• 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?

idav

Being
Premium Member
In non-locality, there is no distance. 'Here' is 'there'.

Ok but there is no proof of the brain being non-local. For all we know the thoughts are only in the brain. You have proof it picks up signals like a radio?
Meditation is not brain activity as in thinking. It is not thinking. It is the opposite; it is not-thinking. The ordinary chatter of the brain is actually quieted down. A thicker cerebral cortex is not an indication of non-locality, but that it is a direct result of meditation, which is focused conscious awareness.
Brain activity is always thinking even if not conscious like the brain breathing for us. The thicker cerebral is an indication of brain use but it doesnt prove non-locality or locality for that matter. When brain scans are observing the brain during meditations the brain is highly active which proves the brain is being used however it says nothing about where the thoughts are coming from.

It should be obvious why the observations are not proving what you want it to. Could be possible there is just no proof. People have feelings due to real experiences, feelings and thoughts dont just come out of nowhere, what goes in our brains is dependant on local experiences.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry to differ. It is not possible even hypothetically. Consciousness is a property of brain. No brain, no consciousness.

Depends on how one defines "consciousness". A fly doesn't have a brain but yet responds to stimuli. A seed doesn't have a brain, and yet when it germinates, it seeks the sun. An amoeba doesn't have a brain, and yet it seeks food to eat.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I did not say that consciousness caused anything, nor is it a religious concept. What I am saying to you is that the universe itself is consciousness. They are not two separate things.

As you are using, please define "consciousness"? As with my last post, carefully defining the term here is important.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What I am saying to you is that the universe itself is consciousness. They are not two separate things.
What constitutes mass?
For centuries, the East .. while it focuses on more immediate events. And we now have documented proof that long-term meditators actually grow cerebral cortexes thicker than non-meditators.
BS except for the last sentence. But that does not change the overall picture.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru

godnotgod

Thou art That
Depends on how one defines "consciousness". A fly doesn't have a brain but yet responds to stimuli. A seed doesn't have a brain, and yet when it germinates, it seeks the sun. An amoeba doesn't have a brain, and yet it seeks food to eat.

Also, a blade of grass can perform the complex process of photosynthesis, something a human can only dream of, with no brain whatsoever.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Ok but there is no proof of the brain being non-local.

Oneness Experiments [proof of non-locality]

The good news is that not one but three separate experiments are now showing that quantum consciousness, the author of downward causation, is nonlocal, is unitive, is God. The first such experiment proving it unequivocally (that is, with objective machines and not through subjective experiences of people) was performed by the neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg and his collaborators at the University of Mexico. Let's go into some details.

Quantum physics gives us an amazing principle to operate with - nonlocality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/second). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian relativity, precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated. The physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators demonstrated this in 1982 for a pair of photons (quanta of light). The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is - a signalless interconnectedness outside space and time.

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After 20 minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unity intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an 'evoked potential' is extracted with a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject's brain onto his or her EEG that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signalless communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential.

This experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important - nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject's brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner's brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated twice. First, by the London neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in 1998. And again by the Bastyr University researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators in 2004.

The conclusion of these experiments is radical. Quantum consciousness, the precipitator of the downward causation of choice from quantum possibilities, is what esoteric spiritual traditions call 'God'. We have rediscovered God within science. Moreover we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being which we now can recognize as what the spiritual traditions call 'Godhead'.

Amit Goswami
*****

Amit Goswami is professor of physics at the University of Oregon.
He is the author of five books, including The Self-Aware Universe,
Quantum Creativity, Physics of the Soul, and The Visionary Window.
He also wrote a textbook on Quantum Mechanics
that is well regarded and used.

Proof of God

Brain activity is always thinking even if not conscious like the brain breathing for us. The thicker cerebral is an indication of brain use but it doesnt prove non-locality or locality for that matter. When brain scans are observing the brain during meditations the brain is highly active which proves the brain is being used however it says nothing about where the thoughts are coming from.

It should be obvious why the observations are not proving what you want it to. Could be possible there is just no proof. People have feelings due to real experiences, feelings and thoughts dont just come out of nowhere, what goes in our brains is dependant on local experiences.

No, brain activity is NOT 'always thinking'. It is proven that meditative states are directly linked to increased Alpha Wave activity. This is not thinking, but the focusing of conscious awareness, without thought. It is seeing, rather than thinking:


Alpha waves reflect the brain’s idle function in the awake condition. When we relax with closed eyes, most people produce a certain amount of Alpha waves. The moment you start doing something - concentrating, thinking, liste*ning, etc. - Alpha wa*ves are blocked or reduced in amplitude (see figure). On the other hand if you get drowsy Alpha activity will also drop down. Thus, in order to stay in the high Alpha state, you must keep a certain balance between drowsiness and alertness. Alpha is pure consciousness or being without any doings. It represents a gate between the outer and the inner world – between the conscious and the unconscious.


Since research has documented that deep meditation is almost always associated with high Alpha activity in the brain, the high Alpha state has become almost synonymous with deep meditation. When a person is not able to meditate properly, stress is usually the problem. If the person is tense, have a busy mind and a lot of resistance to what is, Alpha activity will be inhibited and it is impossible for the person to meditate.

In order to produce Alpha waves you must control your attention and direct it toward your inner body ignoring all outside stimuli. If any thoughts appear in that state you should not follow them but observe them passively as you would observe drifting clouds in the sky.

Alpha waves reflect a calm, open, balanced mind with a free flow of energy and a good connec*tion to the body and its feelings. During stress, a blocking of energy will result in low Alpha or no Alpha activity, and in the long run this may lead to various stress symp*toms and burn-out.



New Brain - New World

...and stress, where Alpha waves are absent or reduced, is due to thought. So, you see, consciousness is directly associated with high Alpha brain wave output, NOT thinking.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That which sees things as they are prior to the mind's attempt to define them.

That's too vague for my blood, so let me post definitions from Dictionary.com:

1.the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2.the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.

3.full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

4.awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.

5.concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.
-- Consciousness | Define Consciousness at Dictionary.com

Do you find any of the above acceptable as a basic definition of "consciousness"?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Originally Posted by godnotgod:
That which sees things as they are prior to the mind's attempt to define them.


That's too vague for my blood...

Do you find any of the above acceptable as a basic definition of "consciousness"?

It is very specific. You're just not paying attention to what it actually says. However, I will accept only one of your provided definitions as an accurate reflection of how I am using the word, and that is:

awareness of something for what it is
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Oneness Experiments [proof of non-locality]

The good news is that not one but three separate experiments are now showing that quantum consciousness, the author of downward causation, is nonlocal, is unitive, is God. The first such experiment proving it unequivocally (that is, with objective machines and not through subjective experiences of people) was performed by the neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg and his collaborators at the University of Mexico. Let's go into some details.

Quantum physics gives us an amazing principle to operate with - nonlocality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/second). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian relativity, precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated. The physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators demonstrated this in 1982 for a pair of photons (quanta of light). The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is - a signalless interconnectedness outside space and time.

Grinberg, in 1993, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After 20 minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unity intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an 'evoked potential' is extracted with a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject's brain onto his or her EEG that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signalless communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential.

This experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important - nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject's brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner's brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated twice. First, by the London neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in 1998. And again by the Bastyr University researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators in 2004.

The conclusion of these experiments is radical. Quantum consciousness, the precipitator of the downward causation of choice from quantum possibilities, is what esoteric spiritual traditions call 'God'. We have rediscovered God within science. Moreover we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being which we now can recognize as what the spiritual traditions call 'Godhead'.

Amit Goswami
*****

Amit Goswami is professor of physics at the University of Oregon.
He is the author of five books, including The Self-Aware Universe,
Quantum Creativity, Physics of the Soul, and The Visionary Window.
He also wrote a textbook on Quantum Mechanics
that is well regarded and used.

Proof of God



No, brain activity is NOT 'always thinking'. It is proven that meditative states are directly linked to increased Alpha Wave activity. This is not thinking, but the focusing of conscious awareness, without thought. It is seeing, rather than thinking:


Alpha waves reflect the brain’s idle function in the awake condition. When we relax with closed eyes, most people produce a certain amount of Alpha waves. The moment you start doing something - concentrating, thinking, liste*ning, etc. - Alpha wa*ves are blocked or reduced in amplitude (see figure). On the other hand if you get drowsy Alpha activity will also drop down. Thus, in order to stay in the high Alpha state, you must keep a certain balance between drowsiness and alertness. Alpha is pure consciousness or being without any doings. It represents a gate between the outer and the inner world – between the conscious and the unconscious.


Since research has documented that deep meditation is almost always associated with high Alpha activity in the brain, the high Alpha state has become almost synonymous with deep meditation. When a person is not able to meditate properly, stress is usually the problem. If the person is tense, have a busy mind and a lot of resistance to what is, Alpha activity will be inhibited and it is impossible for the person to meditate.

In order to produce Alpha waves you must control your attention and direct it toward your inner body ignoring all outside stimuli. If any thoughts appear in that state you should not follow them but observe them passively as you would observe drifting clouds in the sky.

Alpha waves reflect a calm, open, balanced mind with a free flow of energy and a good connec*tion to the body and its feelings. During stress, a blocking of energy will result in low Alpha or no Alpha activity, and in the long run this may lead to various stress symp*toms and burn-out.



New Brain - New World

...and stress, where Alpha waves are absent or reduced, is due to thought. So, you see, consciousness is directly associated with high Alpha brain wave output, NOT thinking.

The "quanta of light" is not outside spacetime. This is an important distinction. It is still in physics, the photon slows spacetime and can seemingly violate it but it is never "outside" spacetime. The laws of physics is what allows it to bend the laws of time and space.

Unconscious is still thinking, dreams are thinking. The stillness is never complete as long as you have a functioning brain.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The "quanta of light" is not outside spacetime. This is an important distinction. It is still in physics, the photon slows spacetime and can seemingly violate it but it is never "outside" spacetime. The laws of physics is what allows it to bend the laws of time and space.

'Hey sunshine
I haven't seen you in a long time
Why don't you show your face and bend my mind?'


from: 'Cloudy', by Simon & Garfunkel


Unconscious is still thinking, dreams are thinking. The stillness is never complete as long as you have a functioning brain.

In Zen we call this state of mind, 'monkey mind', not because it is on the level of a monkey, but because it jumps nervously about like a monkey. It needs to be quieted down before Big Mind can come into play.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
'Hey sunshine
I haven't seen you in a long time
Why don't you show your face and bend my mind?'

from: 'Cloudy', by Simon & Garfunkel




In Zen we call this state of mind, 'monkey mind', not because it is on the level of a monkey, but because it jumps nervously about like a monkey. It needs to be quieted down before Big Mind can come into play.

One of my favorite tunes.....big fan....

Actually monkeys tend to be well focused.
Some of what they do readily... we cannot......not at all.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is very specific. You're just not paying attention to what it actually says. However, I will accept only one of your provided definitions as an accurate reflection of how I am using the word, and that is:

awareness of something for what it is

Can you provide any objectively-derived evidence for your specificity?
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
The Big Bang doesn't REALLY even have to mean a beginning if you look at it for what it actually is. The Big Bang simply states that all the mass-energy of the observable universe was in an infinitesimally small point. That's really it.

Yes, our equations for time break down at this point. That's what happens when you have a lot of mass and energy in such a small place i.e. black holes. And we know nothing is truly destroyed(opposite of creation) when it enters a black hole, because it's gravity increases when something enters it. So why does the Big Bang have to mean creation or a beginning of anything? As far as anyone really knows, it was simply a state or condition of The Universe. And we simply don't know what the condition of the universe was like before this.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Big Bang doesn't REALLY even have to mean a beginning if you look at it for what it actually is. The Big Bang simply states that all the mass-energy of the observable universe was in an infinitesimally small point. That's really it.
I would say it is more accurate to describe the theory as having assumed that there was such an infinitesimal state given that when we run back the clock (so to speak). More specifically, when we take our dynamical cosmological model and run it in reverse we reach a point at which we cannot go beyond, yet it the big bang is beyond that point.

Yes, our equations for time break down at this point.
We don't have equations for time. In fact, arguably "time" is just a useful notion for things that do not require the precision of quantum physics of the enormity of the universe. However, as the ontology of spacetime (i.e., whether or not Minkowski geometry actually gives us a coordinate system that isn't just incredibly useful but descriptive of reality itself) is still debated, time remains a useful notion and perhaps a realistic one. Equations for time are not useful because they do not exist (at least not in any sense one typically means by referring to "equations of X" as such equations are models and we lack any model for time; moreover, all dynamical models require time as a variable or an argument of some function).

That's what happens when you have a lot of mass and energy in such a small place i.e. black holes. And we know nothing is truly destroyed(opposite of creation) when it enters a black hole, because it's gravity increases when something enters it.
Um...what?
1) Gravitation in astrophysics is based on general relativity, and as general relativity does not allow us to speak of any singular process, force, property, etc., that is "gravity", it is not accurate to say that gravity increases.
2) That nothing is "truly destroyed" is arguable but regardless of its truth this statement has nothing to do with black holes and gravity.
3) That is not "what happens when you have a lot of mass and energy in such a small place".


As far as anyone really knows, it was simply a state or condition of The Universe.
We know both quite a bit more than this and less. The "more" part is pretty boring (it's mostly the derivation from observations and physical principles that give us the big bang theory). However, the "less" part concerns everything from god to multiverse interpretations of QM to many-minds conceptions of reality.
 

AndromedaRXJ

Active Member
We don't have equations for time. In fact, arguably "time" is just a useful notion for things that do not require the precision of quantum physics of the enormity of the universe. However, as the ontology of spacetime (i.e., whether or not Minkowski geometry actually gives us a coordinate system that isn't just incredibly useful but descriptive of reality itself) is still debated, time remains a useful notion and perhaps a realistic one. Equations for time are not useful because they do not exist (at least not in any sense one typically means by referring to "equations of X" as such equations are models and we lack any model for time; moreover, all dynamical models require time as a variable or an argument of some function).

Sorry. I should say our equations involving time break down.


Um...what?
1) Gravitation in astrophysics is based on general relativity, and as general relativity does not allow us to speak of any singular process, force, property, etc.

Yeah, and in General Relativity, gravity is the result of mass and energy, or any other component of the Stress-Energy Tensor.

Gravitational field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"These equations are dependent on the distribution of matter and energy in a region of space."

, that is "gravity", it is not accurate to say that gravity increases.

Uhh.... gravity [of a black hole] does increase as stuff falls into it. You're saying that's inaccurate? Source please.

3) That is not "what happens when you have a lot of mass and energy in such a small place".

In GR, space-time gets severely warped with so much matter and energy in such a small place. Gravity is the warping of space-time.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry. I should say our equations involving time break down.
For the most part cosmological models rely on relativistic physics which, since the Einstein's special relativity, have rendered "time" on cosmological scales obsolete.


Yeah, and in General Relativity, gravity is the result of mass and energy, or any other component of the Stress-Energy Tensor.

Not really, but relatedly:

"As we know, a gravitational field is determined by matter distribution, therefore stress-energy-momentum tensor Tμν which represents the density and flow of matter should somehow be equated to a tensor dependent on gμν. After a long and tortuous search (‘superhuman exertions’ in his own words) Einstein was able to converge on the tensor Gμν (now named after him) whose distinguishing feature is that it satisfies the contracted Bianchi identities (four equations) (gμνGνσ);μ = 0. But it was not as straightforward as it sounds. He was unaware of the Bianchi identities. The usual argument given is that Gμν should be proportional to the stress-energy tensor Tμν because then Tμν;ν = 0 follows automatically, which represents the local conservation of energy and momentum."

Sharan, P. (2009). Spacetime, geometry and gravitation (Vol. 56 of Progress in Mathematical Physics). Springer.

However, gravity in TGR is not merely geometrical or limited to geometry anymore that quantum physics is limited to statistics:

"It is an experimental fact that the matter distribution spacetime determines gravity"
p. 256 of
Kriele, M. (1999). Spacetime: foundations of general relativity and differential geometry (Vol. 59 of Lectures Notes in Physics). Springer.


Still,, thanks largely to Minkowski, gravitation is perhaps best understood geometrically:
"Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a geometric theory of gravity—gravitational phenomena are attributed as reflecting the underlying curved spacetime."

Cheng, T. P. (2005). Relativity, gravitation and cosmology (No. 11). Oxford University Press.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia? Had I but known that all I required to learn physics was this popular site anybody can edit!

Uhh.... gravity [of a black hole] does increase as stuff falls into it. You're saying that's inaccurate? Source please.

Before we get into the physics of black holes, wouldn't you agree that we should settle the matter of what gravitation is in astrophysics, cosmology, and other relativistic physics other than quantum field theory?


In GR, space-time gets severely warped with so much matter and energy in such a small place. Gravity is the warping of space-time.

Gravity is spacetime curvature, at least from a geometric perspective. Are you familiar with differential geometry
 
Top