The Watchmaker Revisited

[shunyadragon]

I do understand. If I may ask a personal, not science question, if mass/energy are eternally conserved, how do you personally respond to the internal existential question, "How come everything was always here?"

Thanks!

From the scientific perspective the 'how?' of the possibilities of either an eternal/infinite physical existence or a finite/temporal physical existence is not a question science can address, and as a matter of fact it is indifferent to this question,

Many atheists and agnostics would probably be indifferent also, and simply respond there is no objective verifiable evidence of an absolute beginning.

 

[godnotgod]

Your posts do not reflect a scientific background, as witnessed by failure to understand basic concepts.

I have watched the video and you have shamelessly misrepresented Tong and the video with selective interpretation to justify your own agenda.

Not fair! There is nothing out of context that I have posted to change any meanings from Tong's intent. If you are going to make such accusations, be prepared to demonstrate what you are referring to. Otherwise, it is you who is the misrepresenter, and your accusation has no weight without evidence. If I intended to misrepresent anything, I would not urge everyone here to watch the video to see for themselves. What is it about: 'There are no particles in the world' , and 'the Quantum vacuum is absolutely nothing', that you don't understand?

What 'basic concepts'? Basic concepts are part of the video. I understood all Tong pointed out. What's your problem?

I know. You and other 'scientists' want to create your own version of 'woo woo' to mystify and tantalize with your mumbo jumbo. It's your ego game of scientific one upmanship to puff yourselves up to appear larger than you really are.

If math and physics were a prerequisite to understanding Quantum Physics, there would not be people like Tong giving lectures to the general public. Yet, here he is, talking Quantum Physics with minimal references to math. Guess what? It works.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not arguing about Tong in that post you quoted from me, but about you not understanding evidences, required to verify a scientific theory.

Watching the video is pointless if you don’t even understand the basic concept of science...especially if you are selectively misrepresenting Tong’s presentation.

If that is what you believe, then bring that evidence forth here on this forum so everyone can see it. Otherwise, you're just spouting steam just as dragon is doing. Both of you and Poly want me to be scientific, and when I quote a bona fide physicist, you refuse to look at the information. Is that because you won't admit that I may be right, as evidenced by the content of the video? Empty accusations without evidence won't convince. You are the guys always demanding evidence, but when put right under your noses, you deny it, or worse, refuse to even look at it. Not very scientific, is it?

As far as I am concerned, I've got you guys by the ...........ha ha ha.....and you know it.

And BTW, why don't you stop parroting Dragon, and provide your own thoughts? Better yet, show me what it is I don't understand about 'basic concepts', and what it is I misrepresent. You don't have a clue, do you? Ha ha ha I pierced your phony facade of lies and deception. Now go to your room.

 

[godnotgod]

You know you are making it worse, don’t you?

You are turning Buddhism, zen and yoga into a sham.

You are doing exactly what theistic creationists do when they attempt to twist science and their scriptures/teachings into one.

You are attempting to twist your version of Buddhism, to force it to fit with science, as if they are the one and the same, but when you have people who disagree with you, you tried a different tactics (moving the goalpost) that science is “limited”, and your mysticism is better at attaining direct knowledge BS.

You saying you are “I’m not making thing up”, but that what people see when they read your replies.

The whole “union with the universe” and “one with the universe” is nothing more than distortion of your abilities, meditation or no meditation. It just more BS.

Am I to understand that you think yourself separate from the Universe? (2nd request for a response)

 

[Audie]

From the scientific perspective the 'how?' of the possibilities of either an eternal/infinite physical existence or a finite/temporal physical existence is not a question science can address, and as a matter of fact it is indifferent to this question,

Many atheists and agnostics would probably be indifferent also, and simply respond there is no objective verifiable evidence of an absolute beginning.

My not well informed idea is that math would exist
if there were no universe. The only thing that cannot
help but exist, if nothing else did.

I came up with that more or less on my own.

This of course takes that dim thought far further.

tnx wiki-

Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physicaluniverse is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"

 

[godnotgod]

...math would exist
if there were no universe. The only thing that cannot
help but exist, if nothing else did.

How can math, a conceptual framework to represent reality, exist without consciousness?

 

[Polymath257]

Am I to understand that you think yourself separate from the Universe? (2nd request for a response)

We are all part of the universe. That is not the same as being 'one' with the universe. So, for example, a rock is part of the universe but it not one with it.

 

[shunyadragon]

If that is what you believe, then bring that evidence forth here on this forum so everyone can see it. Otherwise, you're just spouting steam just as dragon is doing. Both of you and Poly want me to be scientific, and when I quote a bona fide physicist, you refuse to look at the information. Is that because you won't admit that I may be right, as evidenced by the content of the video? Empty accusations without evidence won't convince. You are the guys always demanding evidence, but when put right under your noses, you deny it, or worse, refuse to even look at it. Not very scientific, is it?

As far as I am concerned, I've got you guys by the ...........ha ha ha.....and you know it.

And BTW, why don't you stop parroting Dragon, and provide your own thoughts? Better yet, show me what it is I don't understand about 'basic concepts', and what it is I misrepresent. You don't have a clue, do you? Ha ha ha I pierced your phony facade of lies and deception. Now go to your room.

I did not refuse the description made by Tong (not evidence, because he referred to his interpretation of the evidence.). I am disagreeing with you, because of your misuse of Tong to justify your agenda, which is not science. Your equating voodoo spiritualism with science, and that does not work even with Tong.

By the way Tong does not stand alone as one scientist in a field of hundreds, despite your insistence to warp and misrepresent his you tube.

 

[shunyadragon]

If that is what you believe, then bring that evidence forth here on this forum so everyone can see it. Otherwise, you're just spouting steam just as dragon is doing. Both of you and Poly want me to be scientific, and when I quote a bona fide physicist, you refuse to look at the information. Is that because you won't admit that I may be right, as evidenced by the content of the video? Empty accusations without evidence won't convince. You are the guys always demanding evidence, but when put right under your noses, you deny it, or worse, refuse to even look at it. Not very scientific, is it?

As far as I am concerned, I've got you guys by the ...........ha ha ha.....and you know it.

And BTW, why don't you stop parroting Dragon, and provide your own thoughts? Better yet, show me what it is I don't understand about 'basic concepts', and what it is I misrepresent. You don't have a clue, do you? Ha ha ha I pierced your phony facade of lies and deception. Now go to your room.

I already demonstrated by references in Quantum science that absolutely nothing does not equate Quantum nothing by definition cited. I reviewed the videos cited and have no disagreement with Tong view of Quantum Mechanics. The problem again is your interpretation of Tong's videos.

For exampleid you get the part in the first video where he describes the vacuum as nothing, but that the fields are still present, and that they are fundamental to 'particles', which do not exist., does not lead to your conclusion that 'Material reality is an illusion.' This is your conclusion is yours, and yours alone based on your agenda.

Tong doses NOT describe Quantum nothing as the same as the philosophical nothing..He, at one point refers to the Quantum nothing in terms of the definition I cited, and refers to aspects of the Quantum noting as the Quantum vacuum, and the Quantum field. This is absolutely NOT the equivalent to the philosophical 'absolute nothingness.'

Please cite specifically where Tong refers to 'absolute nothingness,' 'ex nihilo,' and compares it to the concept of Quantum Nothing..

Interesting reference by you:

He also said that there are no particles, so how can energy fields be their building blocks? I think what you mean to say is that particles are the result of fluctuations in the field. He clearly stated that all those particles do not exist perse; that they are the result of fluctuations in their respective fields, or interactions between fields.

Tong is describing aspects of Quantum nothing, which is most definitely not the philosophical 'absolute nothing,' which by definition has absolutely nothing 'ex nihilo'

You conclude that Tong describing hypotheticals, paradoxes, probabilities and unknowns as science does not know anything, and you are misrepresenting Tong in these conclusions a loosy goosy mystical agenda. Science is a history of unknowns, paradoxes, possibilities and hypotheticals in the past, present and future, and this is nothing new, nor surprising.

 

[shunyadragon]

The beginning of neuclear science in the 1860's

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

The Valley of Knowledge

and come out of doubt into certitude, and turn from the darkness of illusion to the guiding light of the fear of God. His inner eyes will open and he will privily converse with his Beloved; he will set ajar the gate of truth and piety, and shut the doors of vain imaginings. 12 He in this station is content with the decree of God, and seeth war as peace, and findeth in death the secrets of everlasting life. With inward and outward eyes he witnesseth the mysteries of resurrection in the realms of creation and the souls of men, and with a pure heart apprehendeth the divine wisdom in the endless Manifestations of God. In the ocean he findeth a drop, in a drop he beholdeth the secrets of the sea.

Split the atom’s heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

 

[shunyadragon]

My not well informed idea is that math would exist
if there were no universe. The only thing that cannot
help but exist, if nothing else
I came up with that more or less on my own.

This of course takes that dim thought far further.

tnx wiki-

Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physicaluniverse is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"

How can math, a conceptual framework to represent reality, exist without consciousness?

, , , because math is a natural framework. It is only conceptual from the uman perspective.

There exists an underlying nature of our physical existence that can be described by math, and math proposes math Theorems and proofs that scientist then apply as tools for science. Those that work closely approximate the underlying math that applies to the scientific theorems and hypothesis of science.

 

[ecco]

(my emphasis)

Tong said that, if you remove EVERYTHING, and that means all particles, from space, you end up with empty space, or absolutely nothing, in his words.

Did you just admit that Tong said you can remove particles? You have been insisting that Tong does not believe particles exist. Why would he say that you can remove something that he says does not exist?

Around 20 minutes in he says:

Ripples of electron fields are tied into bundles of energy. This is what we call the particle - the electron. These energy fields are the basic building blocks of everything.
​

When Tong said "There are no particles", he was clearly implying that particles are not the basic building blocks of the Universe; energy fields are the basic building blocks of particles; energy fields are the basic building blocks of the Universe.

To further show that Tong does believe in particles, he refers to the Higgs Boson as a particle and shows a chart of Quarks.

The title of the talk as shown on the screen is "Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks ..."

Out of that entire one hour video, you took one short sentence. You either failed to understand what he was saying or you intentionally misinterpreted it. You have been shown, repeatedly, where you went wrong, but you continue to try to insist you are right.

 

[ecco]

Tell me: where do you leave off and the Universe begins? Show me where that point of distinction exists.

This is exactly the kind of nonsensical comment someone steeped in woo would make.

I repeat once more: the mystical EXPERIENCE does not involve thought, and therefore, cannot be a belief, as belief is dependent upon thought.

I have already agreed that the mystical experience is without thought.

What did I say? I said that the mind is a self-created principle.

Yes, that is what you said. However, that is not the understanding or definition of what "mind" means.

the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.​

How many times do I have to tell you that when you make up your own concept or definition of words, you are just being silly.

​

Dictionary definitions are the product of conditioned awareness and so do not reflect the reality of what mind and consciousness actually are.

See above.

That is yoga, or the realization that you are one with The Absolute, ie; 'The Universe', and have never at any time NOT been one with The Universe.​

More mystical woo. It's really getting old.

 

[shunyadragon]

= godnotgod] ↑
Tong said that, if you remove EVERYTHING, and that means all particles, from space, you end up with empty space, or absolutely nothing, in his words.

This fortunately not what Tong said, and it does not refer to 'absolute nothing,' in his words.

 

[Audie]

There exists an underlying nature of our physical existence that can be described by math, and math proposes math Theorems and proofs that scientist then apply as tools for science. Those that work closely approximate the underlying math that applies to the scientific theorems and hypothesis of science.

Sorry but all i got from that is word salad.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry but all i got from that is word salad.

Not really a salad, but a Dagwood sandwich. Put simply over the millennia through Aristotle and Newton math evolved as tools of science, what works was kept in the tool box what did not was not. What happened was the old tool box could not describe the behavior of light. Beginning with Einstein we came up with a new set of tools, and the tool box grew to explain our universe at a deeper level. Then came fractal math applied to the cause and effect outcomes of our universe, and Chaos Theory was added to the tool box. When we began to measure and explain things at a smaller and smaller level we came up with the math of Quantum Mechanics added to the tool box.

 

[gnostic]

I do understand. If I may ask a personal, not science question, if mass/energy are eternally conserved, how do you personally respond to the internal existential question, "How come everything was always here?"

As a personal question, then the answers will be the same as the ones I have given to you before:

I don’t know that everything have always exist, and I don’t know if everything that exist and existed, have a beginning.​

They are the same answers, whether it be personal or relating to the scientific or theoretical cosmology.

The scientific cosmology is that of the Big Bang cosmology, that only explained the evolution of the universe, from the still very and hot Planck Epoch and onwards.

1. But you need to understand that the timeline from Planck Epoch to the Baryogenesis, or to the end of the Inflationary Epoch, the model is still at the hypothetical and theoretical stage, and still not fully understood. And another thing is that nothing is observable, so these very earliest epochs have not being verified.​

2. The timeline from the gluon-quark plasma to the 377,000 years after the Big Bang (where it also include the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN, only lasted from about 3 to about 20 minutes after the Big Bang) and matters become the dominant in the universe), the universe is still opaque, because matters are still ionised (with no electrons bound to the nuclei).​

3. It is only from Recombination Epoch (starting at 377,000 years after the Big Bang), that the universe become transparent, because electrons stabilised matters (electrically neutral atoms). But this bonding between electrons and the nuclei of atoms, resulted in photon decoupling, and that’s what scientists can today observed, detect and measure, the freely travelled photons, the earliest observable light, which scientists called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.​

Here, I described three main eras, before the formation of the stars and galaxies, which occurred around 1.5 million years after the Big Bang.

These eras described how particles (leptons, quarks first, before hadrons like protons and neutrons; hadrons comprised of 3 quarks) and later the bonding of protons and neutrons in the nuclei (in the the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), followed by lot later with the Recombination Epoch, which I have already described as the 3rd era.

Eras 2 & 3 can be understood because of scientists knowledge of particle physics and quantum physics.

But all the various other models of cosmologies, for instance, about BEFORE THE BIG BANG, are all highly theoretical models, unsubstantiated (no evidences).

For examples, theoretical models, such as the Eternal Universe, the Oscillating Universe or Cyclical Universe model (known as the Big Bounce, where the universe underwent a series of birth, collapse, rebirth, eg Bang, Crunch, Bang), the various Multiverse models, etc. These are all still untestable and unverifiable, and the solutions are still at conceptual and mathematical stage, hence these models are still hypotheses.

My point in all this, it is impossible to know if the universe is eternal or not, but what I do currently accept, is the Big Bang theory that the describe the evolution of the universe, because they are currently the only cosmology that checked out.

 

[gnostic]

Am I to understand that you think yourself separate from the Universe? (2nd request for a response)

I understand that everything are parts the universe, including you and me.

My problem is with your view that you are “one with the universe” shenanigans.

This is you mixing Zen Buddhism with New Age BS that I disagree with.

The BS is you trying to mix your transcendent or cosmic consciousness with Quantum Mechanics.

The reason why I don’t watch this latest video, is because I already know what you are like, because you have done the same things before, in other threads, where you put Quantum Physics and your doctrine about cosmic consciousness in the food blender, trying to feed your rubbish interpretations of the Quantum Physics.

It is your garbage that make any videos you cited, not worth my time.p, not because of Tong, but because of you.

You also cited some quack physicists, like Amit Goswami, regarding remote viewing, as well as that equally pseudoscience quack video on remote viewing. That video I watched twice, and it wasted my time, twice.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your posts do not reflect a scientific background, as witnessed by failure to understand basic concepts.

I have watched the video and you have shamelessly misrepresented Tong and the video with selective interpretation to justify your own agenda.

The lectures by Tong are a part of a series of lectures to science majors in the related fields. It is important to listen to all the lectures to get the full context of Tong's lectures. In the lectures by
Sean Carroll and Jennifer Ouellette the nature of the Quantum world of the space(?) described in detail as 'Quantum nothing' is indeed not nothing. It is described as a very active interesting place(?). It is well worth listening to. It begins about 12.40 describing the difference between the macro world and the micro world and the Quantum world of Quantum nothing in describing Black Holes..

 

[godnotgod]

We are all part of the universe. That is not the same as being 'one' with the universe. So, for example, a rock is part of the universe but it not one with it.

You are confusing form with 'things'. There are no such 'things'. A rock is just a conceptual framework created by the mind to indicate a feature of the Universe. 'Rock' is in no way a separate 'thing' from the Universe. You are in no way (and I mean NO way) separate from the Universe, not even a 'part' of it. There are no 'parts', just as there are no 'things', and no 'particles'. An ocean wave is, at all times, the ocean itself. The subject/object split in the mind is fooled into thinking it is a thing in itself. In fact, it is really an action, and 'YOU' are a total action of the Universe.