What came before the Big Bang?

[Saint Frankenstein]

It will be pretty much the same pattern in crows, too. The associations each bird can make may vary in complexity from species to species, depending on the size of the brain, but there's little evidence to show that they are outside of what is known as the 'mechanistic concept'.

That sounds like this:

Writing during the scientific revolution, Descartes proposed a mechanistic theory of the universe, the aim of which was to show that the world could be mapped out without allusion to subjective experience.[25]

His mechanistic approach was extended to the issue of animal consciousness. Mind, for Descartes, was a thing apart from the physical universe, a separate substance, linking human beings to the mind of God. The nonhuman, on the other hand, were for Descartes nothing but complex automata, with no souls, minds, or reason. They could see, hear, and touch, but were not conscious, able to suffer, and had no language.[23]

Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Don't forget that humans also have associative memory enough to know to...ahem...pull out before conception occurs.

Hmm...given the high failure rate with pulling out lol, I would think that maybe the memory isnt' good enough.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hmm...given the high failure rate with pulling out lol, I would think that maybe the memory isnt' good enough.

Nope, just the ability to pull out in time.

 

[Slapstick]

The point is that when they say matter, it really doesn't have an actually meaning. We describe matter by its properties, not by sake of it being itself.

So when I say a chair, the image in your head has certain properties. Color, Texture, Shape. Those are all properties of matter they are what a chair has to make it a chair.

That's a point I got out of the article. Though I might be wrong.

I'm just critical of things I read sometimes. But if you really want to knock yourself out:

The Particle Adventure
The Periodic Table of Videos - University of Nottingham
Sixty Symbols - Physics and Astronomy videos

 

[gnostic]

You only call such things 'woo' simply because your own consciousness has been conditioned into paradigm, though you are unaware of it. /QUOTE]
Sorry, but exactly the same thing could be said about you and about your ideas. You have been indoctrinated into believing that some sorts gods are involved with the creation of the universe, despite there being no evidences to support such creation by such a god, nor there even be evidences for the existence of such god in the first place.

IOW, your consciousness is in an altered state which automatically (knee-jerk type) causes you to see views other than the sanctioned 'scientific' one as bogus.[

This sentence could apply to you. Your consciousness cause nothing but knee-jerking reaction to accept only the possibly of there being a god, despite all evidences are contrary to the existence of a god.

You can't accept nature happening and evolving without a god, because your consciousness is nothing more than just a knee-jerking-pseudoscience-indoctrinate-faith. Evidences and logic and common sense just get thrown out the proverbial window for your world of wishful fantasy that there is a god.

You simply can't accept evidences, because actually looking at the evidences - honestly and without prejudices - would cause your faith, like a house of cards, to collapse.

 

[Meow Mix]

If, as you claim, consciousness is a product of the brain, how do you explain the non-material emerging from the material world?

There's no reason to suppose that an emergent property has to have the same properties or metaproperties as the structure from which it emerges.

For instance, chess programs don't have spatiotemporal extension (not in a meaningful sense -- the visualization they provide does), you can't reach out and touch a chess program even if you can touch a silicon chip or laser disc or whatever.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ooooooooooh! Who was it that said that, if you think you know what QM is, you don't know what QM is?

Pretty sure that was Feynman off the top of my head, but regardless, I only said "know a thing or two"

Also I'm not a physicist yet, am just a grad student.

It's just irritating on some level to be told to google basic research about a field that I spend my entire waking life studying.

 

[Meow Mix]

Energy is not what stuff HAS; it's what stuff IS.

BTW, the only way you can even talk about either is with consciousness.

Nothing "is" energy, but if we haven't gotten this across to you by now, then it seems we never will.

 

[Meow Mix]

Unless he were using the word 'matter' as a form-of-convention response to the non-scientist.

That's possible, and often happens unfortunately when trying to talk about science to the press or laypersons. Scientists will use terms or speak of concepts that are ultimately incorrect just to "dumb it down." This drives me crazy because there are ways to simplify things without using incorrect terms or concepts so as to avoid the very confusion they were watering it down in the first place to avoid.

What I'm saying is that a universe realized via logic is not what the universe actually IS. Logic only tells us how the universe behaves, but in reality, the universe behaves very illogically. To understand why this appears this way, we need to leave the sphere of logic, reason, and analysis behind, and enter another kind of conscious awareness.

Classical physics and logic have defined the world for a very long time, until Quantum Physics and Black Holes came along, overturning all previous 'logical' conclusions.

Science fails because the Infinite can never be encapsulated via logic, reason, or analysis, and that includes mathematics and physics.

Nature appears paradoxical because we are trying to 'understand' what it is via rational concept, which it does not conform to.

[youtube]bRoYZSbbp_U[/youtube]
Science vs God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

Michio Kaku: "Nature is smarter than we are". Indeed.

The thing is, though, that it's impossible for the universe not to be logical because the negation of logic self-refutes. The universe is logical -- our perceptions of it might not be, the tools we use to describe it might not be, etc., but the universe is and must be logical to exist at all. Denying this self-refutes because it denies the efficacy of logic while using the efficacy of logic in order to make the denial, anyway.

What the universe isn't is intuitive. There's a difference between the universe being counterintuitive and the universe being illogical. The first is certainly the case, the second is not.

 

[Meow Mix]

To say that mass and energy are what E=mc2 is about is to say that one property equals another, which makes no sense. The reference of both mass and energy is to the physical constituent we call 'matter', as ambiguous as it is. All it's really saying is that when the particular mass of a physical system is transformed into energy, there is mathematical consistency and equality, 'mass' referring to volume and density.

Correct, mass-energy equivalency is a proportionality. I'm not sure anyone was saying they are ontologically the same thing, though it's hard to keep up with this fast-moving conversation.

 

[Meow Mix]

You only call such things 'woo' simply because your own consciousness has been conditioned into paradigm, though you are unaware of it. IOW, your consciousness is in an altered state which automatically (knee-jerk type) causes you to see views other than the sanctioned 'scientific' one as bogus.

No, I don't prejudge ideas based on whether they "sound weird" or "go against the paradigm." I judge them based on my understanding of them.

The fad in theoretical physics right now is string theory, for instance, yet I'm not on board that train because I understand a thing or two about it -- including what's wrong with it. If I were a bandwagon paradigm rider, I'd be defending string theory rather than being skeptical since it's such the fashionable thing to do in physics these days.

If I call something woo, it's because I understand the position and know that it's pseudoscientific in nature, has shoddy metaphysics, isn't justified, etc.

 

[Meow Mix]

For that matter, (no pun) what is the origin of the matter which 'gets' matter? The problem is the fact that we see 'matter' as 'real', when, in fact, it is an illusion.

The answer, of course, is consciousness, which solves all of these 'problems'. All we have been doing is nibbling around the edges, around the appearance, rather than piercing to the heart of the...heh, heh....uh.... matter. :banghead3

Can you define "consciousness" please?

It seems to me like you're setting up a microcosm of the original problem your solution proposes to solve.

 

[Meow Mix]

When my hands clap, what's keeping them from moving inside one another since atoms are mostly empty space? Even though my hands look solid, they're very much not, so what keeps my hands apart?

It's electrostatics, but your hands aren't polarized (well, okay, you do build up a slight excess of electrons but that's aside the point) -- to be polar, something has to have a dipole moment. For instance H2O has a dipole moment because of the angle at which the hydrogen atoms bond to the oxyen atom such that there's a definite, inherent negatively charged side and positively charged side. Your hands repel each other because their atoms are surrounded by electrons, which will obviously repel each other, but it's not because they have a dipole moment -- not because they're polar.

Here:

Ethane's still not going to pass through itself because the valence electrons will still repel each other -- but not because of polarity.

I appreciate that, and I'll admit that I'm operating out of my field (I'm an anthropologist, now retired) but I have done quite a bit of reading in this area to at least have a basic idea what's going on. However, with that being said, I certainly not only will not make an absurd claim that I know anywhere near as much as you, and I do appreciate any corrections you have.

That's really awesome What kind of anthropology did you do? What were (are) your interests?

 

[Meow Mix]

My idea of simple when it comes to English is being able to give an accurate or detailed description of whatever is being explained. Not a dumb down version of a word that for me doesn’t need an explanation as if it’s being taught to a 6 year old. I wouldn’t call the word “stuff”, which could be anything, as being “precise” or any more descriptive. But then again I just realized you three are debating someone that is delusional, and doesn't think matter exists.

Aside from that, I don’t think lumping everything together and slapping a label on it as being “stuff” does anything to help anyone better understand what matter is. But then again if anyone was actually interested in learning anything about it they could always research it for themselves.

Fair enough

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, the same stuff your keyboard is made out it. Try hitting your head on that.

It's an illusion of a higher order than what we ordinarily call an illusion. There are different levels of conscious awareness. When you are asleep and dream, that is the second level. The dream may seem real, but when you awaken, you see that it was illusory, even though you may experience dream thirst, hunger, pain, and pleasure. Awakening into the third level, that of Waking Sleep, or Identification, is to experience another dream world, though it seems perfectly real. This is still sleep, even though one thinks oneself perfectly awake. Only by entering the fourth level, that of Self-Transcendence, can one see the illusory nature of the third level, where most of mankind dwells.

Hitting your head on the keyboard does not confirm reality. It confirms your delusive state.

 

[godnotgod]

Pretty sure that was Feynman off the top of my head, but regardless, I only said "know a thing or two"

Also I'm not a physicist yet, am just a grad student.

It's just irritating on some level to be told to google basic research about a field that I spend my entire waking life studying.

Keeps you humble and grounded.

 

[godnotgod]

By movement you must also imply.....proximity.

Similar to the 'point' of origin (Genesis)?...and God said...'I AM!'
or more localized......here 'I' am.

No, I imply delusion.

 

[godnotgod]

You have an extra "neti". Grammatically, it doesn't make sense...Sanskrit-wise.

Thanks. Change coming.

 

[godnotgod]

And the experiment for a singularity would look like what?

At some 'point' a Sentient Being must be dealt with.

That he might be the Cause makes a difference?
Only if you insist on denial.

If Spirit First...and I think so....then some meeting of the minds will happen.

Can you have sentience without a sentient being?

There is no such thing as a wave.

There is no such thing as a river.

There is no such thing as a whirlpool.

There is no such thing as a thinker of thoughts called "I", a maker of things, or an agent of sentience.

There is no 'do-er'.

 

[godnotgod]

Try NOT association with your body.
Going to awake up in that body until it fails.....aren't 'you'

Show me the 'you' that dwells in the body; the 'you' that awakens. When true awakening occurs, the illusory self dissolves. That is what awakening is: to realize the illusory nature of the self.

Continuance?...sure....I believe.

Show me the believer of beliefs. There is no such entity.

And the true nature of what we are is what stands from the dust.

If you truly understood your true nature, you would know that it has no attachment to dust. That is why it is called 'true nature'.

Some of us will take wing and fly away.

Why wait until you're dead? Do it now, or never. Go. The door is wide open.

Some of us will crawl away.

They can't. They'll be dead. The dead don't crawl.

Some of us will fail altogether.

Ah, the secret of success!

Guess 'you' don't.

"I" don't exist, and neither do 'you'. There is only the universe conversing with itself.