The Watchmaker Revisited

[Earthling]

and one's reason for that, please?

Regards

People are imperfect, so their religion is imperfect.

 

[atanu]

You are forgetting an important fact: a watch is an artifact of human invention. It is a made thing. The Universe is not only not an artifact, but it is not even 'created'. Science, in looking for the original material from which the Universe was 'created', is coming up empty handed. But if the material world is an illusion, a manifestation of Consciousness, then we don't have to account for any such original 'material', because an illusion requires none. But to take the scenario one step further, 'The Universe' may, in fact, be Consciousness itself, playing itself as 'The Universe'. There is no 'creation'; nothing is real; the material universe is a phantasm. Only That which is behind the illusion is real. The Universe is not 'made'; it is grown from the inside out. We only think it to be 'real' because we are relying on our senses to tell us it is, but the senses are limited and faulty....and our consciousness is conditioned to see things as our perception tells us they are.

What is seen from the highest level of Self Realization is not a 'creator of the created', but that, from the very beginning, not a single thing exists.

Did you mean to say 'Brahman', rather than 'Brahma'?

I meant brahmA, the creator.

 

[atanu]

You receive, from a satellite, a picture of part of the moon you cannot see. There is a time stamp on the picture denoting the time the satellite took the picture. I claim this is evidence that the moon was there objectively, i.e. independent of your observation of it.

If the moon is only an image in my consciousness, how can this be?

First, moon is not an image of ‘your’ consciousness. Make no mistake.

Second, all I say is that it is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

I meant brahmA, the creator.

Creator of what? It is pure maya to think that something has been created; that there is a 'creator of the created'. It is pure maya to think that a single thing exists. That is the sheer beauty and the convincing power of maya.

"Oh, do not ask: 'what is it?'
Let us go and make our visit"

TS Elliot, The Love-Song of J Alfred Prufrock

It has been said that, should you come face to face with the Devil, do not be afraid; only compliment him/her on the quality of his/her illusion.

 

[exchemist]

First, moon is not an image of ‘your’ consciousness. Make no mistake.

Second, all I say is that it is not possible to prove existence of any object independent of the consciousness/awareness.

Whose consciouness/awareness?

 

[godnotgod]

Ha ha ha. As expected, he misses the point completely, being a crank. The classical electron radius is an artificial construct, with no physical meaning, that is actually defined as what you get by setting the electron rest mass equal to the energy of a charged sphere and then working out what its radius would have to be to give the right answer. What he does is to assume it is a real, measured thing (it isn't) and then "deduces" that there must be some sort of wave, without including anything to justify that assumption. He also makes matters worse by muddling this up with electron orbitals, which have quite different dimensions, being about 10,000 times bigger.

We won't get any further with this joker.

Who is the joker here?

Mr. Xavier Borg of Blaze Labs was kind enough to respond to your last message, as follows:

"In conventional physics, the electron radius is an artifact construct, chosen so that the total of its electrostatic energy and its mass equivalent energy give the correct value.for its total mass. Note that electromagnetic mass is not a concept I have invented myself, I have just got rid of the non-EM mass part (the hard particle mass), instead of the other way round. Today, most students ask whether EM mass is real or not, but the question should be the opposite.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160264/is-the-electromagnetic-mass-real

In my EM model, there is no hard physical mass since the electron is fully described as an electromagnetic structure. Also, the electron radius is no longer an artifact but is now equal to the real radius of the spherical standing wave. Then you no longer have to add two energies (EM and non-EM) to get the the correct value for the electron mass but just find the total EM energy, equal to its electrical and magnetic energies. And of course I am not muddling up anything when comparing electron orbitals with radio antenna radiation plots. If one has a minimal understanding of electromagnetic radiation he would know that the far field plots I mentioned, are also representing radiation energy values covering distances over 10,000 larger than the actual transmitting antenna. One must simply understand that what we call 'electron orbitals' are not really probability plots, but EM radiation patterns from a structure of electrons at its core, very similar to a directional EM antenna made up of multiple phase related radiation elements."

 

[exchemist]

Who is the joker here?

Mr. Xavier Borg of Blaze Labs was kind enough to respond to your last message, as follows:

"In conventional physics, the electron radius is an artifact construct, chosen so that the total of its electrostatic energy and its mass equivalent energy give the correct value.for its total mass. Note that electromagnetic mass is not a concept I have invented myself, I have just got rid of the non-EM mass part (the hard particle mass), instead of the other way round. Today, most students ask whether EM mass is real or not, but the question should be the opposite.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160264/is-the-electromagnetic-mass-real

In my EM model, there is no hard physical mass since the electron is fully described as an electromagnetic structure. Also, the electron radius is no longer an artifact but is now equal to the real radius of the spherical standing wave. Then you no longer have to add two energies (EM and non-EM) to get the the correct value for the electron mass but just find the total EM energy, equal to its electrical and magnetic energies. And of course I am not muddling up anything when comparing electron orbitals with radio antenna radiation plots. If one has a minimal understanding of electromagnetic radiation he would know that the far field plots I mentioned, are also representing radiation energy values covering distances over 10,000 larger than the actual transmitting antenna. One must simply understand that what we call 'electron orbitals' are not really probability plots, but EM radiation patterns from a structure of electrons at its core, very similar to a directional EM antenna made up of multiple phase related radiation elements."

I did warn you that I did not promise to get into a discussion with an internet crank. And I won't. His credentials as a crank are clear, not just from the bogus maths derivation that I originally objected to, but from his entry at number 511 in the Encylopaedia of American Loons. I repeat the link here as you seem to have missed it last time: https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/04/511-xavier-borg.html

No doubt he may whine I am being "a closed-minded member of the science establishment", or some other piece of crank boilerplate (as in fact appears on his fake "lab" website - there will be no "lab", just Borg on his own in an upstairs room somewhere.) But, as far as this person is concerned I have nothing further to add.

If you want to discuss some real physics I'd be delighted.

 

[godnotgod]

It is interesting to note that whoever came up with the notion of The Watchmaker must have thought himself very clever. But this analogy only reflects the notion of a creator as a Maker, as reflected in the metaphors of the pot and the potter. Man is but clay until formed into a 'creat-ure' and life breathed into it by a Maker, who is sometimes also depicted in art as the Architect, with compass plotting out the world. In both cases, we are talking about the world and man as made 'things'; as artifacts. This is called The Ceramic Universe. The scientific view, OTOH, is seen as The Fully Automatic Universe. Both models are flawed. Here, Alan Watts describes both and how they came into being:

 

[godnotgod]

I did warn you that I did not promise to get into a discussion with an internet crank. And I won't. His credentials as a crank are clear, not just from the bogus maths derivation that I originally objected to, but from his entry at number 511 in the Encylopaedia of American Loons. I repeat the link here as you seem to have missed it last time: https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/04/511-xavier-borg.html

No doubt he may whine I am being "a closed-minded member of the science establishment", or some other piece of crank boilerplate (as in fact appears on his fake "lab" website - there will be no "lab", just Borg on his own in an upstairs room somewhere.) But, as far as this person is concerned I have nothing further to add.

If you want to discuss some real physics I'd be delighted.

I don't care what you think about his person based upon your obvious biased preconceptions, which you have clearly demonstrated, choosing to attack the pointing finger while ignoring what it points to. The established scientific community tried to paint Jacobo Zylberbaum as a crank as well, suppressing his bona fide experiments on the non-local behavior of the human brain. Yes, you materialists think you have it all sewed up and that you own Quantum Physics. BS. There are other voices; other ideas, and those mavericks who are now coming into play are not going away. We have the larger picture. You have a dead skeleton. Science is exciting because mavericks have always come onto the scene to introduce unpopular ideas.

It is a pity that you refuse to discuss the actual content I have relayed to you. I am siding with Mr. Borg and many others who have jumped the materialist bandwagon who have realized that Reality is far more than chemistry and mathematics. You can put your dead Universe into a jar of formaldehyde on some lab shelf to gather dust.

We prefer a living, intelligent Universe. Good luck with the dead version.

No one is whining but you, and I don't discuss physics with the ignorant.

Mr. Borg has proven he is not afraid to stand up to your criticism, but it appears that you are the one who is afraid, hiding behind a facade of credibility, while trying to downplay his, in spite of the fact that he has answered your input point by point.

Cheers

 

[paarsurrey]

People are imperfect, so their religion is imperfect.

The same way it could be said:

People are imperfect, so their non-religion stance is most imperfect.
​

Right, please?

Regards

 

[exchemist]

I don't care what you think about his person based upon your obvious biased preconceptions, which you have clearly demonstrated, choosing to attack the pointing finger while ignoring what it points to. The established scientific community tried to paint Jacobo Zylberbaum as a crank as well, suppressing his bona fide experiments on the non-local behavior of the human brain. Yes, you materialists think you have it all sewed up and that you own Quantum Physics. BS. There are other voices; other ideas, and those mavericks who are now coming into play are not going away. We have the larger picture. You have a dead skeleton. Science is exciting because mavericks have always come onto the scene to introduce unpopular ideas.

It is a pity that you refuse to discuss the actual content I have relayed to you. I am siding with Mr. Borg and many others who have jumped the materialist bandwagon who have realized that Reality is far more than chemistry and mathematics. You can put your dead Universe into a jar of formaldehyde on some lab shelf to gather dust.

We prefer a living, intelligent Universe. Good luck with the dead version.

No one is whining but you, and I don't discuss physics with the ignorant.

Mr. Borg has proven he is not afraid to stand up to your criticism, but it appears that you are the one who is afraid, hiding behind a facade of credibility, while trying to downplay his, in spite of the fact that he has answered your input point by point.

Cheers

If you prefer crank physics, that is up to you.

 

[Earthling]

The same way it could be said:

People are imperfect, so their non-religion stance is most imperfect.
​

Right, please?

Regards

Right.

 

[Audie]

Ha ha ha. As expected, he misses the point completely, being a crank. The classical electron radius is an artificial construct, with no physical meaning, that is actually defined as what you get by setting the electron rest mass equal to the energy of a charged sphere and then working out what its radius would have to be to give the right answer. What he does is to assume it is a real, measured thing (it isn't) and then "deduces" that there must be some sort of wave, without including anything to justify that assumption. He also makes matters worse by muddling this up with electron orbitals, which have quite different dimensions, being about 10,000 times bigger.

We won't get any further with this joker.

Best thing to do with a crank is ignore them.

 

[exchemist]

Best thing to do with a crank is ignore them.

Yeah that's where we are, now.

But I couldn't quite resist looking at his energy schemes. There's a very funny one about a gas he calls COH2, made by electrolysing water with carbon electrodes. All thoroughly garbled, including claims of magical unexplained energy gain - and he seems to have no idea that COH2 is actually formaldehyde! He must be as mad as a box of frogs.

 

[Audie]

Yeah that's where we are, now.

But I couldn't quite resist looking at his energy schemes. There's a very funny one about a gas he calls COH2, made by electrolysing water with carbon electrodes. All thoroughly garbled, including claims of magical unexplained energy gain - and he seems to have no idea that COH2 is actually formaldehyde! He must be as mad as a box of frogs.

True all that, but it was also an indirect reference to
others who may need to be ignored.

 

[atanu]

No, the moon is not just an object of our awareness. We can take pictures of it while not ourselves looking at it. You can't do that with dream objects. Nor are dreams shared by people.

Well. Try to say that in a dream. Actually, in a dream you can take a picture.

 

[atanu]

Whose consciouness/awareness?

I had tried to discuss it in an earlier post.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

 

[exchemist]

I had tried to discuss it in an earlier post.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker-revisited.209581/page-13#post-5682406

Yes, but without answering it concisely. How about a concise answer, rather than an obscurantist sermon?

 

[exchemist]

True all that, but it was also an indirect reference to
others who may need to be ignored.

Ah yes, well, I am drawing appropriate conclusions.

 

[Audie]

Ah yes, well, I am drawing appropriate conclusions.

I occasionally drift into hyper or hypo subtletarianism.