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.
It is known in Cold Matter physics as a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Google is your friend.
I asked for a link to your specific claims. I wonder why posters choose to refuse to simply give a link to support their claim , and respond with “ Google it”. Is there something to hide ? I am always perfectly willing to give links to support my claims, because I know my claims ARE supported by links . Refusing to do this seems a dodge to me .
Nevertheless I went and looked it up . As I suspected, it has nothing to do with a conscious Self . It is simply a state of matter that exists at near absolute zero temperature. It is also a state of matter humans can create in labs , so no metaphysical Self involved. But now I understand why you chose not to link it . It does nothing to support your claim . You must count on people not bothering to research your claims .
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-14-2021 at 09:05 AM..
I asked for a link to your specific claims. I wonder why posters choose to refuse to simply give a link to support their claim , and respond with “ Google it”. Is there something to hide ? I am always perfectly willing to give links to support my claims, because I know my claims ARE supported by links . Refusing to do this seems a dodge to me .
Nevertheless I went and looked it up . As I suspected, it has nothing to do with a conscious Self . It is simply a state of matter that exists at near absolute zero temperature. It is also a state of matter humans can create in labs , so no metaphysical Self involved. But now I understand why you chose not to link it . It does nothing to support your claim . You must count on people not bothering to research your claims .
Basically, mystics know they’ve got nothing. But the smarter mystics who still emotionally need to remain mystical, seek artificial imprimaturs of science to lend faux support to their insanity. So they read the jargon, literally imagine and invent linkage to their non-rational process, and conclude that “science” supports their impossible propositions. It’s a deranged formula, but it satisfies the emo-desperation while appearing sufficiently technical.
And of course, since they cannot explain their incoherent nonsense to themselves, let alone anyone else, they will robotically instruct you to “Google it“. Expecting you to stumble into the same errant irrational errors, connecting the same non-existent dots they did.
Congratulations. Of all the atheists on the forum, you are the one who has achieved the impossible. You have established that our Reality is NOT God despite its undeniable attribute as our creator (i.e., why we exist). Please enlighten us on how you accomplished this since most of your peers prefer to claim a mere lack of belief because it is unknown or perhaps unknowable.
You have a very myopic understanding of existence. Everything that exists is an (energy/mass/momentum) manifestation of the spacetime field including our consciousness and whatever we create within our consciousness. As the result of our biased conditioning in physical reality, you refuse to acknowledge that our conscious thinking Self actually exists in an immaterial energy form (undifferentiated single quantum entity). Take your own advice. Get real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Can you please provide a link to this undifferentiated single quantum entity ?
The term is used in a paper by Ulrich Mohrhoff in which he discusses the difference between the quantum and classical domains.
Quantum mechanics and the manifestation of the world
Ulrich Mohrhoff
Abstract
Quantum theory’s irreducible empirical core is a probability calculus.While it presupposes the events to which(and on the basis of which) it serves to assign probabilities,and therefore cannot account for their occurrence,it has to be consistent with it. It must make it possible to identify a system of observables that have measurement-independent values.What makes this possible is the incompleteness of the spatio temporal differentiation of the physical world. This is shown by applying a novel interpretive principle to interfering alternatives involving distinctions between regions of space. Applying the same interpretive principle to alternatives involving distinctions between things makes it safe to claim that the macro world comes into being through a progressive differentiation of a single, intrinsically undifferentiated entity. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, this entity gives rise to(1) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is not taken into account, and(2) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. The necessary distinction between two domains (classical and quantum, or macro and micro) and their mutual dependence is best understood as a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation.
In section 4 Mohrhoff refers to particles as entities.
''One may therefore be excused for concluding that the particles in C and D (and hence the articles in A and B as well) are one and the same entity!''
Regarding Ulrich Mohrhoff
Ulrich Mohrhoff is a German physicist at the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education (SAICE) in Pondicherry, India, where he teaches a "spiritually oriented course of physics". He is also editor of AntiMatters, an open-access e-journal published by SAICE dedicated to a non-materialistic perspective on science and the humanities.
The term is used in a paper by Ulrich Mohrhoff in which he discusses the difference between the quantum and classical domains.
Quantum mechanics and the manifestation of the world
Ulrich Mohrhoff
Abstract
Quantum theory’s irreducible empirical core is a probability calculus.While it presupposes the events to which(and on the basis of which) it serves to assign probabilities,and therefore cannot account for their occurrence,it has to be consistent with it. It must make it possible to identify a system of observables that have measurement-independent values.What makes this possible is the incompleteness of the spatio temporal differentiation of the physical world. This is shown by applying a novel interpretive principle to interfering alternatives involving distinctions between regions of space. Applying the same interpretive principle to alternatives involving distinctions between things makes it safe to claim that the macro world comes into being through a progressive differentiation of a single, intrinsically undifferentiated entity. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, this entity gives rise to(1) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is not taken into account, and(2) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. The necessary distinction between two domains (classical and quantum, or macro and micro) and their mutual dependence is best understood as a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation.
In section 4 Mohrhoff refers to particles as entities.
''One may therefore be excused for concluding that the particles in C and D (and hence the articles in A and B as well) are one and the same entity!''
Regarding Ulrich Mohrhoff
Ulrich Mohrhoff is a German physicist at the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education (SAICE) in Pondicherry, India, where he teaches a "spiritually oriented course of physics". He is also editor of AntiMatters, an open-access e-journal published by SAICE dedicated to a non-materialistic perspective on science and the humanities.
Thanks. Looks like some interesting reading . I had googled Mystics term and got nothing . The wording is slightly different in his paper, but maybe basically the same as what Mystic means .
I have the knowledge, or the ability to investigate your claims, nowhere does your jargon lead to a cosmic consciousness. If it did, you would have filled in the alleged connection from genuine science to your opinion.
I could post the link where you claim I have little knowledge after a 4 year degree, but you get everything wrong, and I have to correct both your ignorance and your reading comprehension problem, but that would only derail this thread.
You exposed your ignorance years ago when you said we do not know brain waves exist, or that my BPN computer program is processing in sequence; and you have done nothing since then to show you know any science, and everything to show you know nothing about it.[/b]
It do not believe language differences can account for your egregious misinformation and interpretations of what I have said, because this is nonsense! I never remotely said any such things. You are deliberately misinterpreting. Your laziness and refusal to read my Synthesis and earlier posts in the Philosophy forum where detailed science was discussed in defense of my views is inexcusable. The mere fact that you are still willing to malign my knowledge from your naive bachelor-level understanding suggests you are a very dishonest person.
Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is further revealed by asking for published peer-reviewed papers with support for my hypotheses. Prior to 1905, there would have been nowhere to go to find the kind of connections and interpretations of spacetime as those Einstein created and presented. Fortunately, for Einstein, there were places where such ground-breaking theories could be presented. There were none when I was forming my theories and hypotheses about Cosmic Consciousness, God, etc., there still are none, and I would NOT have risked the embarrassment to my professional reputation to ever attempt such publication.
There is a growing acceptance of more "wooish" concepts due to the developments in Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Biology, and the efforts to reconcile them with Einstein's Relativity theories. It provides a potentially more receptive environment for some spiritual Young Turks to pursue the hypotheses with the necessary rigor to get them published in reputable journals. I suspect they would still need to refrain from making any references to God when they do so. The science community is simply not yet ready for that kind of publication.
It do not believe language differences can account for your egregious misinformation and interpretations of what I have said, because this is nonsense! I never remotely said any such things. You are deliberately misinterpreting. Your laziness and refusal to read my Synthesis and earlier posts in the Philosophy forum where detailed science was discussed in defense of my views is inexcusable. The mere fact that you are still willing to malign my knowledge from your naive bachelor-level understanding suggests you are a very dishonest person.
Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is further revealed by asking for published peer-reviewed papers with support for my hypotheses. Prior to 1905, there would have been nowhere to go to find the kind of connections and interpretations of spacetime as those Einstein created and presented. Fortunately, for Einstein, there were places where such ground-breaking theories could be presented. There were none when I was forming my theories and hypotheses about Cosmic Consciousness, God, etc., there still are none, and I would NOT have risked the embarrassment to my professional reputation to ever attempt such publication.
There is a growing acceptance of more "wooish" concepts due to the developments in Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Biology, and the efforts to reconcile them with Einstein's Relativity theories. It provides a potentially more receptive environment for some spiritual Young Turks to pursue the hypotheses with the necessary rigor to get them published in reputable journals. I suspect they would still need to refrain from making any references to God when they do so. The science community is simply not yet ready for that kind of publication.
And never will be, and never should be. Praise the Lord!
It do not believe language differences can account for your egregious misinformation and interpretations of what I have said, because this is nonsense! I never remotely said any such things. You are deliberately misinterpreting. Your laziness and refusal to read my Synthesis and earlier posts in the Philosophy forum where detailed science was discussed in defense of my views is inexcusable. The mere fact that you are still willing to malign my knowledge from your naive bachelor-level understanding suggests you are a very dishonest person.
Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is further revealed by asking for published peer-reviewed papers with support for my hypotheses. Prior to 1905, there would have been nowhere to go to find the kind of connections and interpretations of spacetime as those Einstein created and presented. Fortunately, for Einstein, there were places where such ground-breaking theories could be presented. There were none when I was forming my theories and hypotheses about Cosmic Consciousness, God, etc., there still are none, and I would NOT have risked the embarrassment to my professional reputation to ever attempt such publication.
There is a growing acceptance of more "wooish" concepts due to the developments in Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Biology, and the efforts to reconcile them with Einstein's Relativity theories. It provides a potentially more receptive environment for some spiritual Young Turks to pursue the hypotheses with the necessary rigor to get them published in reputable journals. I suspect they would still need to refrain from making any references to God when they do so. The science community is simply not yet ready for that kind of publication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Thanks. Looks like some interesting reading. I had googled Mystics term and got nothing. The wording is slightly different in his paper, but maybe basically the same as what Mystic means.
Don't pretend you actually thought there would be published papers involving my hypotheses, Nate. You know full well such papers would be virtually unpublishable. If you want to know why you cannot connect the dots between the existing science and my extrapolated hypotheses, it is because you are not aware of nor privy to the detailed knowledge in several fields. Connecting the dots between the legitimate science facts and my extrapolations require a detailed and thorough knowledge of the following:
The mathematics of EEG spherical Standing Wave formation and Spherical Resonance, the amplification effects of perfect resonance in a neural field, the evidence that pure electron BECs can form at room temperature via spin waves as in Wigner crystal lattices, that the quantum vibrations in the microtubule lattice of brain neurons are involved in brain wave formation (synaptic firing), the evidence from Cold Matter Physics that BECs are stable in the cold of outer space, and the nature of the substrate of our Reality as revealed by Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Biology, and the Relativity theories, to name just a few.
Don't pretend you actually thought there would be published papers involving my hypotheses, Nate. You know full well such papers would be virtually unpublishable. If you want to know why you cannot connect the dots between the existing science and my extrapolated hypotheses, it is because you are not aware of nor privy to the detailed knowledge in several fields. Connecting the dots between the legitimate science facts and my extrapolations require a detailed and thorough knowledge of the following:
The mathematics of EEG spherical Standing Wave formation and Spherical Resonance, the amplification effects of perfect resonance in a neural field, the evidence that pure electron BECs can form at room temperature via spin waves as in Wigner crystal lattices, that the quantum vibrations in the microtubule lattice of brain neurons are involved in brain wave formation (synaptic firing), the evidence from Cold Matter Physics that BECs are stable in the cold of outer space, and the nature of the substrate of our Reality as revealed by Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Biology, and the Relativity theories, to name just a few.
Did I expect you to give a link? No, I was about 99% certain you couldnt, but rather than argue the point I simply let you show you couldnt offer support for what you claimed. Now you are pretending to have some sort of knowledge that others like myself arent privy to. It all bull manure. You take some legitimate ideas in quantum physics, mix them together, throw in some of your BS, and you have an impressive sounding pile of BS . Nothing more. There are some interesting aspects to panpsychism, but you choose to go way beyond even the hypothesizing of the experts in this field and make nonsensical claims. You are ultimately just stringing some sciencey sounding stuff together to justify your nonsense, and when called out on it are forced to admit no linkable support for your claims exist, and then , now, try to hide behind some BS claim of special knowledge that others that dont agree with you dont have.
Here is an academia word for your claims: Baloney. Pure baloney.
Did I expect you to give a link? No, I was about 99% certain you couldnt, but rather than argue the point I simply let you show you couldnt offer support for what you claimed. Now you are pretending to have some sort of knowledge that others like myself arent privy to. It all bull manure. You take some legitimate ideas in quantum physics, mix them together, throw in some of your BS, and you have an impressive sounding pile of BS . Nothing more. There are some interesting aspects to panpsychism, but you choose to go way beyond even the hypothesizing of the experts in this field and make nonsensical claims. You are ultimately just stringing some sciencey sounding stuff together to justify your nonsense, and when called out on it are forced to admit no linkable support for your claims exist, and then , now, try to hide behind some BS claim of special knowledge that others that dont agree with you dont have.
Here is an academia word for your claims: Baloney. Pure baloney.
The arrogance of poorly educated people when confronted with knowledge beyond their ken is bemusing but not at all amusing.
The arrogance of poorly educated people when confronted with knowledge beyond their ken is bemusing but not at all amusing.
LOL . You fool nobody except possibly yourself . You make stuff up and try to pass it off as real scientific insight, then behave like this when you get called out on it and your claim falls flat . Your last resort is to always try to insult the intelligence of the person disagreeing with you . It’s very typical of you, the supposed enlightened one who behaves like a spoiled 6 yr old child . It appears nothing has changed from when you plead guilty as charged when I pointed out your behavior is your own worst enemy .
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.
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.
