be the case. They already KNOW that consciousness is non-local and universal in nature. Only those who continue to be attached to Identification need proof, which, when presented to them right under their very noses, dismiss it as invalid. "Maybe something is wrong with the experiment", or "the publication it was submitted to is not credible, and full of pseudo-science", etc, and on and on blah blah blah.

 

[godnotgod]

The point is that they have utterly failed to come up with anything even remotely close to being ground-breaking in their chase down this rabbit hole. There is no argument that Penrose, in particular, is not a brilliant scientist, but even his brilliant mind has not been able to make much progress into this area of speculation. Until that happens people will remain skeptical of their works.

Excuse me, but a set of experiments which show non local transference of brain EEG's is absolutely ground-breaking, if not incredible, at least in the field of science. In the world of spirituality, this has been going on since Day One.

It's because of biased skepticism that there is seemingly not much progress in this area. But if you have been paying attention to what is going on from the inside, you will have noted a virtual explosion of information. It's just that the outside world pooh poohs such things as 'fringe', or 'pseudoscience', and once labeled as such, when one associates oneself with it, he too becomes a wierdo, a quack, an oddball, a crackpot, or some kind of nut-job, thereby reinforcing their bias, which dictates to them that such things are simply not possible. Bottom line is that this system of reinforcement just keeps people ignorant and bogged down in the state of Identification, and the people so conditioned via this kind of limited mentality gang up as a group to denigrate and discredit anyone who goes against the accepted grain.

But we know better than that, don't we, mouse?

 

[YmirGF]

But we know better than that, don't we, mouse?

That you consider it ground-breaking is one thing. What counts is if other scientists consider it the be ground-breaking. You make it sound like some kind of global conspiracy against the poor wretches by an elite who doesn't want their world rocked. That's ridiculous. If other scientist thought there was something to it all they would take this work VERY seriously.

 

[godnotgod]

And the results of these experiments have been replicated where?


That doesn't address what I asked.



This is just a book that mentions of the paper. Where is the repetition of the experiment?


Also just a book that mentions the paper. Where is the actual corroboration you said existed?

It's your job to go fetch, if you need stinking badges. I don't need to go any further, so have no interest in pursuing the matter. I provided the information for you to find out more. So avail thyself.

This is a pseudo-science publication masquerading as peer-reviewed science. It isn't even listed in the SJR.

I don't care. You can call it what you wish. The reason I provided it to you is so you can have exposure to expanded information from Jacobo himself. Did you bother to read the content, in spite of your obvious bias?

That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true. If someone genuinely did these experiments and could reliably reproduce these results, and this had been done repeatedly, as you assert, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. There is no massive, scientific conspiracy to suppress this stuff, and there would be absolutely no reason to whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there is, but it is hard-wired into the mainstream culture, and not in some officially sanctioned or deliberately organized program or agenda. Dismissing and/or ignoring it is just as effective as suppression. Why can't you get that there exists a mentality which has an automatic knee-jerk reaction to such content and others associated with such content....like yours, for example?

Look here, this is not some pet idea I entertain. It's just a tidbit I use to talk to science types, atheists, and intellectuals about something with which they can use to get a handle on about something they otherwise would not accept. But so far, you have not addressed the actual content of the experiment; instead you attack the messenger and HIS messenger.

Have you considered that only a handful of researchers would be interested or have the testicular fortitude to pursue replication, the rest not wanting to have anything to do with it? You know, the moment they become involved with any aspect of it in any serious way, they become targets of the other mainstreamers. It's like quicksand to them.

 

[godnotgod]

That you consider it ground-breaking is one thing. What counts is if other scientists consider it the be ground-breaking. You make it sound like some kind of global conspiracy against the poor wretches by an elite who doesn't want their world rocked. That's ridiculous. If other scientist thought there was something to it all they would take this work VERY seriously.

BS. See my post just above.

I consider it ground-breaking only from the POV of science. From the spiritual POV, it is ordinary reality; just the way things are. What do you suppose the Buddha experienced? Mere self-improvement? s**t ! It's not ground-breaking to mainstream science because they don't take it seriously to begin with ! They have already made up their minds that it is nothing more than 'pseudoscience', like you, gnostic, IF, and others. So your attitude is that it is just so much fabricated crap, clothed as authentic science, and you and the others cannot get beyond that point until you experience a transformation of your own consciousness in which you come to realize, via direct experience, that what you thought to be the case, is actually NOT the case. But you and they can label it 'crap' all you like. It just so happens that, in this case, we have an authentic scientific experiment executed by researchers with the proper credentials, with proof of what they have found. If you cannot accept that, you have no business talking to me about real science vis a vis pseudoscience. But if you have found flaws in the experiments themselves, by all means, dearie: come forth here under the hot lights, out of the shadows, and present your evidence, as you expect me to present mine.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really. It means it may have credible articles in it.


In the fact that I can't find a single scrap of evidence of anyone replicating their findings and no citation of the paper from anywhere, and the fact that it was only publishes in a journal known for publishing extremely fringe ideas and having a very little citation or credible standing among physics journals.

You have repeatedly stated that these findings were replicated elsewhere. Where were they replicated and what were their results?

I have already provided 4 sources for replication, and many other references regarding this topic. I am afraid you will just have to do the footwork to find the peer reviewed papers they are associated with. Not my job, but as time allows, will take a look.

My question was where do you see any, 'pseudo-science' being employed in the Jacobo Grinberg experiments, which has zilch to do with whether you can find any 'scrap of evidence' externally about the experiments.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong places.

 

[godnotgod]

A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.

You've admitted bias.

You're fabricating sh*t here.

You accidentally fall into a mountain lake. You immediately KNOW the water to be cold; you don't BELIEVE that something was the experience of coldness.

Stop making things up. I never said that I had prior beliefs that influenced blah blah blah. What I said is that my direct experience of Reality is realization that consciousness is nonlocal, and that the research paper only is an addition to that realization, but is not necessary to that realization. Realization has nothing to do with any set of beliefs about what is; it is simply the realization of what is, without thought, which is the basis of belief.

 

[osgart]

naturalism is a preconceived belief like any other. and mainstream science is dead set against a natural occuring intelligent agent being responsible for life.

the prebiotic attempt to create enzymes in a laboratory, is elaborately intelligently done, and the enzyme created is nowhere near the efficiency and function of life giving enzymes.

why do people vehemently attack religion in a religious forum?

naturalism proponents are playing the role of God, and anybody who isn't a naturalist is deemed unfit to live. it's a hateful position.

There are plenty of productive people whom aren't naturalists and some of them are scientists.

perhaps we should have two separate societies in America.

all people in this country have rights, and if you don't like that, move to russia, or china, and see if they treat you better.

the internet is filled with religious haters.

while I am not of any religion myself, I fully support freedom of religion, and freedom from religion equally and civil.

yet it's when naturalism and or a particular religion demand conformity, or else, than that is tyranny, and very anti american.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed publication. JGZ submitted his paper to PE for publication, and in doing so, automatically exposes it to peer review. The paper itself is proof, from his POV, since it is the result of SCIENTIFIC investigation and testing in accordance with scientific principles and procedures. So the ball is in YOUR court, not his or mine, in terms of any 'burden of proof'. If you have examined the methodology employed, and find it erroneous or flawed in some way, then you are at liberty to disprove what he considers his proof. But that is not what you are doing; you are attacking the publication he submitted his paper to.

The purpose of peer review is for other scientists in the same field to evaluate the work and test the methodology for themselves and determine if the paper is actually based on facts or not. To simply say "the paper was submitted for peer review, therefore it is proof" misses the entire point of peer review, to say nothing of exactly which "peers" are reviewing it, or the validity of the publication it was published in. If it has been seriously peer reviewed then where are the other scientists who examined and replicated the methods used in the paper and where are their results? So far, the only indication I've received that this paper was evaluated at all was from a link you posted that said the paper was "highly criticised". Where is the independent evaluation of their methods and where is the response?

I have now provided the names of 4 researchers who are reported to have replicated and authenticated the experiment.

And yet you haven't presented any of their papers or actual work on the subject, despite the fact that you said you would. Where is it?

Personally, I have no need to investigate further, since my spiritual experience is the standard, and not an experiment that is only a shadow of, it being for those who need such things to be convinced. But I think you are taking things much too far, and that is simply because, no matter what evidence is presented, you will demand even more evidence, due to your bias against such content as being authentic in the first place.

So, to you, it's enough to simply accept what people tell you provided what they tell you confirms what you already believe? You're not even willing to show any level of skepticism at that point?

So if YOU want validation, be my guest. The ball is in YOUR court, as well as the burden of proof.

No, it is not.

You are the one who presented the paper and claimed it was peer reviewed, that its results were replicated, and that it constitutes proof. I am asking you to justify these positions with evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

Validation for me is not the experiment, but the spiritual experience itself. The experiment is just an extra.

So the results of the experiment are irrelevant because you believe what you want to believe anyway?

And, BTW, that is how mystics see what is coming about today in science as well; they don't NEED science to validate what they already know to be the case. They already KNOW that consciousness is non-local and universal in nature. Only those who continue to be attached to Identification need proof, which, when presented to them right under their very noses, dismiss it as invalid. "Maybe something is wrong with the experiment", or "the publication it was submitted to is not credible, and full of pseudo-science", etc, and on and on blah blah blah.

So you admit that this is all psuedo-scientific nonsense and you're just confirmed your preconceived bias because you desperately feel a need to validate your prior conceptions and what you want to believe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's your job to go fetch, if you need stinking badges. I don't need to go any further, so have no interest in pursuing the matter. I provided the information for you to find out more. So avail thyself.

You literally wrote just two pages ago that you would provide corroboration if requested, and now you're completely changing your mind the moment someone actually asks and telling us that it's OUR job to do YOUR work supporting your own claim.

Do you honestly not see how bad this makes you look?

I don't care. You can call it what you wish. The reason I provided it to you is so you can have exposure to expanded information from Jacobo himself. Did you bother to read the content, in spite of your obvious bias?

Careful about throwing those stones. You've already admitted to having a bias.

Unfortunately, there is, but it is hard-wired into the mainstream culture, and not in some officially sanctioned or deliberately organized program or agenda. Dismissing and/or ignoring it is just as effective as suppression. Why can't you get that there exists a mentality which has an automatic knee-jerk reaction to such content and others associated with such content....like yours, for example?

You mean the "knee-jerk reaction" of "asking someone to provide things they absolutely said they would provide"? Yes, absolutely, clearly I am engaged in some sort of elaborate conspiracy against you. Only the Illuminati could concoct the wicked scheme of asking you for things you said you would give if asked, but sadly we had not expected your cunning strategy of totally not being able to provide the things you said you could provide, and now you have made us look foolish and exposed our evil scheme by... Pointlessly withholding information from us?

Look here, this is not some pet idea I entertain. It's just a tidbit I use to talk to science types, atheists, and intellectuals about something with which they can use to get a handle on about something they otherwise would not accept. But so far, you have not addressed the actual content of the experiment; instead you attack the messenger and HIS messenger.

I don't have to attack the content of the experiment if the experiment has no valid content. If nobody has actually reviewed this paper or replicated it's results, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume it is true. The exact same thing can be said about any paper of any kind submitted for any purpose - without independent verification, I have no idea if the experiment, methodology or results are valid.

Have you considered that only a handful of researchers would be interested or have the testicular fortitude to pursue replication, the rest not wanting to have anything to do with it? You know, the moment they become involved with any aspect of it in any serious way, they become targets of the other mainstreamers. It's like quicksand to them.

No, because that's just plain ridiculous. Scientific evidence of actual psychic powers would make millionaires and celebrities of the scientists overnight, would overturn almost everything we know about how our brains work and revolutionise modern physics. Are you seriously suggesting that scientists are so averse to facts that they would rather suppress this?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're fabricating sh*t here.

No I'm not. You said part of the reason you accepted the paper as being true was because of your "personal experience", and yet your personal experience is absolutely irrelevant to the paper or its findings. Your personal experience may indeed be absolutely true, but the paper may still be an absolute fraud. Regardless of this, you determined that because you feel the paper supports a belief you already hold, that it is credible. This is the very definition of bias. You say that it is true because you WANT it to be true.

You accidentally fall into a mountain lake. You immediately KNOW the water to be cold; you don't BELIEVE that something was the experience of coldness.

Unless you're simply dreaming about falling into a mountain lake. Or imagining it. Or are blind and have just fallen into a pool.

Stop making things up. I never said that I had prior beliefs that influenced blah blah blah.

Post 5349:

"As for why I am satisfied, and without getting into the details, it has to do with the fact that these types of experiments only confirms my own direct experience of Reality, which came first, and because I trust Amit Goswami, who is a Quantum physicist who wrote a textbook on the subject, and because he has had spiritual experiences which match my own, resulting in pretty much the same view of Reality."

You literally and unambiguously stated that you accept the claims of this paper because it fits with your "personal experience". I.E: Your prior beliefs influenced your willingness to accept this paper as fact.

What I said is that my direct experience of Reality is realization that consciousness is nonlocal, and that the research paper only is an addition to that realization, but is not necessary to that realization. Realization has nothing to do with any set of beliefs about what is; it is simply the realization of what is, without thought, which is the basis of belief.

If that's what you believe.

Which is what it is.

 

[Polymath257]

QM is just a more accurate way of measuring all those phenomena, right?

Let me just ask one question based on all the disinformation and fluff. (or maybe the truth, i dunno)

Say i "prepared" an entangled pair of electrons at my lab and one of them is taken to your lab.
I call you saying my electron i just measured with a up spin. You now have it's entangled partner, and you reply that you are now measuring your electron showing a down spin at your lab across town. (Am i ok so far?)

What will You see happen to your electron if I change the spin of my electron to down while you are simultaneously and continuously watching your electron during the moment i change the spin of my electron?

Nothing. The spin of my electron was determined when you measured yours originally.