What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

I believe the EPR paradox is resolved by use of special relativity cause we are talking about particles that go the speed of light and thus bends space-time outside of it so that typical laws of physics as we know it don't apply, but there is still physics involved.

You're just flapping in the wind, idav. You are being fooled by appearances, one of which is that phenomena is the result of cause and effect. Later on this.

Nonlocal communication is signal-less. There is no travel of any particle.

"...consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present. Nonlocal events are immediate; they require no travel time. They are unmediated; they require no energetic signal to “carry” them. They are unmitigated; they do not become weaker with increasing distance. Nonlocal phenomena are omnipresent, everywhere at once. This means there is no necessity for them to go anywhere; they are already there. They are infinite in time as well, present at all moments, past present and future, meaning they are eternal."

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain | SuperConsciousness Magazine

 

[idav]

You're just flapping in the wind, idav. You are being fooled by appearances, one of which is that phenomena is the result of cause and effect. Later on this.

Nonlocal communication is signal-less. There is no travel of any particle.

"...consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present. Nonlocal events are immediate; they require no travel time. They are unmediated; they require no energetic signal to “carry” them. They are unmitigated; they do not become weaker with increasing distance. Nonlocal phenomena are omnipresent, everywhere at once. This means there is no necessity for them to go anywhere; they are already there. They are infinite in time as well, present at all moments, past present and future, meaning they are eternal."

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain | SuperConsciousness Magazine

I am not that far off. That is the way space-time works, I am speaking real physics here. Speed or high gravity bends space-time. In theory this would allow us to be at any point in the universe in an instant, especially with the speed of light thing or the high gravity like black holes that warp space time to the point of it not being a factor any more. How you guys mangle consciousness into any of this is beyond me. However I have an idea. That idea which experiments show that with those quantum effects particles seem to know things, seem to predict things, all this just being an illusion really, a trick of physics. Sure there are correlations and spontaneous effects when things are entangled. However entanglement means at one point they had physical interaction of some sort, there is no getting around that.

 

[idav]

From your article the following is completely false.

Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever.

 

[atanu]

Tell you what. Why don't you and godnotgod cut out the schoolyard bahaviour and grow the hell up. I have politely and sincerely answered a great many of your remarkably stupid questions, so get over yourself and think harder instead.

Ha ha. Bunny. Can you be a bit less humble?

Honestly, you have not considered or answered a single query with sincerity, since you do not even understand implications of your own statements.

You said that brain generated consciousness. I said that brain in dead bodies did not cry out that they were conscious. So, surely consciousness is more than the physical brain.

Where is stupidity?

No that does not follow. Consciousness can be a product of the mind without being necessarily deterministic.
If you want to claim that it must therefore be deterministic, see if you can think up a rationale for that.

Your parrot like assertions do not prove a thing. If interactions of brain chemicals generates consciousness then the generated product cannot be anything but deterministic.

 

[idav]

If interactions of brain chemicals generates consciousness then the generated product cannot be anything but deterministic.

This simply isn't the type of world we live in, in my view.

 

[atanu]

This simply isn't the type of world we live in, in my view.

Then what is your type of world?

 

[idav]

Then what is your type of world?

Something similar to the many worlds interpretation of qm.

 

[atanu]

It does collapse but the reason is because any time we observe we have to use physical interactions which cause the collapse. Its physics that causes it. QM is physics.

I do not understand what you mean and I suspect that you do not either. Moreover, I think that you might not know about the Double Slit or Paired Photon experiments. Does a sentence like "Its physics that causes it" mean anything? Regarding the Double Slit experiment Wheeler concluded as below:

"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
John A. Wheeler

It is wrong to think of that past [ascribed to quantum phenomena] as “already existing” in all detail. The past is all theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. By deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present we have an undeniable choice in what we have the right to say about the past.

Similarly, Alain Aspect's conclusion on his Paired Photon findings were:

"A pair of entangled photons should be considered as a global, inseparable quantum system".

Wheeler surely suggests that our intentions regarding the experimental design alters the past .. the intention changes the path that the photon might have already travelled. And Alain surely indicates that what we perceive as separated is not separated. But some non scientists seem to know better than even these pioneers.

 

[godnotgod]

From your article the following is completely false.

He's referring to Emergent Theory, which is just a hypothesis. Show the evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not that far off. That is the way space-time works, I am speaking real physics here. Speed or high gravity bends space-time. In theory this would allow us to be at any point in the universe in an instant, especially with the speed of light thing or the high gravity like black holes that warp space time to the point of it not being a factor any more. How you guys mangle consciousness into any of this is beyond me. However I have an idea. That idea which experiments show that with those quantum effects particles seem to know things, seem to predict things, all this just being an illusion really, a trick of physics. Sure there are correlations and spontaneous effects when things are entangled. However entanglement means at one point they had physical interaction of some sort, there is no getting around that.

In the brain experiment I cited, there was NO PHYSICAL INTERACTION!

(I don't believe there was any in Aspect's experiment with photons, either)

 

[idav]

I do not understand what you mean and I suspect that you do not either.

*snip*

But some non scientists seem to know better than even these pioneers.

Well thanks for the condescending tone. I have looked at the various qm interpretations and I have at least a basic grasp on their subtle differences, which is no easy task either. The many worlds interpretation is just that, one of many interpretations, it is somebodies interpretation based on the maths and experiments. Admittedly I am not as big on the maths which is where I could get in trouble. I have no issue with the wheeler quote, thanks.

 

[idav]

He's referring to Emergent Theory, which is just a hypothesis. Show the evidence.

All there is, is evidence that shows correlation between brain and mind, all evidences suggests that mind is a product of brain. It's the other side which lacks any evidence whatsoever. Showing any evidence the mind is not of the brain hasn't been done AFAIK.

 

[atanu]

Something similar to the many worlds interpretation of qm.

How does that support the proposition that our intention/consciousness is product of inert chemicals? On the contrary, Many worlds are created in response to possibilities inherent in our choices. So, in Many Worlds proposition is included the role of human intention/s in fashioning the so-called world/s

 

[idav]

How does that support the proposition that our intention/consciousness is product of inert chemicals? On the contrary, Many worlds are created in response to possibilities inherent in our choices. So, in Many Worlds proposition is included the role of human intention/s in fashioning the so-called world/s

At the quantum level I do believe that all things are connected due to the nature of substance. Things being interconnected is what gives us the impression that particles know things. Even further these particles do leave the effect of being in more than one place even if it isn't which is a way to give freedom of that choice. I don't tend to mix consciousness in there but I could see where it could be seen that way, almost as if the particle knows. We are a part of that system as are our brains. It is possible for more things like brains to be connected I don't doubt that but it is all physics. When there are particles that are entangled that is when the spooky stuff occurs however the particles entangled had to have a physical connection at some point or they wouldn't be entangled.

 

[atanu]

At the quantum level I do believe that all things are connected due to the nature of substance. Things being interconnected is what gives us the impression that particles know things. Even further these particles do leave the effect of being in more than one place even if it isn't which is a way to give freedom of that choice. I don't tend to mix consciousness in there but I could see where it could be seen that way, almost as if the particle knows. We are a part of that system as are our brains. It is possible for more things like brains to be connected I don't doubt that but it is all physics. When there are particles that are entangled that is when the spooky stuff occurs however the particles entangled had to have a physical connection at some point or they wouldn't be entangled.

It is just useless to discuss, once a POV is already decided. Anyway, Wheeler did not think like you do.

"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
John A. Wheeler

 

[godnotgod]

The Experiment that debunked Materialisma:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8

 

[idav]

"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"
John A. Wheeler

The crazy thing about it is you can pretty much prove whatever your after with qm experiments. They call it the most successful field as far as science goes cause we always get the right answer. You wanna prove it took only one route, there is an experiment that proves that, you wanna prove it took two routes, there is an experiment to prove that.

What I am suggesting is, it's the influence that took the second route not the particle itself but thats a guess on my part ( I am happy to discuss opinion vs fact) and doesn't completely go with the many worlds interpretation. What we do know is these particles are going the speed of light so imagine your on a photon during this experiment. When something is at the speed of light time stands still and it can leap from one point of space to another instantaneously, these are facts and should be considered in respect to the qm experiments.

 

[idav]

The Experiment that debunked Materialisma:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8

For some reason I can't see the video but if you can tell me what is on it we can discuss it. I don't really consider myself materialist though people keep saying it. Everything that exists is because of frequencies which I imagine as a substance that is vibrating at very high frequencies, something must be vibrating, similar to sound for example, it is only a vibration but must travel through a medium, so I'm sort of mixed in my views on it.

 

[Bunyip]

Ha ha. Bunny. Can you be a bit less humble?

Honestly, you have not considered or answered a single query with sincerity, since you do not even understand implications of your own statements.

You said that brain generated consciousness. I said that brain in dead bodies did not cry out that they were conscious. So, surely consciousness is more than the physical brain.

Where is stupidity?

Where is stupidity? Well your comments about dead brains are a fantastic example.

Your argument is that because dead brains do not cry out, therefore consciousness is more thwn the physical brain - a remarkably stupid argument, that makes no sense whtsoever.

Your parrot like assertions do not prove a thing. If interactions of brain chemicals generates consciousness then the generated product cannot be anything but deterministic.

Yet again your conclusion simply does not follow - I could argue that because bicycles have two wheels, therefore bananas are macrame.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Big Bang is not settled science....seems the Big Bang standard model has problems when faced with ongoing research...there is the problem of the gravity theory that works at macro scale not consistent with what happens at the micro scale (quantum level)...and now these observations...

The better they become acquainted with the Higgs at the infinitely small quantum level, the further the experts seem from explaining certain cosmic-scale questions, like dark matter.

"The observed characteristics of the Higgs boson, such as its mass, interaction strengths and life-time, provide very powerful constraints on our understanding of the more fundamental theory," Valya Khoze, director of the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP) at Durham University, told AFP

-snip-

The model has weaknesses in that it doesn't explain dark matter or dark energy, which jointly make up 95 percent of the Universe. Nor is it compatible with the theory of gravity. Scientists have proposed alternative theories to explain the inconsistencies—like supersymmetry which postulates the existence of a "sibling" for every particle in the Universe and may explain dark matter and dark energy.

"It would give us a very good hint that there is physics there beyond the Standard Model and that there's new, additional physics coming soon," said Dave Charlton, who heads the ATLAS experiment at the LHC.

"It could help to explain many of the other problems we have in physics at the moment."

Read more at: Higgs quest deepens into realm of 'New Physics'