Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
Is the brain the origin of our consciousness? OR is the brain merely a receiver?
"It may not be that the brain produces consciousness, but rather consciousness that produces the appearance of the brain" -Excerpt from the CIA declassified document “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process” Full audio transcript of the declassified CIA here:
The CIA On Time Travel And The Holographic Reality - The Gateway Process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXfzx...
found this scientist's research on consciousness you guys may be interested inhttps://themindunleashed.com/2020/10/...
Thank you for sharing James. This resonates big time with me and backs-up what I analyze in my book.
Ramzi wrote: "Thank you for sharing James. This resonates big time with me and backs-up what I analyze in my book."excellent Ramzi, looking forward to getting to your book when time permits
"Sharing" can be overrated, and socialism is a ploy to further water down the idea of information and being perceived as an "intellectual", partially because the job market for science was never that big to begin with. As always, second hand sources in academia are easier, more convenient, and for the lazy who consistently rely on them. The shamans in the rainforests already knew, and the modern world with technology is going on what they know, although it doesn't want to admit.
This research is interrelated to this topic, I believe...Quantum Experiment Indicates That Objective Reality Doesn’t Exist https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/q...
For more than half a century, scientists have entertained the thought that each of us may be able to experience totally different realities.
It’s strange to think about – the idea that two people could experience an identical situation entirely differently– but advances in quantum mechanics mean scientists are now more certain than ever that subjective reality is a very real thing.
Last year, a team at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh performed a quantum experiment allowing them to produce and compare different realities, and came to the conclusion that it was possible for two irreconcilable realities to be unable to agree on objective facts about the same experiment.
I’m so happy I found this, I just recently watched a documentary that talked about the conscious. Very simple, check it out.Thank you all for sharing information
https://youtu.be/2AeOfYAJJ8o
The title of this discussion caught my eye: so I read all the messages, viewed all the links, and here’s my opinion.(1) First, let me distinguish between ‘brain’ and ‘mind’: (a) the brain consists of the physical cells at the top of our head—the machine or computer—the ‘hardware’; (b) the mind is the operating system—the program that operates the brain—the ‘software.’ Alone, a computer is dead: it doesn’t do anything without an ‘executable’ program. The program alone (on a disk) doesn’t do anything either: it needs a medium (a computer) to be able to express itself, and they must be compatible. The brain and the mind complement each other and are practically inseparable.
Note:
If a different type of computer is used, the executable program must also change to perform the same function: it must be ‘reformatted’ and ‘recompiled’ to the new ‘machine language’ to be able to communicate with the new computer that also has a different ‘BIOS’ (Basic Input Output System) from the original computer’s.
(2) The brain gets its information from the surroundings as well as from the five senses in our body; the mind makes calculations followed by a decision.
(3) Likewise, therefore, we can distinguish between ‘body’ and ‘soul’: the body is the hardware while the soul is the software.
(4) Now, if you ask someone, “Are computers smarter than us?” You’ll probably get an answer like, “No, because people design computers: computers are actually ‘stupid.’” If we think a little about this last word ‘stupid,’ it needs some explanation.
I have a bachelors’ degree in mathematics, so most people would probably rate me in the top-ten-percentile (10%) of humanity regarding mathematical ability. Yet, a $10 pocket calculator will outrun me, hands down, in making any mathematical calculations—simple or complex. So, how good must a calculator or computer be for us to stop calling it stupid? We probably won’t even call a human with a mathematical ability in the lowest ten-percentile stupid. What’s so special about us? Is it just human pride?
(5) No, it isn’t just human pride. What everyone has that computers don’t have, no matter how sophisticated they might be, is CONSCIOUSNESS or self-awareness: that ‘little’ man/woman inside your brain ‘telling’ you who you are and what you’re doing.
In his ‘Chinese Room’ thought experiment,’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese..., philosopher John Searle contends that computers cannot know what they are doing. Computers make decisions strictly on ‘syntax’: that is, the exact position of information in a command string. A computer might do fast complex calculations, but it doesn’t really know what it is doing; its programmer, however, knows exactly what is going on.
(6) Consciousness is only associated with living things: so far, no man-made computer or robot has become conscious. Mainstream scientists, however, challenge the concept that we can never make computers conscious: they contend computers spontaneously develop consciousness at some critical point of complexity. Searle disagrees with them.
(7) What is the difference between a living person and one who just died of a heart-attack? Physically and chemically, the corpse of a person who just died is practically the same as when still alive; yet there is some irreversible damage: it lost its ‘principle of life’—the soul—the software. Without software, the body alone becomes useless. And this is where things become tricky: depending, somewhat, on what one believes about life.
(8) I fully agree with self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins that whether God exists or not is ultimately a scientific question (‘The God Delusion,’ p. 70). Does God occasionally come into the picture or not? For example, we now know that life only comes from other life. Did inanimate matter become alive spontaneously, or did God coax the first life? Did God create the universe, or did the universe just happen?
Dawkins claims that first-life ‘evolved’ through chance in combination with natural selection (survival of the fittest). In his argument, however, he assumes that initially a rough-and-ready ‘replicator’ happened to emerge by chance alone: of course, natural selection can only kick in after replication is established. I think it’s the wishful thinking of an atheist: he offers no specific viable chemical mechanism how this might have happened.
The problem I have with his argument is that when it comes to inanimate matter, according to the second law of thermodynamics, if things aren’t ‘designed,’ they tend to get worse, not better: entropy (disorder) increases. Before these replicators have enough time to evolve into better replicators, they are prone to encounter what is termed an ‘error catastrophe,’ become unable to reproduce and/or cease to exist. The living cell is similar to a complex factory involving SEVERAL ‘catch-22’ situations where certain complex molecules need to be present together SIMULTANEOUSLY for it to be able to work, let alone reproduce. I think this is too much to ask of random mutation coupled with UNDIRECTED, Darwinian evolution.
Moreover, to make a long story short, the odds AGAINST a bacterium (the simplest reproducing) cell happening by chance alone is 10^41000 (1 followed by 41,000 zeros) to 1, according to philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer (‘Signature in the Cell,’ p. 213). Most people think that anything can happen in the fourteen-billion-odd years the universe has existed, but this is simply false since time is like atoms, it cannot be divided smaller than the ‘Plank time’ (~5.4x10^-44 sec.) and, therefore, there is only a limited number of possible ‘interactions’ (trials) between all the particles of the universe to be able to produce life. Our universe’s TOTAL probabilistic resources are only 10^150 (1 followed by 150 zeros), according to mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (‘The Design Inference,’ p. 209). If the odds against something happening exceed this number, it means that it is, most probably, ‘designed’ (like writing a book). This is far too low compared to the odds against forming a bacterial cell by chance. In other words, science is practically telling us that it was God who designed life. I know that this sounds like a ‘god-of-the-gaps,’ argument, but if we don’t accept probabilities, chance would become our god, and we wouldn’t need any science: chance would be a theory of everything we don’t understand. If we are to decide whether God got into the equation or not, we must treat him like any other scientific hypothesis or phenomenon.
Note:
Regarding our universe, the argument in God’s favor is even more compelling, and in this case, there’s no question of evolution clouding conclusions from chaos theory. According to theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies (‘Other Worlds,’ p. 169), the odds against a starry universe, is 10^(10^30) (1 followed by a million trillion trillion zeros). And according to mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (‘Quantum Gravity 2,’ pp. 248–49), the odds against a life-sustaining universe is 10^(10^123) (1 followed by a thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros). There aren’t enough elementary particles (protons, neutrons & electrons) in the entire visible universe (estimated at 10^80—1 followed by 80 zeros) to represent just the zeros of this number.
Even the 10^500 (1 followed by 500 zeros) universes, assuming the highly questionable ‘multiverse’ hypothesis, derived from the also controversial ‘string theory’ is a drop in the ocean compared to the odds against a starry universe, let alone a life-sustaining universe like ours.
(9) In my opinion, therefore, life is a bridge between the natural and the supernatural: a space-permeating ‘field’ like gravity. In his book ‘The Physics of Immortality’ (pp. 13–14), mathematical physicist and cosmologist Frank Tipler contends there is space-permeating field that he identifies with the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, in the Nicene Creed, Christians pray, “We believe in the Holy Spirit … the giver of life.”
When the body dies, it loses this connection with the divine and the soul (consciousness) either ceases to exist (probably the case with animals & plants) or returns to God, if one believes in an afterlife. NDEs seem to confirm this.
(10) Consequently, I believe consciousness (and life) is a direct connection with God—a spark of the divine—and is therefore something external to the brain/mind: the latter is only the receiver and processor of information, including consciousness as a sixth ‘sense’ or input from God, who Christians believe is always present with us.
Near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are evidence of such an entity existing external to the body. It is independent of the complexity of the brain, so a person with a 10% brain can still be self-conscious: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-wh.... However, this case throws a monkey wrench into the cogwheels of mainstream science: namely, that complexity creates consciousness (unless our brain has exceeded the critical point by ten times).
In the interest of fairness, certain OBEs can probably be explained scientifically. According to neuroscientist Olaf Blake, if a certain ‘integrating’ area of the brain is damaged or if a small electric field is applied to it, the brain introduces a ‘phase difference’ (un-focus) between the physical body and its normal mental perception of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daUnV.... Consequently, the mind thinks it’s ‘seeing’ another body external to it. Similar phenomena are the ‘phantom limb sensation,’ and the ‘rubber hand illusion.’ This might explain ‘local’ OBE’s but not ‘roaming’ OBEs, of course. Neither does a damaged brain hold much water for the astronomically heightened awareness usually experienced by NDErs, not to mention their spiritual experiences; although, there’s some evidence that, before they die, rats show an ‘electroencephalogram’ (EEG) spike prior to their flat-lining:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/..., whatever it might turn out to mean.
(11) Now, if one doesn’t believe in God, the following CIA report might offer some insight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXfzx.... Using the right lobe of the brain, the mind creates a ‘hologram’ of the universe: it attunes itself to the energy fields (some static & some in motion) of the universe. Using the left lobe of the brain, it creates another hologram of the individual’s memory, compares the two holograms, and comes up with a ‘beat’ signal of ‘reality.’ According to the report, this gives the impression of consciousness.
There’s something more fundamental than physics in nature, and that’s ‘quantum’ physics. From the ‘Double Slit Experiment’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB_2Q..., reality ‘crystalizes’ after observation: in a way, therefore, our thoughts create reality, thus enabling us to exercise free will. Apparently therefore, information ‘subtends’ all of science.
Conclusion:
I think we’re probably missing a basic scientific breakthrough (the likes of E=mc^2) that is undermining our ability to explain consciousness; but it doesn’t seem to be solely generated in the brain/mind: it seems to be something external to the body as well, like gravitational attraction between any two bodies. There is no string attached between a body and the earth, pulling it down, but the attracting field permeates all of space. That is, unless one believes in the supernatural.
P.S. Before I end this post, I’d like to thank James Morcan for his excellent, thought-provoking links, some of which I’ve taken the liberty of re-attaching here.
Best regards.
Carmel.
Neuroscientist says consciousness is not a product of the brain https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/con...
James wrote: "Neuroscientist says consciousness is not a product of the brain https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/con..."
Agreed James...
Carmel, you seem to be a very open and agreeable person so please take what I am about to write in the way it's meant i.e. NOT NASTY.
You have written a good post about your theory but unless you are a Mathematician such as yourself or a scientist maybe again like yourself? it leaves the ordinary person such as myself and the majority of others here mind boggled and cross eyed!! and often not able to follow, then consequently stop reading which is a shame.
I mean this in the best possible way to help you integrate, I suppose I hope you take this as constructive criticism not negative as I wish you well.
Best wishes and regards,
Beth.
Hi Beth:Thank you for your criticism. And here I thought it was all lucid!
Please understand that I'm limited by space here, so brevity is of the essence.
If you show me the place/places (quotes) where I lost you, I could elaborate.
Thanks again.
Best regards.
Carmel.
Carmel wrote: "Hi Beth:Thank you for your criticism. And here I thought it was all lucid!
Please understand that I'm limited by space here, so brevity is of the essence.
If you show me the place/places (quotes) ..."
Hi Carmel,
It is lucid for me until you begin the math part,
e.g.
Most people think that anything can happen in the fourteen-billion-odd years the universe has existed, but this is simply false since time is like atoms, it cannot be divided smaller than the ‘Plank time’ (~5.4x10^-44 sec.) and, therefore, there is only a limited number of possible ‘interactions’ (trials) between all the particles of the universe to be able to produce life. Our universe’s TOTAL probabilistic resources are only 10^150 (1 followed by 150 zeros), according to mathematician and philosopher William Dembski......
e.g.
odds against a starry universe, is 10^(10^30) (1 followed by a million trillion trillion zeros). And according to mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (‘Quantum Gravity 2,’ pp. 248–49), the odds against a life-sustaining universe is 10^(10^123) (1 followed by a thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros). There aren’t enough elementary particles (protons, neutrons & electrons) in the entire visible universe (estimated at 10^80—1 followed by 80 zeros) to represent just the zeros of this number.
Even the 10^500 (1 followed by 500 zeros) universes,.....
While you obviously understand this it would be unusual for the everyday person? I hope that I'm not just speaking for myself here?
Thank you for your offer to elaborate but my brain just isn't wired into higher math or science, it goes into another direction!!lol.
I know this must be the way your brain automatically evaluates but you are not the average person? So please try to take this into account when posting and I mean this in the most positive way for you and the rest of us not in your street.
I sincerely hope this clears my post for you in a good way and look forward to your other input.
Best wishes and regards,
Beth.
Interesting Topic which just imo can only be subjective, the nearest science has got again imo is quantum physics string and superstring theory.On a personal level the supernatural for me is mostly the norm having lived with it since the approx age of 3yrs. I have seen and done things most would never believe but there are books that can help with this development and information if interested but experience is the best teacher!! I will say that I have had a NDE having died for a time on the operating table before being resuscitated and do have some memories of it but this is just a small part.
To me the body is just that, a body, the overcoat for use while here to be discarded by the real you on death which I know is just the beginning of another better journey (for some!!).
I hope this makes sense to you.
Hi Beth:See if you can follow me now.
Imagine a thief trying to open a combination safe with 3 registers with 10 digits each: 0 to 9.
There are 1,000 ways of programming the opening combination (000, 001, 002 … 997, 998, 999).
The odds of his opening it the first time is 1,000 to 1 against him: not much of a chance.
However, if he has all night, he can start systematically from 000 through 999 and open the safe.
(Chance doesn’t quite work that way: one will get some repetitions if one tries random numbers.)
Once he gets over 500 trials (half way), common sense (and science) says the odds are in his favor.
Suppose the thief can try a combination in one minute; so, he can try to open the safe 60 times in an hour.
Let’s say the night cleaner leaves at 10pm, and people start coming in at 6am; so that gives him 8 hours to open the safe. If it’s the weekend, it will give him 56 (=24+24+8) hours.
In 8 hours he has the opportunity of trying 480 (=8x60) times.
He figures this is too close to half, so he decides to leave it for the weekend.
In 56 hours he can try to open the safe 3,360 (=56x60) times.
That gives him ample opportunity to open the safe, so he opts to use the weekend.
The number 3,360 is termed his ‘total probabilistic resources’ (assuming there are no long weekends).
The number 480 is also a ‘probabilistic resource,’ but it’s not the total probabilistic resources.
Now, if he could try a combination in 10 seconds, say, that is, he can try 6 combinations in one minute: then that will give him 360 (=60x6) opportunities per hour; and in 8 hours he will have 2,880 (=8x360) opportunities—which should do the job.
If he uses the weekend, he would have 20,160 (=56x360) opportunities.
Notice, therefore, that the probabilistic resources depend on the time it takes to perform an operation: 1 minute as opposed to 10 seconds, in this case.
Let us now suppose the safe has 10 registers instead of 3.
The odds against a thief opening it the first time is 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) to 1. Recall that when we had 3 registers, the odds against his getting it right the first time was 1,000 = 10^3 (1 followed by 3 zeros) to 1. Now that we have 10 registers, we shall have 10 zeros after the 1 (i.e., 10,000,000,000 =10^10 or 1 followed by 10 zeros).
(‘10^3’ means ’10 to the power of 3,’ or 10 multiplied by itself three times; similarly ‘10^10,’ means ‘10 to the power of 10’ or 10 multiplied by itself 10 times.)
So he needs at least 5,000,000,000 (5 billion) tries to have a decent chance of opening the safe.
But his TOTAL probabilistic resources (at 10 seconds a trial and over the weekend) is only 20,160 (=56x360), which is far from half way (5 billion).
In this case, the odds of his opening the safe are the odds against him, 10,000,000,000 (10 billion), divided by total probabilistic resources, 20,160, which turns out to be about 496,032 to 1 (almost half a million to 1) against him.
Imagine trying to pick a white ball out of half a million black balls (blindfolded): those are his chances of success. So he decides to stay home instead.
Trying to pick a white ball among 9 black balls (blindfolded) is quite a feat: the odds against are only 10 to 1. Trying to pick a white ball among 99 or 999 black balls (blindfolded), you might as well give up: yet, the odds against are still only 100 to 1, and 1,000 to 1 respectively.
A billion is a thousand millions (=10^9). You need about 8 large pools (40ft x 20ft x 6ft) to fit a billion 1 cm diameter balls.
Picking a white ball among a billion black balls (blindfolded) is nothing short of a miracle; and a billion has only 9 zeros (1,000,000,000 = 10^9).
A trillion is a million millions = 10^12 (1 followed by 12 zeros), and a trillion trillions is 10^24 (1 followed by 24 zeros).
Now physics says we cannot keep halving time indefinitely: time is not a continuum; it’s like atoms—there comes a point where you cannot split it smaller any more. Reality is like ‘slides’ of an old movie, and things happen (change) only in these slides. The time between these slides is termed the ‘Plank time,’ which is about 5.4x10^-44 (5.4 divided by 10^44) of a second. This means we get about 1.9x10^43 such slides in one second.
The age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years, which comes to about 4.4x10^16 seconds.
The total number of elementary particles in the universe is estimated around 10^80.
So the total number of opportunities (the total probabilistic resources) the universe had to produce life is equal to (its total number of particles) x (the total number of seconds it has existed) x (the number of Planck slides per second) = (10^80) x (4.4x10^16) x (1.9x10^43) = 8.4x10^139 ~ 10^140.
Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski then takes a safety margin of 10 billion (10^10), so that if the odds against something existing spontaneously exceeds 10^150 it is most probably ‘designed’ by an intelligent agent—like a written book, for example.
Through chemical analysis, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer calculates the odds against the simplest reproducing cell (a bacterial cell) arising spontaneously by chance alone is 10^41000 (1 followed by 41,000 zeros) to 1.
If we divide this by the universe’s total probabilistic resources we get 10^41000 divided by 10^150 which equals 10^40850 (41,000-150 = 40,850).
This means that the odds against life happening in the fourteen-billion-odd years the universe has existed is 10^40850 (1 followed by 40,850 zeros) to 1.
Recall that a trillion has only 12 zeros; this number has 40,850 zeros—it’s humungous. Also remember that every time you increase just one zero, the number increases 10 times: so 13 zeros mean 10 trillion. A number with 40,850 zeros is unimaginable to the human mind: the zeros would take more than 480 lines (i.e., more than 10 PAGES with 85 zeros per line and 45 lines per page) of an 11-font, letter-size document to write fully.
As if this were not enough, when it comes to the existence of our universe, the odds are even more, mind-bogglingly in God’s favor.
From chaos theory, it’s possible to calculate the odds of forming a universe with stars after the ‘big bang.’ Chemical elements larger than hydrogen and helium such as carbon (the basis of life) and oxygen are only formed in stars. So for any life form to spring to existence, stars are indispensable.
According to theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies this turns out to be 10^(10^30) (1 followed by a million trillion trillion zeros) to 1. Dividing this number by the universe’s total probability resources (10^150) doesn’t even budge this number (subtracting 150 zeros from a million trillion trillion zeros doesn’t change it by much). Such a number would take 245 trillion trillion PAGES of an 11-font, letter-size document to write fully.
But our universe is not only a starry universe, but a life-sustaining universe as well: many species live in it.
According to mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, the odds against a life-sustaining universe is 10^(10^123) (1 followed by a thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros). This number is so astronomically huge, it cannot possibly be written fully. We haven’t even got enough elementary particles (protons, neutrons & electrons) in the entire visible universe (estimated at 10^80—1 followed by 80 zeros) to represent just the zeros of this number.
Yes, God left us no doubt that he exists.
Finally, I think you now understand what 10^500 (1 followed by 500 zeros) means: it takes almost 6 lines of an 11-font, letter-size document to write fully.
Hope this helps,
Carmel.
P.S. I’m interested in your NDE if you don’t mind sharing it.
Hi Carmel,I do thank you for taking the time to explain this math to me and appreciate it, unfortunately while I was following you to a point when I just began to glaze over and lost it. I am just not a math professor or expert such as yourself, I see the logic in your explanations but when inundated with it all in one sitting (so to speak) I get a brain overload..lol. It is so obviously your forte which makes you a gifted person in that area which very few are in the world? perhaps it may be an idea for you to get a math breakdown of those such as yourself against the population of either the world or just the western and prosperous continents?
Even just the part of the world you live in, you may be shocked, don't know? I would be interested in your findings and your feelings.
Thank you again Carmel and sorry James for being off topic.
Best wishes and regards,
Beth.
P.S. I will enlighten you about my NDE in a separate post or a p.m.
Beth wrote: "Thank you again Carmel and sorry James for being off topic...."There is no off topic in the Underground, Beth!
James wrote: "Beth wrote: "Thank you again Carmel and sorry James for being off topic...."There is no off topic in the Underground, Beth!"
lol, thank you James for being you.
James wrote: "Why thank you, Beth :)"My pleasure :)
Beth wrote: Interesting Topic which just imo can only be subjective, the nearest science has got again imo is quantum physics string and superstring theory."quantum physics string and superstring theory" is not science. In fact, even the name is misleading because "superstring theory" is no longer about strings.
Carmel wrote: Now physics says we cannot keep halving time indefinitely: time is not a continuum; it’s like atoms—there comes a point where you cannot split it smaller any more. Reality is like ‘slides’ of an old movie, and things happen (change) only in these slides. The time between these slides is termed the ‘Plank time,’ which is about 5.4x10^-44 (5.4 divided by 10^44) of a second. This means we get about 1.9x10^43 such slides in one second.Physics does not say that. Time is continuous and therefore the equations of motion contain derivatives (d/dt) and (∂/∂t). The claim that time is discrete stems from some misguided attempts at quantum gravity that misunderstand the concepts of time and evolution.
The age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years, which comes to about 4.4x10^16 seconds.
The total number of elementary particles in the universe is estimated around 10^80.
The estimated age of the universe is derived from huge extrapolations of laboratory knowledge beyond any empirical validation. 10⁸⁰ is the estimated number of particles (electrons and quarks) in the observable universe, not in the entire universe.
So the total number of opportunities (the total probabilistic resources) the universe had to produce life is equal to (its total number of particles) x (the total number of seconds it has existed) x (the number of Planck slides per second) = (10^80) x (4.4x10^16) x (1.9x10^43) = 8.4x10^139 ~ 10^140.
Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski then takes a safety margin of 10 billion (10^10), so that if the odds against something existing spontaneously exceeds 10^150 it is most probably ‘designed’ by an intelligent agent—like a written book, for example...
This type of probabilistic argument assumes that the evolution of the universe is completely random, so that each possibility has the same probability. The evolution of the universe is not entirely random, which makes the argument moot.
This discussion thread, which I have contributed to on occasion, is now officially beyond me - hence my silence of late.However, given all the "facts" presented on this page alone, I'm reminded of an olde world saying:
"It's scientific fact...until the next revision."
Lance wrote: "This discussion thread, which I have contributed to on occasion, is now officially beyond me - hence my silence of late.However, given all the "facts" presented on this page alone, I'm reminded o..."
LOL...am joining you with this one Lance am left still at the starting gate when they seem to be near the end!!!!
You rightly said science should always be evolving so until the next revision?????
I just know what I know and I actually don't care what science does or doesn't say, I have my own proofs and that's enough for me.
Juan wrote: "Beth wrote: Interesting Topic which just imo can only be subjective, the nearest science has got again imo is quantum physics string and superstring theory."quantum physics string and superstring..."
LOL...never thought it was about strings!!. Please do NOT try and educate me about science as I've said before I'm NOT a scientist or anywhere near and have no aspirations to be one.
Your receiver is working just fine, Beth :)
James wrote: "Your receiver is working just fine, Beth :)"LOL...Why thank you James, seems to me yours is too :)
Hi Juan:In your message 239 you opined, “‘quantum physics string and superstring theory’ is not science.” I must disagree with you, especially regarding quantum physics.
‘String Theory’ and ‘Superstring Theory’ might only be theoretical ‘sciences’ so far, but ‘Quantum Mechanics’ or ‘Quantum Physics’ has even been proven experimentally.
Why do you say they are not science? Many scientists have dedicated their much of their lifetime on these ‘sciences.’
In your message 240 you stated, “Time is continuous and therefore the equations of motion contain derivatives (d/dt) and (∂/∂t). The claim that time is discrete stems from some misguided attempts at quantum gravity that misunderstand the concepts of time and evolution.”
I agree with you that to all intents and purposes (in the everyday world) time is continuous and ‘differentiable,’ but not at the level of 5x10^-44 of a second. I haven’t heard of any scientist, besides you, denying this, yet.
According to Wikipedia,
“The ‘Planck time’ is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible”: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla....
And again, “The Planck time is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately 5.39×10^-44 s. No current physical theory can describe timescales shorter than the Planck time, such as the earliest events after the Big Bang, and it is conjectured that the STRUCTURE OF TIME BREAKS DOWN on intervals comparable to the Planck time. While there is currently no known way to measure time intervals on the scale of the Planck time, researchers in 2020 found that the accuracy of an atomic clock is CONSTRAINED BY QUANTUM EFFECTS on the order of the Planck time, and for the most precise atomic clocks thus far they calculated that such effects have been ruled out to around 10^-33 s, or 10 orders of magnitude above the Planck scale” (emphasis mine): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_....
You also argued, “The estimated age of the universe is derived from huge extrapolations of laboratory knowledge beyond any empirical validation.”
In his book ‘A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing,’ theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss states, “[The] estimate for the age of our universe was vastly improved in about 2006 when new precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background using the WMAP satellite allowed observers to precisely measure the time since the Big Bang. We now know the age of the universe TO FOUR SIGNIFICANT FIGURES. It is 13.72 billion years old!” (p. 174 of 389, emphasis mine)
You also questioned my estimate for the number of particles in the universe: “10^80 is the estimated number of particles (electrons and quarks) in the observable universe, not in the entire universe.”
Here, you’re just ‘smoke-screening’ the conclusion of the main argument. We know the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, how wrong could the above estimate be? Let’s say it is 10 times, no 100 times higher: that will only make it the total number of particles in the ENTIRE universe 10^82. Dembski’s error-margin factor of 10^10 (10 billion times) easily covers that.
According to the following article, we can see close to 3% of the volume of the universe: “If we left today at the speed of light, we could only reach about a third of the way across it: approximately 3% of its volume”:
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang....
Besides, as you should well know, 10^150—the estimated total probabilistic resources of the universe—is like a drop in the ocean compared to 10^(10^30)—the odds against a starry universe.
The former would only occupy one and one-half (1.5) LINES of zeros (100 zeros in a line with no commas in between), while the latter would occupy 2x10^26 (200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = two hundred trillion trillion) PAGES filled with zeros (every page consisting of 50 lines and every line consisting of 100 zeros with no commas in between).
Finally you opined, “This type of probabilistic argument assumes that the evolution of the universe is completely random, so that each possibility has the same probability. The evolution of the universe is not entirely random, which makes the argument moot.”
In my opinion, there are only two possibilities for the universe’s existence: the universe either happened by random chance, or an intelligent Being ‘coaxed’ it to come to fruition. I opt for the second alternative because the odds against the first alternative are scientifically prohibitive. If I’m missing a third possibility, please let me know.
We’re not talking about evolution of living organisms here; we’re talking about the formation of the universe: there is no reproduction and consequently no evolution in inanimate matter. That’s why I introduced this calculation: to avoid clouding the issue with evolution.
In his book ‘Other Worlds,’ theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies writes,
“In the case of the sun, whose disorder is only one hundred-billionth-billionth [10^-(10^20)] of the equivalent black hole, the chances against the sun, rather than the [black] hole emerging from a purely random process will be roughly one followed by the same number of zeros! That is one followed by one hundred billion billion zeros [10^(10^20)], which is pretty improbable by any standards. If the same argument is applied to the entire universe, the odds piling up against a starry cosmos become mindboggling: one followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros [10^(10^30)] at least.”
As you can see, evolution doesn’t come into the equation, at all.
Probably needless to add, every time a single zero is added the odds against get TEN times worse. It’s one thing picking (blindfolded) a single white marble (first time) from among 10 black marbles; it’s another thing picking it from among a 100 or a 1,000 marbles. By the time you have to pick it out of a billion marbles (which will fill several large pools), it’s nothing short of a miracle to be successful; and a billion has only 9 zeros.
You’d be better off denying the existence of the universe, which you can see, rather than denying the existence of its Designer, whom you cannot see. (Maybe the universe is only a virtual one, after all.) Likewise, you’d be better off denying the existence of any of my articles, which you can access, rather than denying my existence, whom you don’t really know.
Best regards.
Carmel.
Quantum Physics is a threat to the atheistic brain (aka pea brain)
James wrote: "Quantum Physics is a threat to the atheistic brain (aka pea brain)"The atheistic or aesthetic brain?
I think quantum physics may be a threat to one's sanity. I'm already losing my mind simply reading this thread.
Message received loud and clear in my brain receiver. So case solved?
James wrote: "Quantum Physics is a threat to the atheistic brain (aka pea brain)"Excuse me?
Hi Carmel,I did not say that quantum physics is not science. I wrote that "quantum physics string theory and superstrings" is not science. I would not call them theoretical science either, they are simply scams because the people who promote them are lying to the public and other scientists.
As stated above, the statement that time is discrete stems from some misguided quantum gravity attempts that misunderstand the concepts of time and evolution. That is why their approaches to quantum gravity have failed for six decades and they will continue to fail.
Wikipedia is wrong. "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" is a misnomer because it is not a principle and because it is not about uncertainty. Also a lot of people apply it to time, but time is not a quantum observable and it does not have any operator associated with it. People that applies the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" to time makes invalid conclusion and even writes the wrong formula. I wrote about all of this in my newsletter
https://www.getrevue.co/profile/juanr...
There are sub-Planck approaches and theories. Also the wikipedia confuses the theoretical concept of time with the operational concept of time (and clocks). A section of one of my books (still in preparation) is devoted to the concept of time and common misconceptions about it [1]. Wikipedia is dead wrong, as usual, on academic issues. Scholarpedia was born just to correct Wikipedia issues.
Krauss has misled the public by claiming that the universe was born out of nothing while he uses the term "nothing" to denote something is full of energy and momentum. His statements about the WMAP do not change what I wrote one bit. Those 'measurements' are based on huge untested extrapolations and the claimed precision is calculated by assuming that the model works after applying huge extrapolations beyond empirical validation. About a month ago, the latest telescope measurements found discrepancies between the cosmological model and the observations
https://indianexpress.com/article/tec...
Krauss cannot even write the full equation of motion for a single electron, but he pretends that he knows what happened billions of years ago.
There is a third logical option: that the universe be eternal. In fact, this view is in accordance with the usual concept of the universe as "everything that exists, everything that has been, and everything that ever will be".
All the arguments about the birth of the universe that I know of, not only ignore the concept of the universe as everything that exists, but also ignore issues related to evolution, time, cause and effect... By evolution I do not mean evolution of Darwin, but evolution in the physical sense: change of dynamical state.
Your claim that an Intelligent Being coaxed the universe into fruition is ignoring that an intelligent being would be considered part of the universe if this being actually existed.
I do not know what Paul Davies means by the disorder of the Sun, but he is probably confusing entropy with disorder and then applying probabilistic arguments that are not valid for the reasons I explained above.
[1] Section 3.1 in Common misconceptions in physics
http://www.juanrga.com/2021/07/common...
If someone is interested in that section I can email it in pdf format.
Hi Juan:What you wrote is very interesting but also very controversial: you are proposing a total upheaval of modern science. I shall certainly read your book, but are there any other scientists who agree with you? I don’t know of any. To some extent, I already agree with you: I challenge the ‘multiverse,’ ‘inflation,’ and ‘string theory’ in my book ‘Is God a Reality?’ (I hardly mention ‘supersymmetry.’) Meanwhile, I have the following questions.
Your first paragraph (in message 252) seems to be contradictory. First you write: “I did not say that quantum physics is not science.” Then you write: “I wrote that ‘quantum physics …’ is not science. Which is it? Is quantum physics science or not?
Regarding ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle,’ whether it is a misnomer or not, in his book ‘The Universe in a Nutshell’ mathematician and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking writes, “We cannot even suppose that [a] particle has a position and velocity known to God but are hidden from us. … Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know the position and velocity; He can only know the wave function” (p. 107). Unless I am misunderstanding, what you’re contesting is just a technicality. In my opinion, this uncertainty/indeterminacy is what eliminates ‘determinism’ in our universe, what allows us to have free will, and to do whatever we want.
I understand that the theory of time might be different from the operation of atomic clocks; but it is also possible that the way that atomic clocks behave around the Planck time is indeed confirming the theoretical concept. In fact, that’s what science aims at: confirming experimentally the theoretical conclusions.
I concede that there might be some discrepancy in the estimation of the age of the universe and the number of elementary particles in the universe, but Dembski’s error margin (factor) of 10^10 should cover it. Besides, the total probability resources of the universe (10^150) is only a drop in the ocean compared to Davies’s estimate of the odds against a starry universe—10^(10^30).
Possibly, Davies might be conflating entropy and disorder. As you know, entropy (S) is related to internal heat (Q) and absolute temperature (T) by the equation S=Q/T. Given time, and the more disorder (mixing) among the molecules, the more isotropic a body becomes. So there is some relationship between entropy and disorder. I don’t know enough about chaos theory to give an educated criticism of Davies’s calculation—do you?
Although an ‘eternal’ universe, at first blush, might be more palatable than an intelligent First Cause (God), it is ruled out by the big bang theory, for which there is ample evidence. The big bang practically implies a moment of ‘creation.’ On the other hand, an ‘oscillating’ universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics. In his book ‘God and the Folly of Faith,’ self-declared atheist and particle physicist Victor Stenger admits, “This scenario is not to be confused with older proposals about an ‘oscillating universe’ in which our expansion is followed by a contraction and then by another expansion, ad infinitum. That proposal fails because of the second law of thermodynamics. The direction of increase in entropy of the universe does not reverse during the contracting phase but keeps increasing and eventually hits the limit of total chaos long before the universe has collapsed to Planck dimensions [smallest size physically possible].” (pp. 188–89) So I don't see how the universe could be eternal.
Regarding your concept of an Intelligent Being constituting part of the universe is an interesting one; however, in the beginning the universe was very small. But then maybe a ‘spirit’ would fit anywhere. Still, usually when someone designs something, the person is external to the thing designed—not part of it.
Anyway, this discussion about the universe was only an aside I introduced to sort-of prove the existence of God. Coming back to the main subject of this thread, what is your opinion regarding consciousness? Is it a consequence of the complexity of the brain, or is the brain only a transducer of consciousness? What do you think is the source of our consciousness?
Best regards.
Carmel.
Hi Carmel,What I wrote is supported by evidence and by experts in the field. I mean real experts, not the pop-sci scientists that usually appear in the mass media.
Quantum physics is science. String and superstring theories are not.
Hawking's books are not a good place to learn science. He often writes things that are not true, and he has been caught lying to the general public on more than one occasion. I dedicate parts of my book on Common misconceptions in physics to his writings. Furthermore, Hawking was far from an expert in quantum theory. What he says about God only being able to know the wavefunction is wrong on several counts. The first being that wavefunctions are not the more general way of describing quantum states. Hawking would know better.
The Heisenberg indeterminacy relations do not introduce any indeterminism in quantum mechanics. In fact, the equations of motion in standard quantum theory are deterministic.
The problem with Planck's concept of time is that it stems from an incorrect application of quantum principles. I wrote about it in my newsletter.
The equation S=Q/T is not correct. I think you mean dS=dQ/T which is only valid for closed systems and reversible processes. It is not true that entropy forces systems to become "more isotropic". Sometimes it does sometimes it does not. I published an example of a system evolving towards less isotropic state in the mentioned newsletter. Like I said, I do not know what Davies did. Reference?
There is no evidence for the big bang theory. In fact, all the observations are compatible with models without the Big Bang. A recent model is this
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
An oscillating universe is not ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics. From what you quote, Stenger does not understand the second law. He is repeating some common misconceptions. I will only mention one of them. The ΔS ≥ 0 law is only valid when ΔU = 0, which is not the case for the Big Bang cosmological model he is discussing. He is applying an inequality in a situation where it is not valid.
You are correct that when someone designs something, the person is external to the thing designed and not part of it. But there is no concept of "external to" for the universe because, by definition, the universe is everything that exists. The universe is an isolated system.
I think that consciousness must be a consequence of the complexity of the brain. It must be an emergent property but I am a long way from giving a detailed model. In fact, I am still far from being able to provide a fully detailed model of a single atom.
Well, models were useful before and during Covid lockdowns... Useful in showing the dangers of Scientism!
James wrote: "Well, models were useful before and during Covid lockdowns... Useful in showing the dangers of Scientism!"LOL...spot on James, maybe too much science not enough experiences!!
One day Juan maybe you'll realise not all is science?
Beth wrote: One day Juan maybe you'll realise not all is science?I never said that everything is science.
No but the implication is there, just saying so don't be offended.
Beth wrote: No but the implication is there, just saying so don't be offended.I do not think that anything that I wrote in this thread implies that "all is science".
Juan I'm not going into semantics over this, just you need to get some of your own experiences then you will know for sure....that's it over and out, finito.
Beth, I know for sure that you misinterpreted my claims.
Juan wrote: "Beth, I know for sure that you misinterpreted my claims."Maybe I have, if so then I apologise. Imo you can't put science into spirituality or paranormal experiences, if/when you have any paranormal/spiritual experiences then you will know yourself. Whatever the scientific reason (ha) really doesn't matter to me it just is.
From a purely personal perspective it doesn't come from the brain!
Beth wrote: "Juan wrote: "Beth, I know for sure that you misinterpreted my claims."Maybe I have, if so then I apologise. Imo you can't put science into spirituality or paranormal experiences, if/when you have..."
Uh oh... I sense a storm brewing between you two. Beth, didn't you say "that's it over and out, finito" a couple of messages ago or did I imagine that?
LOL...Yup you're right Lance sometimes I can't resist a downfall of mine!!! Anyway now for me it is "finito" lol...watch this space!!!!
Beth wrote: "LOL...Yup you're right Lance sometimes I can't resist a downfall of mine!!! Anyway now for me it is "finito" lol...watch this space!!!!"I'm sure you'll be back.
Lance wrote: "Beth wrote: "LOL...Yup you're right Lance sometimes I can't resist a downfall of mine!!! Anyway now for me it is "finito" lol...watch this space!!!!"I'm sure you'll be back."
Methinks you may know me too well...
Beth wrote: "Lance wrote: "Beth wrote: "LOL...Yup you're right Lance sometimes I can't resist a downfall of mine!!! Anyway now for me it is "finito" lol...watch this space!!!!"I'm sure you'll be back."
Methi..."
Quite possibly. We share the same tendency I suspect... i.e. we keep coming back! Much like the great Arnie "I'll be back" Schwarzenegger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YEG9...
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Holographic Universe (other topics)The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution (other topics)
The Art of Dying (other topics)
Magic of Reading: May your grandest dreams appear! (other topics)
The Biology Of Belief: Unleashing The Power Of Consciousness, Matter And Miracles (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Graham Hancock (other topics)Bruce H. Lipton (other topics)
Bruce H. Lipton (other topics)
Graham Hancock (other topics)
Nassim Haramein (other topics)
More...
Well we got to nurture from nature. Don't we? :)