U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2009, 02:14 PM
 
37,621 posts, read 25,325,165 times
Reputation: 5863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Mystic, it seems you are in need of a dictionary, as you keep referring to nature as some kind of god or religious dogma. I'll help you out this one time.

Nature...
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
No need for a dictionary, sanspeur . . . that all seems pretty God-like to me . . . especially when we know so little about the source of the "laws" . . . but STILL have the hubris to change the name from God to Nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2009, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,057,394 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No need for a dictionary, sanspeur . . . that all seems pretty God-like to me . . . especially when we know so little about the source of the "laws" . . . but STILL have the hubris to change the name from God to Nature.
OK, Mystic, I think I finally understand what you're trying to say (not necessarily based on this post but on a culmination of other posts). Briefly, let me just sort of capture what I think it is you're trying to get across and if I'm incorrect please let me know.

According to what you believe, God is essentially a conscience force that pervades the universe much like Einstein's universal energy field. In other words, there are conscious properties to everything in the universe from the molecular level to the most prevalent consciousness that we are aware of (ourselves).

As a result of this conscious force (I presume we are talking about energy, right?) it has essentially guided the order we see in the universe from the creation of the stars, galaxies, solar systems, etc... all the way to human evolution.

This conscious force is completely part of the natural world and does not sit outside the bounds of our universe like the traditional view of God that reminds probably both you and I of a person looking at an ant farm. In other words, God in this analogy, is everything and anything that comprises the ant farm. Because the grains of sand/dirt; the ants themselves; etc... are all essentially energy "slowed down" to the level in which we perceive it as matter, this energy force is still comprised within every single iota of the ant farm. It is, for lack of a better word, inextricably linked with every piece of matter that we see because matter and energy are essentially interchangeable. Thus, the energy of this conscious force (what you refer to as God) must also be invariably present in whatever it is we are examining.

I don't want to demure your beliefs down simply to this level alone as I understand there are some deeper elements to what you believe but as far as the discussion goes in terms of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution this explanation should suffice, if I understand you correctly. Again, if I've misinterpreted or misunderstood you please correct me.

But, admittedly, I must say that I sometimes wonder if you do not intentionally try to obfuscate the language behind your explanations to make people feel as though you have an intellectual superiority to them and thus make your point seem more "valid" to what one may refer to as "the laymen". That's just an observation and one I'd really like to kindly point out in utmost sincerity.

Aside from that, I also understand what you mean in saying that science excludes the possibility of what you refer to as "God" and substitutes it with its own version of God called "Nature". You seem to be well studied in science so it should come to no surprise to you that the fundamental basics of science are really compiled facts based upon what we do know in hope to find an explanation for what we don't know.

Many scientific findings, if not all scientific findings, are based upon comparative sciences in other fields. So, a paleontologist may use the fields of chemistry, physics, geology, etc... to determine where a particular fossil may fit into the chain of evolutionary history. Say, for example, they measure the levels of a certain amount of radioactive material of a fossil found in a certain strata of rock they would be using a variety of different knowns to postulate where this particular fossil fits.

However, it seems that your point is that science, amidst all of the scientific work it performs attributes evolutionary history, the interactions of particles, chemicals, etc... to "randomness" otherwise known as "Nature" and conveniently excludes the possibility that this "God Consciousness" could be a viable alternative. This "Consciousness" is what you seem to be referring to as the inherent "Intelligent Design" of things. Simply put, the fact that animals evolved over time to provide us with a variety of different species, chemicals in a primordial soup eventually gave rise to first life is a high probability, does not conflict with your beliefs at all. What seems to conflict is the exclusion of the possibility that there is a conscious force more or less "guiding" this process from the proverbial "beginning to end."

Now, I can understand what you mean but I also think that it is logical as well as important that science stay honest and admit that to the best of it's knowledge these things happen as a byproduct of nature. To clarify, and I believe we went around on this before, nature (what you refer to as Nature God) is what I refer to as a process of unconscious behavior or unintentional behavior. This should not be misconstrued with "chance" occurrences or "accidents" because there is indeed a selection process that, in my opinion, seems very unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). A common argument against evolution is that our existence happened by "chance" or by sheer "accident" when in fact, as you probably well know, the work of natural selection (perhaps you might refer to this as "God Selection") does not really allow us to say that these things happened by "chance" or by "accident".

With that being said, if we are to remain intellectually honest in our scientific endeavors, we must also be open-minded to the fact that a suggestion such as yours could be a viable explanation for the processes of natural selection, evolution, etc... etc... However, to the best of our knowledge, the best science can say is that there is no such universal conscious force responsible for this that has been proven to do the things you claim. Thus, to the best of our knowledge we can only admit that these things happen as a byproduct of unconscious (unknowing) behavior. This should not rule out the idea that what you are trying to say is untrue just merely unproven and that it could be possible given further explanation, study, testing, etc...

I know what you are probably thinking or about to say... That science omits experiential evidence such as that which you have explained multiple times have happened to you under deep meditation. I'm sorry to tell you this but if we took everyone's experiences as scientifically sound proof we could very well live in a rather mixed up world. After all, there are people who will swear to you with every ounce of their body that they were abducted by aliens. We could indeed believe them based on how soundly and firmly they swear up and down but we also know that the mind can produce hallucinogenic episodes based on a variety of different factors. Simply arguing that an individual, or a whole host of individuals have not acquired enough "right-brain" thinking nodules doesn't cut the mustard and stand up to scientific scrutiny. Because we could just as easily say that one does not possess the proper power crystals to channel aliens. I'm not trying to cut down your meditative episodes to a simple example between aliens and power crystals but I think you catch my drift that experiential devices cannot always be trustworthy. Even if I were to experience whatever it is you claim to have experienced it would not necessarily make it any more real except perhaps to my own cognition just as someone who hallucinates about an alien abduction would describe it as a very real experience (it doesn't mean it actually happened).

Ultimately, what it seems to boil down to is something that you and I went around in circles on some time ago in that of "Conscious Forces Guiding Our Universe vs. Unconscious (Unknowing) Interactions/Forces Guiding Our Universe." Now, I also understand that you have repeatedly conjectured mathematics as "artificial rubric" and, in fact, you would be correct. It is nothing more than an artificial way for us to correlate different things to our own cognitive perceptions. The symbologies, Greek lettering, all of them are merely human creations used to give us an understanding of how things work. However, they also do explain things in the same fashion that E=MC^2 explains things. Yes, 'E',the '=' sign, and 'MC^2' are all human constructs. In an alien language it could very well be represented by P+IE(7 and mean the same thing. This does not undercut the essential fact that matter and energy are interchangeable, it only undercuts the fact that our representation of it is subjective to human invention.

In this same fashion, using something as the laws of statistics and the law of large numbers, which you seem to decry as utter nonsense in explaining "natural processes", it may very well be an artificial construct, of that I have no doubt, but it also gives us a very real and accurate portrayal of representative things that are not artificial constructs. Casinos have made fortunes off the laws of large numbers and statistics despite the fact that they are indeed 'artificial rubric'. We know that on a 36 number roulette wheel, the chances of our ball landing on our specific number are 1:36. This does not mean that if you roll the ball 36 times the ball will fall on our specific number in that timeframe. It might take 50 times. But, overall, if we average out the times that number hits compared to the number of spins/rolls, we will indeed come out with a number very close to 36. Is it artificial? Yes. Does it help us to understand the relative possibility of something happening as opposed to the relative impossibility of something happening? Certainly. So, despite your argument that mathematics is nothing but "artificial rubric" I am in complete disagreeance with you that it does not explain "nature" because it does so very well.

Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind and I don't expect you'll change my mind. I do agree that science can often be closed-minded about postulating the existence of a conscious force (often tangled up with the traditional idea of "God") but in science's defense, it very well should be, at the very least, extremely skeptical of any claims - especially those made of personal experience and for very obvious reasons.

Last edited by GCSTroop; 02-06-2009 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2009, 05:42 PM
 
37,621 posts, read 25,325,165 times
Reputation: 5863
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
But, admittedly, I must say that I sometimes wonder if you do not intentionally try to obfuscate the language behind your explanations to make people feel as though you have an intellectual superiority to them and thus make your point seem more "valid" to what one may refer to as "the laymen". That's just an observation and one I'd really like to kindly point out in utmost sincerity.
Hi Troop. Wondered where you had gone off to. Good to hear from you again. This is the second or third time you've alluded to this ulterior intent you see in my postings. I am not sure how to dissuade you of it. I have no such motives or intent. As to your summary . . . it is accurate as far as it goes . . . sufficient to explain my beef with the presentations of science regarding those aspects that are untestable or "just are."
Quote:
However, it seems that your point is that science, amidst all of the scientific work it performs attributes evolutionary history, the interactions of particles, chemicals, etc... to "randomness" otherwise known as "Nature" and conveniently excludes the possibility that this "God Consciousness" could be a viable alternative. This "Consciousness" is what you seem to be referring to as the inherent "Intelligent Design" of things. Simply put, the fact that animals evolved over time to provide us with a variety of different species, chemicals in a primordial soup eventually gave rise to first life is a high probability, does not conflict with your beliefs at all. What seems to conflict is the exclusion of the possibility that there is a conscious force more or less "guiding" this process from the proverbial "beginning to end."
Essentially correct . . . except I would change your "could be a viable alternative" to "is exactly what Nature is" and the purpose of it all is to transform more of this energy from lower forms into the form we humans (and whatever other lifeforms exist in the universe who have the same capacity) produce.
Quote:
Now, I can understand what you mean but I also think that it is logical as well as important that science stay honest and admit that to the best of it's knowledge these things happen as a byproduct of nature. To clarify, and I believe we went around on this before, nature (what you refer to as Nature God) is what I refer to as a process of unconscious behavior or unintentional behavior. This should not be misconstrued with "chance" occurrences or "accidents" because there is indeed a selection process that, in my opinion, seems very unconscious and unintentional (natural selection).
The bolded portion is where you obfuscate and revert to a lack of understanding of this nature you love so much that it is "given in your inner consciousness" as something different from what I am referring to. It is not. Even the use of the term "byproduct" incorporates your bias and preference for an "unintentional" or as you go on to say "unconscious" source. It is annoying when you claim to understand that this consciousness IS the universe and everything in it and then casually deny its existence by using terms that imply its non-existence. You use this "given in the inner consciousness" or "everybody knows that" attitude ("it is just a natural by-product") toward the terms that deny its existence . . . AS IF there were some scientifically verifiable basis for using them so cavalierly.
Quote:
A common argument against evolution is that our existence happened by "chance" or by sheer "accident" when in fact, as you probably well know, the work of natural selection (perhaps you might refer to this as "God Selection") does not really allow us to say that these things happened by "chance" or by "accident".
But as you probably well know the events (mutations) that feed this "natural selection" (thanks for the nod) are largely attributed to randomness and not design (God) changes.
Quote:
With that being said, if we are to remain intellectually dishonest in our scientific endeavors, we must also be open-minded to the fact that a suggestion such as yours could be a viable explanation for the processes of natural selection, evolution, etc... etc... However, to the best of our knowledge, the best science can say is that there is no such universal conscious force responsible for this that has been proven to do the things you claim.Thus, to the best of our knowledge we can only admit that these things happen as a byproduct of unconscious (unknowing) behavior. This should not rule out the idea that what you are trying to say is untrue just merely unproven and that it could be possible given further explanation, study, testing, etc...
::Sigh::You seem unable to refrain from disparaging those you disagree with, Troop. You are wrong. The universal conscious force is "Nature's" universal field establishing the very "metrics". . . which have widespread scientific support as the very foundation of and reason our mathematics can help us achieve the things it does. To paraphrase Einstein . . . that we can understand the universe at all is the biggest mystery.
Quote:
I know what you are probably thinking or about to say... That science omits experiential evidence such as that which you have explained multiple times have happened to you under deep meditation. . . . Even if I were to experience whatever it is you claim to have experienced it would not necessarily make it any more real except perhaps to my own cognition just as someone who hallucinates about an alien abduction would describe it as a very real experience (it doesn't mean it actually happened).
::Sigh:: I actually had no intention of suggesting that science use personal experiential evidence . . . only that each individual has that ability to inform their understanding and add it to what science has determined. I know you are frustrated to learn that there is a right brain skill set that parallels the left brain mathematical skill set (i.e. difficult to learn and requiring discipline) that can provide an individual with information not obtainable any other way (just as math skills can do for science). It is what it is, Troop.
Quote:
Ultimately, what it seems to boil down to is something that you and I went around in circles on some time ago in that of "Conscious Forces Guiding Our Universe vs. Unconscious (Unknowing) Interactions/Forces Guiding Our Universe." Now, I also understand that you have repeatedly conjectured mathematics as "artificial rubric" and, in fact, you would be correct. It is nothing more than an artificial way for us to correlate different things to our own cognitive perceptions. The symbologies, Greek lettering, all of them are merely human creations used to give us an understanding of how things work. However, they also do explain things in the same fashion that E=MC^2 explains things. Yes, 'E',the '=' sign, and 'MC^2' are all human constructs. In an alien language it could very well be represented by P+IE(7 and mean the same thing. This does not undercut the essential fact that matter and energy are interchangeable, it only undercuts the fact that our representation of it is subjective to human invention.
What you seem not to understand still is that mathematics is designed to manipulate ONLY those "things" we can "measure." It is this phenomenon of “MEASURABILITY” (observation -- as it is referred to in quantum discussions), that produces all the interpretational difficulties in Heisenberg's indeterminacy conundrum.

Measures (observations) are also an artificial aid to logical thought. That which is measurable is that for which there is a viable construct in the relativistic and sequential framework of thought itself. Every measure has meaning only when we can relate its representation of stimulus configurations to some standard configuration in our mind. Measurements are events that take place in time. We ingenious creatures have created objective measurement devices to monitor the changes we perceive more accurately. But these objective creations have always been ultimately dependent upon our subjective assessments of existing relationships (e.g., time involved for a mainspring to unwind, and so on.)

These assessments require some base of reference connected to the source of the consistencies in the universe . . . consciousness. We simply fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the basic structure of the universe we seek to understand. But it is only because our consciousness exists at the level of the universe (is pure conscious energy) that our "measurements" and notions of "time" have any validity. In Helmholtz's words,

. . . Events, like our perceptions of them, take place in time, so that the time relations of the latter can furnish a true copy of those of the former.

Time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. (This is extremely important to understand and remember) In ALL other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking.

For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. Capek states the question clearly

. . . But if the time of our consciousness and the time of physics are both pulsational in their nature, can we obtain a better insight into "the topology without points" in exploring the structure of psychological time? Is it possible to find an adequate scheme sufficiently general and sufficiently flexible to be applicable to physics and psychology?

R.L. Wing suggests,

. . . Since the advent of quantum mechanics, . . . scientists have become intrigued with the link between human awareness and the workings of the universe. Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the sub-atomic world --- and even the world beyond the atom --- has no independent structure at all until defined by the human intellect. . . . They suggest that we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.

What Wing should have said is that “ . . . we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws as measured and apprehended by our consciousness are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.” Our thoughts provide us with the ability to measure only because of our access to a frame of reference that shares a temporal equivalence with the physical world.

Our unique perspective is responsible for such concepts as "measurement," "sequence" and "procession." Since our link with the universe is created by the sequential accumulation of brain waves, we can only "measure" (observe) and model sequentially and in discrete terms.
Quote:
In this same fashion, using something as the laws of statistics and the law of large numbers, which you seem to decry as utter nonsense in explaining "natural processes", it may very well be an artificial construct, of that I have no doubt, but it also gives us a very real and accurate portrayal of representative things that are not artificial constructs.
I do not decry them as utter nonsense . . . only that they are artificial constructs designed to represent our ignorance of causal chains in a way that enables us to predict outcomes of those unknown causal chains. They in no way "represent" what is actually producing the outcomes we are predicting . . . but I do not deny their utility. I used them for decades in my research, Troop..
Quote:
So, despite your argument that mathematics is nothing but "artificial rubric" I am in complete disagreeance with you that it does not explain "nature" because it does so very well.
Sorry, Troop . . . it predicts outcomes . . . it does NOT explain them.
Quote:
Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind and I don't expect you'll change my mind. I do agree that science can often be closed-minded about postulating the existence of a conscious force (often tangled up with the traditional idea of "God") but in science's defense, it very well should be, at the very least, extremely skeptical of any claims - especially those made of personal experience and for very obvious reasons.
But they DO postulate the existence of that force . . . they just call it the laws of "nature." What obvious reasons would that be , Troop?

Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-06-2009 at 05:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,057,394 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Hi Troop. Wondered where you had gone off to. Good to hear from you again. This is the second or third time you've alluded to this ulterior intent you see in my postings. I am not sure how to dissuade you of it. I have no such motives or intent.
I've been around, just haven't been posting as much and haven't felt much of a desire to given many of the same topics are essentially repeated over and over again. In so much as the ulterior intent in your postings, I am only referring to the complex language that you use regardless of who you are talking to. You know, you can relax a little bit, this is just the internet. We're not submitting our writings for the Nobel Prize. I don't mind the complex language but I'd say your typical internet citizen won't read more than the first paragraph if you continue to use language such as "metrics, rubric, 'God consciousness, house, dog, cat, etc..." (Don't worry, you've lost them already )

My Uncle Vinnie is a brilliant musician. He can walk into any bar, any hotel, any place that has an instrument and whatever is lying around he can wail on it and get any crowd to submit to whatever music he is playing. He can walk into a crowd of 80-somethings and have them tapping the legs of their walkers to the beat of Sinatra or Dean Martin and he can go into a singles bar for 20-somethings and have them dutifully impressed by an electric violin or bass guitar that will reverberate through people's minds and have every guy and girl going home with one another.

Whenever I'm with him, which isn't often, he'll always tell me the same thing in his typical New Jersey accent: "You see, Frankie, you'se always gotsta play the crowd. You can't walk into a bar full of recently divorced men in their 30's who are down on their luck and wail out sumtin' from a doo-wop band like The Five Satins when all's they wanna hear is Stevie Ray Vaughan's Littlewing as they drown their sorrows away with their beers and shots."

I guess what I'm trying to kindly point out is that the substance of the post, the "crowd" you're playing to is by and large just a group of common, ordinary individuals. I think you're trying to "wow" them with your mathematical lexicon rather than just having a conversation in ordinary speech. Just relax, there's no need to play Mozart when most people just want to hear some Stevie Wonder. The brilliance behind either can still be seen, just "play the crowd". Make sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Essentially correct . . . except I would change your "could be a viable alternative" to "is exactly what Nature is" and the purpose of it all is to transform more of this energy from lower forms into the form we humans (and whatever other lifeforms exist in the universe who have the same capacity) produce.
I would have to disagree on this point because it seems as though you are trying to fit nature into a precise mold to make your argument more compelling. This may be your definition of ‘God’ but it certainly isn’t a definition of ‘nature’, in my opinion. Again, we seem to be at a crossroads between some ‘intent’ in the universe vs. ‘non-intent’. I really don’t think the diversity of life, the complexity of the human mind, or any other fabrication of the cosmos is at all ‘intentional’. Nor do I feel that it is ‘accidental’ as I have alluded to before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The bolded portion is where you obfuscate and revert to a lack of understanding of this nature you love so much that it is "given in your inner consciousness" as something different from what I am referring to. It is not. Even the use of the term "byproduct" incorporates your bias and preference for an "unintentional" or as you go on to say "unconscious" source. It is annoying when you claim to understand that this consciousness IS the universe and everything in it and then casually deny its existence by using terms that imply its non-existence. You use this "given in the inner consciousness" or "everybody knows that" attitude ("it is just a natural by-product") toward the terms that deny its existence . . . AS IF there were some scientifically verifiable basis for using them so cavalierly.
No, all I am referring to is that to the best of our knowledge, in terms of scientific endeavor we have not proved that a sort of energy field such as that in which you posit as being an integral part of the universe exists. Even if one did exist, as you have mentioned in the past, it would not be “supernatural” but it would be “natural” in context. It would still be a part of the universe and it would indeed fall under the categorization of “natural”. I know you dislike Wikipedia but I think the first paragraph of “Science” in Wikipedia sums it up rather nicely:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

The only point I was trying to make is that this “God Consciousness” that you refer to has not been observed as a part of physical reality. I am not trying to imply that such a thing fails to exist or that it is proven not to exist but that the scientific community has not proffered it as an observable phenomenon. Because science ultimately tries to explain the ‘natural’ world in this way, we can only go on what we do know. The byproducts I refer to as being part of ‘nature’ would have no difference in meaning if they were products of intent or non-intent but the explanation would also be dependent on observable phenomenon as well. It is because of that I feel as though we should approach this theory of a pervading consciousness (God Consciousness) with utmost of skepticism but also with scientific inquiry. However, as is the case with science, it is usually up to the individual asserting the shift in perception to provide proof of the physical reality which they claim exists using the scientific method. That’s the reason I probably sound skeptical of your claims - and I feel that I have every right to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But as you probably well know the events (mutations) that feed this "natural selection" (thanks for the nod) are largely attributed to randomness and not design (God) changes.
I am well aware of that but I honestly don’t see why they should be considered “God Changes”. Even if we used the term “God” such as you do and called it “God Changes” the God you refer to is still a part of the natural world and thus “Natural Changes” would still be an apt terminology. In that sense, yes, it is preferential in what terminology one would use. However, there is a lot of ambiguity thrown around when we use the term “God” that the majority of the population, myself included, would probably be inclined to think represents the traditional view of the mythological characteristics of most religions (Jehovah, Allah, etc…). Let’s face it, people don’t know the difference between theory (with a lower-case ‘t’) and a Theory (as in the scientific use of the word). I don’t think we should expect them to decipher the use of the word “God” without interjecting their fanciful notions of some sort of traditional God in the mix. It would be utter chaos.

I think, for that reason, we should most definitely be careful in how we use our language but this still does not address your particular desire to use the word(s) “God Changes”.

It seems you really want to use the term “God Changes” to define mutations rather than use the word “Natural Changes” or “Random Changes”. However, I don’t think this is necessarily a fair assumption to make. Again, I must fall back on the fact that your “God Consciousness” has not been an observable phenomenon within the scientific community so, once again, to the best of our knowledge, these things are indeed random. And, forgive me for saying so, but I would think if there were a level of consciousness that was capable of “designing” human beings without using random processes it would be much more efficient at what it did. At least, I don’t see how you can reconcile the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and our little footprint on the universe as one of the “final products” in this consciousness’ “design” as only having been around in the vicinity of 100k - 200k years. Not only does it seem rather lazy but it certainly doesn’t seem concerted or directed in any way whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
::Sigh::You seem unable to refrain from disparaging those you disagree with, Troop. You are wrong. The universal conscious force is "Nature's" universal field establishing the very "metrics". . . which have widespread scientific support as the very foundation of and reason our mathematics can help us achieve the things it does. To paraphrase Einstein . . . that we can understand the universe at all is the biggest mystery.
No disparagement meant by any means. I would like you to know that probably while you were typing your response to me I had to go back and edit the word(s) “intellectually dishonest” (which you emphasized with bold print) and I had to change it to “intellectually honest” so as not to come across as disparaging. It was a genuine mistake that I corrected but unfortunately it seems you got to my post before the correction was made. I don’t know if that changes your opinion of what I wrote or not but I just wanted to clarify that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
::Sigh:: I actually had no intention of suggesting that science use personal experiential evidence . . . only that each individual has that ability to inform their understanding and add it to what science has determined. I know you are frustrated to learn that there is a right brain skill set that parallels the left brain mathematical skill set (i.e. difficult to learn and requiring discipline) that can provide an individual with information not obtainable any other way (just as math skills can do for science). It is what it is, Troop.
Than it is my misunderstanding as I thought we had gone around a time or two on the experiential evidence thing. I do agree that individual’s have the right “to inform their understanding and add it to what science has determined” but I also think that this is a very delicate issue which should also be handled with skepticism. The reason I say that is because we have, as a nation, sacrificed a lot in terms of intellectual capacity to fit and mold our own thoughts on what science knows as compared to our experiential evidence. A quick, crude example:

My co-worker and I were out in the cold the other night. It was really nasty. Sleet and ice was blowing in our faces, we were 50-60 ft. up on the tail of a jumbo jet for several hours, the wind was howling, our small “cherry picker” bucket was rocking in the wind and he looked at me and said “This Global Warming thing is a bunch of B.S!!!” At first, I thought it was rather funny given the circumstances of the conditions but he kept going on and on about how scientists didn’t know what the hell they were talking about, how the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, etc… but his ultimate point was that the past few winters where I live have been worse than usual. In other words, he used his experiences out in the cold, in one location, to determine that scientific endeavor was utterly wrong (and believe me he is an ardent ‘anti-warmist’). I didn’t point out the fallacy in all of this but it is, in my opinion, a rather decent (if not crude) example of why we should be very careful in how we relate our experiences to scientific endeavor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What you seem not to understand still is that mathematics is designed to manipulate ONLY those "things" we can "measure." It is this phenomenon of “MEASURABILITY” (observation -- as it is referred to in quantum discussions), that produces all the interpretational difficulties in Heisenberg's indeterminacy conundrum.
I understand that very well, actually. A friend of mine recently put it as such and I thought this was as good an explanation as I’ll find:

Proof is solely the realm of mathematics. This is because mathematics is the only scientific discipline that relies entirely upon internal, self-contained, self-consistent axioms, and internal, self-contained, self-consistent rules of inference. Proof involves the derivation of new theorems from the axioms and prior theorems via the error-free application of the rules of inference. The physical sciences rely upon evidential support, namely demonstration that a given hypothesis is in accord with observational reality, which, while being a different process, is no less rigorous.

In regards to Heisenberg’s indeterminacy conundrum, it is true that things such as position and movement cannot be concurrently accounted for with… mathematical precision simultaneously. I do find it interesting that the best we can suggest is a probabilistic account for the characteristics of a particle, and yet we can do so with stunning accuracy. Yes, the best we can offer due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is indeed probabilistic but, to my knowledge, the predictions from subsequent equations have never been wrong in determining whatever it is we are actually ‘measuring’ when we actually do measure it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
These assessments require some base of reference connected to the source of the consistencies in the universe . . . consciousness. We simply fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the basic structure of the universe we seek to understand.
I don’t think we fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the structure of the universe but that it has not been shown to correlate with the basic structure of the universe. It very well may, it very well may not, I am not going to confirm or deny it because I don’t think there is enough evidence to suggest it one way or the other. It is you who almost insists that this is the absolute truth and my response to that is…. Prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. Capek states the question clearly

. . . But if the time of our consciousness and the time of physics are both pulsational in their nature, can we obtain a better insight into "the topology without points" in exploring the structure of psychological time? Is it possible to find an adequate scheme sufficiently general and sufficiently flexible to be applicable to physics and psychology?
This reminds me of two articles I recently read. One was in SciAm several months ago, the other in Discover - I think last month’s edition. I think there is still a lot to be answered in this realm. The article in Discover was rather interesting because it talked about quantum fluctuations affecting the way we smell certain things and why smell could be subjective to the individual producing a psychological affect dependent on the variant individual and ultimately the consciousness of that person.

However, time is also subjective to the individual as well just as smell is. This is an easy enough test to do. Just stick twenty people in a room for a certain amount of time, pull them out one by one and ask them how much time they think spent in the room. Each person will give you a different time. My best bet is that even if we filled the room with heightening disordered states (simulating an increase in entropy) rather than just a bare room we would still have a different perception of an elapsation of time. And, as a side question, didn’t Neils Bohr find in the Shrodinger-Robertson equation that there was a Time-Energy uncertainty principle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What Wing should have said is that “ . . . we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws as measured and apprehended by our consciousness are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.” Our thoughts provide us with the ability to measure only because of our access to a frame of reference that shares a temporal equivalence with the physical world.
While our consciousness is dependent on an interaction of particles (say, certain molecules that are comprised of a particular ‘smell’) or a series of events taking place to give us a perception of time, or whatever example we want to use, that while we perceive things in the world as what they are due to our tangible construction of these interactions in our mind, they can often be illusory and imperfect. I find it interesting that two people can witness the same event and have two differing accounts almost as if there were two separate wave-functions collapsing. To me, this should clue us in that if our consciousness did have a fundamental ‘link’ to the cosmological constants of the universe that each collapsing wave function would be perceived as the same. A car crashing at a certain time, place, etc… would be construed by everyone to have had the exact same properties because the wave function collapsing in this fashion (the sights, sounds, even the concurrence of timely interactions) would seem, in my opinion, to be observed in the same fashion by all observers. It’s interesting… again, it’s almost as though one single event can be seen as two or more separate collapsing wave functions as determined by the number of observers present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But they DO postulate the existence of that force . . . they just call it the laws of "nature." What obvious reasons would that be , Troop?
Perhaps this is just an area of my self-education that I have missed but I am completely unaware of science ever using a “conscious energy field” in such that you have described it as to correlate and define the word “nature”.

Anyway, I'll probably be offline for a few days but I'll read your response although I'm not sure if I'll be able to get back to you in a timely fashion. Take it easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 5,969,077 times
Reputation: 971
Although I'm a Sinatra guy, I do listen to Mozart now and then.
Thanks Troop and PHD for a fascinating and thought provoking debate.

Keep it going
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:18 PM
 
140 posts, read 177,603 times
Reputation: 38
The fundamental differences between theists versus atheists come down to the philosophical differences between: idealism versus materialism.

Theists: Universe is a "brain-child" of "someone", i.e. the brain/mind of "someone" created the universe. Theists identify it as "God". They believe, before the universe was created, nothing existed except God. Then God created the universe.

Atheists: brain/mind is a product of the material universe. Universe never had a beginning and will not have end.

To illustrate, I drew 2 charts of hierarchy for theists and atheists:

Theists: Brain => Material Universe
Atheists: Material Universe => Brain
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 02:37 PM
 
37,621 posts, read 25,325,165 times
Reputation: 5863
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I've been around, just haven't been posting as much and haven't felt much of a desire to given many of the same topics are essentially repeated over and over again. In so much as the ulterior intent in your postings, I am only referring to the complex language that you use regardless of who you are talking to. You know, you can relax a little bit, this is just the internet. We're not submitting our writings for the Nobel Prize. I don't mind the complex language but I'd say your typical internet citizen won't read more than the first paragraph if you continue to use language such as "metrics, rubric, 'God consciousness, house, dog, cat, etc..." (Don't worry, you've lost them already )
Take it as a compliment, Troop . . . I do not play to the crowd . . . I discuss and debate with specific individuals who are my audience at that time. I do gear my arguments to the individual.
Quote:
I would have to disagree on this point because it seems as though you are trying to fit nature into a precise mold to make your argument more compelling. This may be your definition of ‘God’ but it certainly isn’t a definition of ‘nature’, in my opinion. Again, we seem to be at a crossroads between some ‘intent’ in the universe vs. ‘non-intent’. I really don’t think the diversity of life, the complexity of the human mind, or any other fabrication of the cosmos is at all ‘intentional’. Nor do I feel that it is ‘accidental’ as I have alluded to before.
I can't make nature (God) fit any precise mold . . . as you assert. It is what it is. This is the problem you seem to have . . . being stuck on the many absurd "precise molds" advocated for God out there . . . you reject them all understandably . . . but then adopt your own indifferent, unintentional, unconscious, purposeless creator. You should ask yourself what about your personal cognitive makeup prefers such indifference and irrelevance.
Quote:
No, all I am referring to is that to the best of our knowledge, in terms of scientific endeavor we have not proved that a sort of energy field such as that in which you posit as being an integral part of the universe exists.
NONE of the attriutes of nature(God) would exist or be amenable to our science if such a field does not exist, Troop. Read a little more Einstein or Minkowski or for a more contemporary view Tegmark.
Quote:
Even if one did exist, as you have mentioned in the past, it would not be “supernatural” but it would be “natural” in context. It would still be a part of the universe and it would indeed fall under the categorization of “natural”.
That is precisely what I have said many times, Troop . . . there is no such thing as "supernatural!"
Quote:
I know you dislike Wikipedia but I think the first paragraph of “Science” in Wikipedia sums it up rather nicely:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

The only point I was trying to make is that this “God Consciousness” that you refer to has not been observed as a part of physical reality.
The point I have been trying to make is that everything we have observed IS part of this God consciousness because it IS THIS PHYSICAL REALITY! There IS nothing else. Nothing separate.
Quote:
I am not trying to imply that such a thing fails to exist or that it is proven not to exist but that the scientific community has not proffered it as an observable phenomenon.
They have avoided using the name because of the egregious history and absurd and coercive (in the past . . . and in recent attempts) "precise molds" that you object to.
Quote:
Because science ultimately tries to explain the ‘natural’ world in this way, we can only go on what we do know. The byproducts I refer to as being part of ‘nature’ would have no difference in meaning if they were products of intent or non-intent but the explanation would also be dependent on observable phenomenon as well. It is because of that I feel as though we should approach this theory of a pervading consciousness (God Consciousness) with utmost of skepticism but also with scientific inquiry.
Notice how you use the word "natural" world and "nature" as if they were something separate and distinct from God . . . they're NOT!
Quote:
However, as is the case with science, it is usually up to the individual asserting the shift in perception to provide proof of the physical reality which they claim exists using the scientific method. That’s the reason I probably sound skeptical of your claims - and I feel that I have every right to be.
Why do you assume a superiority for your terms that cannot be proven? Why cannot others be EQUALLY and as LEGITIMATELY skeptical of the use of "nature" and "natural" . . . as if they had some intrinsic superiority over God as a referent?
Quote:
I am well aware of that but I honestly don’t see why they should be considered “God Changes”. Even if we used the term “God” such as you do and called it “God Changes” the God you refer to is still a part of the natural world and thus “Natural Changes” would still be an apt terminology. In that sense, yes, it is preferential in what terminology one would use.
Good. And there has been ample basis in history for avoiding the term. But we are at a new crossroads with Dawkins et al. trying to push this use of separate terms as proof that there PROBABLY is no God . . . all the while learning more and more about this God. Notice the subtle insertion of the artificial mathematical jargon to produce his "scale" of belief in God (nature). Isn't it absurd to study God (nature) with such intensity and deny the existence at the same time?
Quote:
However, there is a lot of ambiguity thrown around when we use the term “God” that the majority of the population, myself included, would probably be inclined to think represents the traditional view of the mythological characteristics of most religions (Jehovah, Allah, etc…). Let’s face it, people don’t know the difference between theory (with a lower-case ‘t’) and a Theory (as in the scientific use of the word). I don’t think we should expect them to decipher the use of the word “God” without interjecting their fanciful notions of some sort of traditional God in the mix. It would be utter chaos.
Why chaos? What harm is there to continue to allow to exist what appears from recent scientific studies to be an intrinsic part of human cognitive makeup for as long as there have been humans. Science can (and should) insist that ONLY those attributes they have validated be considered part of science curricula. ALL others would remain where they are now . . . in the realm of personal belief. This campaign (Dawkins, et al.) to eliminate the "baby" because of the long history of "dirty bath water" is unconscionable, unscientific and unsupportable, period.
Quote:
I think, for that reason, we should most definitely be careful in how we use our language but this still does not address your particular desire to use the word(s) “God Changes”.

It seems you really want to use the term “God Changes” to define mutations rather than use the word “Natural Changes” or “Random Changes”. However, I don’t think this is necessarily a fair assumption to make. Again, I must fall back on the fact that your “God Consciousness” has not been an observable phenomenon within the scientific community so, once again, to the best of our knowledge, these things are indeed random.
Again with the "given in the inner consciousness" use of a term (random) that is entirely artificial and a construct purely of our consciousness AS IF it were real . . . it is defined as "we don't have the foggiest idea why the heck some of these changes occur but we can model (in our minds) the approximate frequency with which they occur."
Quote:
And, forgive me for saying so, but I would think if there were a level of consciousness that was capable of “designing” human beings without using random processes it would be much more efficient at what it did. At least, I don’t see how you can reconcile the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and our little footprint on the universe as one of the “final products” in this consciousness’ “design” as only having been around in the vicinity of 100k - 200k years. Not only does it seem rather lazy but it certainly doesn’t seem concerted or directed in any way whatsoever.
Hard to criticize a process one doesn't even understand the specifics of (random) . . . don't you think, Troop? The fact that there IS a design and consistency in the universe should be sufficient. You exist and are intelligent . . . did you have anything to do with the various cells in your body and what they do or do not do, how efficiently they do them, etc. Don't you think it would be a bit presumptuous if one of your cells suddenly became as "smart" as you and started to question YOUR existence because it couldn't understand the way everything in your body functioned to produce you? (Imagine the consternation over those anal cells).We are individual "cells" of God's "consciousness body" . . . and you are trying to pick apart the relative efficiencies and inefficiencies, perfections and imperfections from your tiny little cellular perspective. Perhaps now you can understand why I consider Dawkins, et al. arrogant and presumptuous.
Quote:
No disparagement meant by any means. I would like you to know that probably while you were typing your response to me I had to go back and edit the word(s) “intellectually dishonest” (which you emphasized with bold print) and I had to change it to “intellectually honest” so as not to come across as disparaging. It was a genuine mistake that I corrected but unfortunately it seems you got to my post before the correction was made. I don’t know if that changes your opinion of what I wrote or not but I just wanted to clarify that.
Thanks, Troop . . . yes it does.
Quote:
Than it is my misunderstanding as I thought we had gone around a time or two on the experiential evidence thing. I do agree that individual’s have the right “to inform their understanding and add it to what science has determined” but I also think that this is a very delicate issue which should also be handled with skepticism. The reason I say that is because we have, as a nation, sacrificed a lot in terms of intellectual capacity to fit and mold our own thoughts on what science knows as compared to our experiential evidence.
Absolutely true. However, I do believe I explained my fairly extensive "experimental design" using my ability to control my experiences in the various brain states using my consciousness. This attempt to apply the scientific design principles to my own personal experiences of various brain states is a far cry from just intuiting from extant experiences. Unfortunately . . . it is only replicable by each individual attaining the same level of conscious control over their brain states. It is NOT transferable and you have no reason to believe me.
Quote:
I understand that very well, actually. A friend of mine recently put it as such and I thought this was as good an explanation as I’ll find:

Proof is solely the realm of mathematics. This is because mathematics is the only scientific discipline that relies entirely upon internal, self-contained, self-consistent axioms, and internal, self-contained, self-consistent rules of inference. Proof involves the derivation of new theorems from the axioms and prior theorems via the error-free application of the rules of inference. The physical sciences rely upon evidential support, namely demonstration that a given hypothesis is in accord with observational reality, which, while being a different process, is no less rigorous.

In regards to Heisenberg’s indeterminacy conundrum, it is true that things such as position and movement cannot be concurrently accounted for with… mathematical precision simultaneously. I do find it interesting that the best we can suggest is a probabilistic account for the characteristics of a particle, and yet we can do so with stunning accuracy. Yes, the best we can offer due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is indeed probabilistic but, to my knowledge, the predictions from subsequent equations have never been wrong in determining whatever it is we are actually ‘measuring’ when we actually do measure it.
The issue is deeper than that, Troop . . . what we measure is itself artificial . . . it doesn't exist. "Particles" do not exist. "events" exist that we can measure when we observe their occurrence. Our mathematics enables us to predict these occurrences based on the internal consistency, et al. of our artificial rubric defined in our mind ( You might want to read Godel, and others). But the effectiveness of our use of mathematics in predicting what occurs in reality would not be possible absent a universal field (consciousness) to establish those consistencies, etc. similar to those we define and model (in OUR consciousness).
Quote:
I don’t think we fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the structure of the universe but that it has not been shown to correlate with the basic structure of the universe. It very well may, it very well may not, I am not going to confirm or deny it because I don’t think there is enough evidence to suggest it one way or the other. It is you who almost insists that this is the absolute truth and my response to that is…. Prove it.
this is hardly the place for a mathematical exposition . . . but Minkowski's derivation of the "Constancy of the World Interval" is an example I have used before. Perhaps you will see its relevance. *=multiply; ^=power; I= Minkowski's world interval; S= spatiial position; C=speed of light; T1=start time of measurement; T2= end time of measurement; ^1/2 = Square root:

Constancy of the World Interval = I = [S^2 - C^2(T2-T1)]^1/2

I refer you to Minkowski for the details of this derivation. Now for this to be an accurate representation of our "measurements" of events in reality (which it is) . . . certain thing must be true about both the mathematics from our mind and the measures from reality. In words, the spatial separation of events is altered by a continuum of C^2 for any "measured" temporal separation(T2-T1). Recognize that C^2 from anywhere, Troop (like E=MC^2)?

To grasp the philosophical significance of this formula, it is necessary to reorient your thinking from our "inside-out" perspective (inside our consciousness) to an "outside-in" perspective. The expression actually reflects relativistic events artificially "measured" within the illusion that comprises our internal view of reality. If a difference between two internally measured events (T2 - T1) in a system has an effect on a third event (S^2) by a specified constant (C^2), that implies that the measurements were made using that constant as the ultimate base of reference! (That is why it is constant!)

We assess stimuli that exist at less than C^2 against a base of reference at C^2, which is our thoughts within which we have established this internally self-consistent, etc. rubric to measure and predict reality. In fact, without such a coincident reference at C^2, "measurement" itself would be impossible, which means that differentiation between T2 and T1 would be impossible and any multiplicative relationship with C^2 in our mathematics would be meaningless. Hope that helps.
Quote:
However, time is also subjective to the individual as well just as smell is. This is an easy enough test to do. Just stick twenty people in a room for a certain amount of time, pull them out one by one and ask them how much time they think spent in the room. Each person will give you a different time. My best bet is that even if we filled the room with heightening disordered states (simulating an increase in entropy) rather than just a bare room we would still have a different perception of an elapsation of time.
As has been shown . . . the time of the universe and the time in our consciousness are coincident (i.e. equal).The all too common psychological differences in the "experiencing" of time can be seen as stemming from internal differences in the aggregate frequency of the brain waves constituting a given awareness event ("lump"), e.g. watching the hands of a clock versus having so much fun that "time flies." This occurs because of the psychological "chunking" necessary to store memory. Watching a clock records and chunks of "sequences of seconds" . . . whereas having fun chunks larger "sequences of time"(fun) into memory.
Quote:
And, as a side question, didn’t Neils Bohr find in the Shrodinger-Robertson equation that there was a Time-Energy uncertainty principle?
Zawirski has observed,

. . .If the instantaneous cut of the temporal flow according to Heisenberg's formula leaves energy completely undetermined, does not this prove that the universe needs a certain time to take on precise forms?

This confusion about what actually takes "time to take on precise forms" in the observation process (our consciousness), has provoked controversy because the artificiality of our mathematical models of our "measurements" leads us into absurd explanations of this "indeterminacy." We tend to completely overlook the nature and limits of the very phenomenon (our thoughts) by which we create models and mathematics.

Many mathematicians, physicists, and whatnot, tend to forget the artificiality of their models and ignore the need for introspection into the applicability of the assumptions that underlie their use. It is very easy for a true grasp of the mathematical side of a theory to exist side by side in the same mind with serious misunderstandings or ignorance of the philosophical implications of the theory.

Our mental habits are strong (as evidenced by your repeated "given in the inner consciousness" attributions) and mathematics was created specifically to conform to those habits. Einstein opposed Weyl's attempt to justify the phenomena of quanta indeterminacy primarily because Einstein wanted to retain a strict adherence to a unitary field (free of discontinuities and singularities . . . something modern physicists seem less willing to do!). Admittedly, Einstein wanted that strict adherence because he recognized the limitations of continuous mathematics (only such changes can be modeled by partial differential equations). Clearly, Einstein was not unaware of the limitations and philosophical implications of our mathematical models!

Unfortunately, those physicists closest to understanding the vibrational nature of our reality, the String Theorists, are forced by their own entrapment in our confused perceptions and measurements to be equally absurd in their purely mathematical attempts to find a unified theory. In order to retain their "particle" (or at least some kind of "measured substance”) notions they created the idea of “strings” (something tangible to hold on to) instead of pure “vibratory events."

When we try to combine different mathematically "measurable" ways of expressing an identity (eg. MC2 = hf), we find that we can only get one result or the other (indeterminism) when we measure them, not both simultaneously. Because position is not something different from momentum, except for the "time component," our inability to measure both does NOT mean that an objective reality is therefore non-existent and is only a subjective, observer-dependent ("measured") reality!

Unfortunately, our current mathematics fails to accurately represent the hypothesized wave interference derivations of "particle" creation because an expanding "beat" seems unavoidable in Schroedinger's wave function. This anomaly in the mathematical representation is used to justify retaining a "particle" orientation. However, the Rayleigh principle unambiguously states,

. . . an individual 'particle' is a whole train of waves of different frequencies which together form a wave packet. The velocity of these packets is a function of the waves comprising it.

We see that all energy is vibratory and Bachelard suggests the crucial connection with Time that our "measurements" mandate,

. . . From criticism delivered by wave mechanics, it follows that the particle has no more reality than the composition that manifests it. There are temporal events at the very foundation of its existence.

but it is Eddington who points out the fundamental conundrum of objective indeterminacy,

. . . to recognize h (Planck's constant) is to deny subjective indeterminacy and accept objective indeterminacy. . . The suggestion is that an association of exact position with exact momentum can never be discovered by us because there is no such thing in Nature.

A material particle thus loses its character of a substantial entity existing in space and enduring through time. It is revealed as simply that which we identify when we perform a particular process event in Time called "measurement," or observation.

Mathematics seldom gives us a problem when we have only the equations and relationships among already "measured" entities (calculations on existing data). When we have only abstract functions, it is not that simple. There are errors possible abstractly (by missing identities) even with precise adherence to the mathematical rules that are not easy to detect when we are manipulating complex quantum wave functions, performing matrix mechanistic resolutions, or manipulating multidimensional (parallel) mathematical universes.
Quote:
While our consciousness is dependent on an interaction of particles (say, certain molecules that are comprised of a particular ‘smell’) or a series of events taking place to give us a perception of time, or whatever example we want to use, that while we perceive things in the world as what they are due to our tangible construction of these interactions in our mind, they can often be illusory and imperfect. I find it interesting that two people can witness the same event and have two differing accounts almost as if there were two separate wave-functions collapsing. To me, this should clue us in that if our consciousness did have a fundamental ‘link’ to the cosmological constants of the universe that each collapsing wave function would be perceived as the same. A car crashing at a certain time, place, etc… would be construed by everyone to have had the exact same properties because the wave function collapsing in this fashion (the sights, sounds, even the concurrence of timely interactions) would seem, in my opinion, to be observed in the same fashion by all observers. It’s interesting… again, it’s almost as though one single event can be seen as two or more separate collapsing wave functions as determined by the number of observers present.
I have discussed the source of individual perceptual differences based on the content "chunked" in memory by each individual, Troop. That has nothing to do with the composition of our consciousness and its relationship to the consciousness of the universe. The square of the speed of light was shown to be the reference "speed" of our measurements of reality . . . so it is the "speed" of our consciousness, as well. You wouldn't expect our INDIVIDUAL USE of our consciousness to occur at that "speed" would you, Troop? Our consciousness may exist at C^2. Unfortunately, the processes of using our consciousness, the mental fumbling we perform to reach conclusions, can be considerably less speedy and consistent. This might make it difficult for you to believe that your thoughts exist at C^2. But you just need to separate the "fumbling" from the energy transformations that enable us to fumble, imagine or solve problems. It is our consciousness, itself, not how we use it, that exists at C^2. Existence at C^2 is existence as energy and is eternal or timeless.

To address your use of wave collapses . . . wave functions have two parts, a real part and an imaginary part, because of the conventions we use to represent things in our artificial mathematical language. Imaginary numbers, i (or the square root of -1) are consistent with our mathematical view of reality, but not with the true structure of reality. The concept of negativity is a useful fabrication in our models, but troublesome as a description of our existence, since there is no rewind button for life.

The resolution of a wave function that occurs upon measurement, (collapsing the wave function from a wave of all possibilities to a single fact) requires multiplication by its complex conjugate (essentially this removes the unrealistic imaginary part, i).

In and of itself, multiplying two separate entities together to obtain a single result is not unusual. But because our abstract understanding of the actual phenomenon being modeled (and any "identities" therein) is flawed and incomplete, the philosophical implications of the results can be misleading despite flawless rule following in the abstract mathematical manipulations used in the derivations or solutions.

Our mathematical removal of the "reversed time component" (the imaginary i) when resolving wave functions should automatically be suspect. We need constantly to remind ourselves of the artificiality of mathematics as emphasized by Dedekind,

. . . numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things. It is only through the purely logical process of building up the science of numbers and by thus acquiring the continuous number domain that we are prepared accurately to investigate our notions of space and time by bringing them into relation with this number domain created in our mind.

In short, mathematics is a domain that exists in our mind alone. Its rules are merely parts of a language arbitrarily created for its usefulness as a tool for communicating about certain aspects of our world. Its symbols are used to represent "measured" structural elements of reality. The composition of those "measures" and their relationship to the underlying reality represent the greatest potential source of error and confusion.[quote]Perhaps this is just an area of my self-education that I have missed but I am completely unaware of science ever using a “conscious energy field” in such that you have described it as to correlate and define the word “nature”. OF course not . . . they simply accept the existence of such a universal field (without characterizing it . . . like "nature") and seek to define all its components to eventually produce a unified field theory that encompasses all the separate theories currently used.
Quote:
Anyway, I'll probably be offline for a few days but I'll read your response although I'm not sure if I'll be able to get back to you in a timely fashion. Take it easy.
No problem, Troop . . . I thoroughly enjoy our discussions. Be well, Mystic.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-07-2009 at 03:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,504,600 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW123 View Post
The fundamental differences between theists versus atheists come down to the philosophical differences between: idealism versus materialism.

Theists: Universe is a "brain-child" of "someone", i.e. the brain/mind of "someone" created the universe. Theists identify it as "God". They believe, before the universe was created, nothing existed except God. Then God created the universe.

Atheists: brain/mind is a product of the material universe. Universe never had a beginning and will not have end.
Wow, that's both simplistic, false and out of topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 03:12 PM
 
140 posts, read 177,603 times
Reputation: 38
That post of mine was not about any "logic" -- it was a simple description of each side of the positions on the issue.

Did I misrepresent any side?

(I think theists' position is out of logic, very true. I don't think I misrepresented it though)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Rivendell
1,387 posts, read 2,114,706 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW123 View Post
The fundamental differences between theists versus atheists come down to the philosophical differences between: idealism versus materialism.

Theists: Universe is a "brain-child" of "someone", i.e. the brain/mind of "someone" created the universe. Theists identify it as "God". They believe, before the universe was created, nothing existed except God. Then God created the universe.

Atheists: brain/mind is a product of the material universe. Universe never had a beginning and will not have end.

To illustrate, I drew 2 charts of hierarchy for theists and atheists:

Theists: Brain => Material Universe
Atheists: Material Universe => Brain
This atheist does not know if the universe ever had a beginning or if it will ever end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top