-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
In that case, why did you ask such a question?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Or the other way? Consciousness grows with brain mass, in most cases.
We can see things only when brain/mind defines them.
Last edited:
In the opening of his 2nd chapter, Silverman first brings up, so also defines, "the issue of nonlocality that is, the occurrence of interactions instantaneously at a distance in violation of physicists intuitive sense of cause and effect as embodied in the principles of special relativity"
(emphasis added).
Silverman, M. P. Quantum Superposition: Counterintuitive Consequences of Coherence, Entanglement, and Interference (The Frontiers Collection). Springer.
Nonlcality is not "oneness". It refers to correlations between spacelike-separated systems that are instantaneous or in "no-time".
I chose the source for 2 reasons:
1) The definition is clear and concise without misleading oversimplifications and without sacrificing accuracy for the sake of sensationalism
2) The book is not only devoted to quantum "weirdness", but is from The Frontiers Collection:
"The books in this collection are devoted to challenging and open problems at the forefront of modern science, including related philosophical debates. In contrast to typical research monographs, however, they strive to present their topics in a manner accessible also to scientifically literate non-specialists wishing to gain insight into the deeper implications and fascinating questions involved. Taken as a whole, the series reflects the need for a fundamental and interdisciplinary approach to modern science. Furthermore, it is intended to encourage active scientists in all areas to ponder over important and perhaps controversial issues beyond their own specialty. Extending from quantum physics and relativity to entropy, consciousness and complex systems -- the Frontiers Collection will inspire readers to push back the frontiers of their own knowledge." (from the series' webpage).
In other words, titles in this series are a compromise at two levels:
1) Between presenting known scientific topics in standard ways vs. incorporating speculations, metaphysis, and philosophy.
2) Between the technical level of most scientific literature vs. a level that a "scientifically literate non-specialist" could appreciate.
It is considered scientific enough to be cited in journals like Physical Review B & Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, yet not so rigorously scientific as to preclude speculations beyond anything currently supported in the scientific literature (although such speculations are qualified as such).
To the extent that "contradiction to Einsteinian thinking" means "contradiction to what Einstein thought", then nonlocality is the most perfect example of such a contradiction:
"Albert Einstein disliked quantum mechanics... Quantum mechanics, as developed by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and others, had many strange features that ran head-on into Einstein's finely honed intuition and understanding of how a proper universe ought to operate. Over the years he developed a list of objections to the various peculiarities of quantum mechanics. At the top of Einstein's list of complaints was what he called 'spooky actions at a distance'.
Einstein's 'spookiness' is now called 'nonlocality'" (source)
His EPR paper back-fired:
"The joke is on Albert Einstein, who, back in 1935, dreamed up this trick of synchronized atoms - "spooky action at a distance," as he called it - as an example of the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," he, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935." (source)
Einstein's work begat spacetime, yet thought nonlocality was utterly impossible and so clearly incompatible with reality he intended EPR (which suggested QM entailed Einstein's hated "spooky action" or nonlocality) would make physicists realize that QM wrong. Nothing exists outside of space and time unless one means things that exist in spacetime, but nonlocality violates Einstein's spacetime too.
Even studies which try to demonstrate the same things (quantum correlations/non-local effects) refer to the above study by Grinberg with a plea to other scientists not to dismiss it despite obvious flaws. For example, in "Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects" we find:
"In spite of speculative statements of the paper and obvious methodological and formal flaws, this report should not be too easily dismissed"
Critical responses, on the other hand, are far more dismissive.
Again, even in supporting literature:
"this effect of a transferred potential can be observed in both related and unrelated subject pairs since it was observed in six out of seven subject pairs in the experimental group, who were what they termed empathically bonded and connected, and also in five out of six subject pairs in the control group who were totally unrelated in any manner, did not meditate or interact with each other in any fashion and, were told nothing about the nature of the experiment"
"The notion of a transferred potential, introduced by Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. (1994), requires particular consideration. The term suggests that the brain of the non-stimulated subject B produces a response similar to the physiological response of the brain of the stimulated subject A, the so-called evoked potential(EP). This, in fact, has never been observed: data published by Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. (1994) and other authors show oscillatory patterns rather than well-shaped EP-like waveforms" (italics in original; emphasis added)
Wackermann, J. (2004). Dyadic correlations between brain functional states: present facts and future perspectives. Mind and Matter, 2(1), 105-122.
Deep breaths, closed eyes, rest, even eating have shown that lack of anxiety and relaxation do this too. With better and better technology, it's been shown that relaxing and anxiety reduction increase alpha activity more reliably than meditation.
Which involves cognitive processes. However, it's irrelevant as both relaxing and cognition reliably increase alpha activity, just in different ways.:
"alpha activity that is characterized by large rhythmic waves is generally associated with relaxation and the lack of active cognitive processes such that when an individual is asked to engage in a cognitive task alpha activity will cease. This is known as alpha blocking or desynchronization. However, desynchronization of higher band alpha waves is indicative of increased cognitive processing and external attention, whereas synchronization reflects internal attention"
Ivanovski, B., & Malhi, G. S. (2007). The psychological and neurophysiological concomitants of mindfulness forms of meditation. Acta neuropsychiatrica, 19(2), 76-91.
And yet we find "a decrease of left frontal alpha power during positive emotions". What about "positive emotions" stops a "calm, open, balanced mind with a free flow of energy" such that we find such decreases?
"In the context of working memory operations, it has been found that alpha activity increases parametrically with memory load during retention in the Sternberg task (Jensen et al., 2002; Tuladhar et al., 2007)."
Jokisch, D., & Jensen, O. (2007). Modulation of gamma and alpha activity during a working memory task engaging the dorsal or ventral stream. The Journal of neuroscience, 27(12), 3244-3251.
So, increases in cognitive processes associated with memory retention increase alpha activity as the memory load increases because...?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Maybe brain function does, but not necessarily increased conscious awareness as it pertains to higher states of consciousness.
What defines 'mind' to begin with, if not 'mind' itself?
godnotgod
Thou art That
If god is seperate from creation then it isnt oneness. Oneness should mean being everything and everywhere.
godnotgod
Thou art That
"One light, though the lamps be many."
Who is saying there is a God?
Who is saying there was a 'creation'?
The idea of 'oneness' includes the nothingness within which everything exists.
I hear god made some sort of free lunch before the big bang.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Not if 'everything' is just a projection from Nothingness. As it turns out, what we call 'things' that are supposed to be composed of atoms, are almost totally empty space. The rest, it seems, cannot rightly be called particles, as they behave at times like waves. In fact, Einstein is reputed to have said that matter does not actually exist; that what we call matter is actually energy operating at a very low level of vibration, appearing to our senses as something solid and real. This is totally in accordance with Hindu cosmology and the idea of maya and lila.
Bill Hicks: Today a young man on acid realized that matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death and life is but a dream with the imagination of ourselves.
Does that about cover it, and thats from a comedian.
The only way to even show or represent non-locality (the ways that physicist have) require descriptions of at least two different, distinct, systems. Your "oneness" (nonlocality) consists of effects that communicate nothing, signal nothing, and connect nothing.
Correlation between spacelike separated systems that have shown nonlocal processes are correlations. Now, this absolutely does not mean we can write these of as probabilities, or that we have some cause we can point to consistent with causality, etc. However, it also does not indicate there is any connection detectable between such systems other than independent activity of separate, distinct systems. Without distinguishing such systems, without requiring this "oneness" to not exist, there is no evidence for nonlocality.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You've got double-vision; I am referring to actual Reality, which is singular, exhibiting oneness. Everything is interconnected as 'one', a single Reality.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Whatever you are referring to, it includes nonlocality. Some words, like theory, logic, proof, even evolution have senses that are colloquial as well as technical.
Nonlocality has no colloquial use. Neither does "quantum mechanics", which you refer to as the context by which nonlocality has been demonstrated (and even define nonlocality via reference to quantum mechanics).
So when you refer to nonlocality as you do, you refer to something that is defined in a technical manner, means something very specific, and is relates to a physical theory that is likewise well-defined. Whatever your views about the cosmos may be, to use a technical term in its context within the framework of modern physics is to use refer to the technical definition. If you are not using the technical definition, then you are not using any concept that quantum physics or any other science research, scientific theory, or scientific literature uses. However, you are using a term found in all of the contexts (either out of ignorance of what it means in the technical sense, or with the intent to deliberately mislead).
If you wish to indicate some property of "oneness" or whatever it is you intend "nonlocality" to mean, then why not simply use terms which don't confuse your opinions with physics terminology when they are completely incompatible (even defined in opposition to one another)?
That is not what nonlocality means. So why use the term? If you wish to appeal to something in physics literature that relates to wholeness, examine Bohm's implicate order.
godnotgod
Thou art That
What non-locality is existed prior to its having been defined, and is a feature of oneness. Just because science came along and 'discovered' it and then defined it in scientific terminology does not make it the exclusive property of science. It belongs to the universe, and the universe, as its name implies, is one Reality.
String theory implies oneness, non-locality implies omnipresence. Oneness and omnipresence are similar but there is a slight difference. Oneness doesnt mean physically being everywhere but its a heck of a work around.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Sure. Reminds me of the image in the book of revelations. God is said to be the source, the light, and jesus is described as the lamp. But thats not the issue brought up. Do you think there is a difference between oneness and omnipresence? Is the lamp literally god the source?