Consciousness in the Physics Forum is warranted.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by kwhilborn, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    It now appears that anybody denying God/Mass Consciousness/life after death/etc., might be wrong.

    Don't worry. I won't expect any of you to admit you're wrong.

    I never believed it was scientifically healthy to have such negativity and skeptic denial about these subjects because there is no proof they cannot exist.

    Some may recognize Nature Magazine as a reputable Peer Reviewed Magazine, and generally is thought of as fussy in the topics it carries.


    A Holographic Universe not only would require a Mass Consciousness/Telepathy, but would demand them.
    This is a physics topic worthy of Nature Magazine, but I'm sure Sciforums can be held to higher standards. (Watch how fast this thread leaves physics).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    First, this comes, not from a peer-reviewed paper in Nature, but from their News section. Obviously, news reports are not subject to peer review.

    Second, the paper referred to in this news report has not been peer reviewed either: it is "published" on line, in arxiv, without review of any sort.

    Thirdly, insofar as I can understand it, none of this remotely implies what you seem to claim it does.

    Apart from that, spot-on!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Exchemist,
    First and Second objection ...
    So you are claiming these experiments are wrong as you seem more intent on discrediting the sources than having an open mind on it.

    Yes. Claiming they are wrong seems like the correct Skeptic path. Others will follow in this belief however it is a belief and not open minded science as should be the norm.

    Also... Nature Magazine does not print any topic as news. LENR (as example) has never been in its news.

    ALSO ...

    I know that does not make it true or false, but it is interesting that the subject is given even that much interest.

    Third Objection ...
    Holograms have information overload, and contain all of the information in the whole in each of its parts. A holographic Universe needs perceptions to be in common to all, but you can research this yourself.

    I just wanted to make a quick point that we still have a few things left to learn and it is not very bright to write off things like telepathy, etc., without reason.

    There are several other interesting facts about this topic, but it is no more proven so than not so, so i will so leave it for your own research.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Of course I'm not saying they are wrong. Any halfwit should be able to understand that.

    What I'm saying is you are definitely wrong to imply they have written a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature, and that it seems to me you are wrong to suggest they imply anything about God or "mass consciousness".

    You seem to be showing once more the symptoms of your old disease (which we have all seen abundantly illustrated over LENR), namely grossly over-claiming and extrapolating, from the flimsiest of bases.
  8. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Exchemist,

    p.s. I am also right about LENR, but I'm happy you disagree so you can be among those who knew they were wrong. Keep trusting in your old textbooks though, wouldn't want you to learn anything by accident.

    p.p.s. You do not seem to grasp what this would mean based on your comments like "you are wrong to suggest they imply anything about God or "mass consciousness". How would you suggest a Holographic Universe work? There is plenty of reading available.

    You say

    I am not quite sure how you think I stated the article was peer reviewed

    I said this in the OP,
    which is a true statement.

    I think many here recognize Nature Magazine, but I described it briefly for those who are not aware it is fairly selective in its topics. Why do you keep saying I said this was peer reviewed. I know how to read, and know what I wrote also.

    In post 2 you maligned me by stating,
    and post 4,
    Try expanding your reading comprehension to avoid dumb mistakes like this.
  9. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    What i find absolutely hilarious, is the world is full of books about people claiming they know something. But most of them are written by people whom never knew the subject at all. But somehow people claim reading books is good for your knowledge, lol
    This sums up science, most of them know nout, and they have names for people they cannot stand know something they do not.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    OK, I'll hand over to others at this point.
  11. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Exchemist,

    Your response is what I expect to hear repeated here in various cut/paste forms. Also... Like you; I do not think many here could grasp the implications from a PSI standpoint.
  12. siledre Registered Senior Member

    I guess with all the theories that exist you can just close your eyes and pick one and adhere to it, I think there are endless possibilities to reality and our perception of it but I doubt we could actually figure it out with the limited biological senses we have. Maybe its as simple as life and death, the opening and closing of a door to travel between a place where life is just the beginning of opening that door and death is the end of closing it.
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Science uses a dual standard. As an example of the dual standard, if you think about dark matter and dark energy, we can only infer these as macro events, but not as micro events, since we only have data that seems to show macro-scale connections. There is no direct lab proof for micro-events yet we have faith this data is there if we look deep enough. Science tends to be selective in terms of claims without direct proof.

    The atheist religion appears to only allow certain claims without proof, but not any claims from its competitor religions. The peer review uses a dual standard. If we can only use one standard, we might say, according to the known data, dark matter and energy appears to impact only at a large scale but there is no proof it also works at the micro scale. I am not impressed by a peer review process that uses a dual standard.

    One needs to use a higher standard when considering claims beyond the politics of science religion. Say universal consciousness, like dark energy and matter only works at the macro-scale, we may not see it up close in the lab. If you assume the speed of light is the ground state of the universe one can explain both.
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    No matter how many time you chant "the speed of light is the ground state" it will never magically change from gibberish to to something meaningful.
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    If the thread leaves the physics and math area it will be because of statements like the first 2 sentences.

    You seem to think the holographic universe means that it is a projection and the projector is being run by a god, a mass consciousness or whatever. That is not what the Nature article is talking about or implying. So yeah, this type of discussion with your misinterpretations and Wellwisher piping in with his 'science religion' goofyness may send an otherwise interesting discussion to the fringe section.

    Here is some more (nonwoo) info on this from Scientific American.
    Holographic universe
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Like most antiscientists, you are obviously unfamiliar with the scientific method.

    One of its cornerstones is the rule: "It is never necessary to prove a negative claim."

    The burden of proof is always on the person who claims that something is true. If sufficient evidence is not presented to establish its truth, then it is not true. However, it's important to understand that it is also not false. At this point we cannot make that determination.

    However, another cornerstone of the scientific method is the Rule of Laplace: "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect." Any assertion that claims to falsify any of the Laws of Nature that have been painstakingly established over the past five centuries and have been consistently supported by evidence is obviously an extraordinary assertion. Again, we cannot determine whether this assertion is true or false, but before we waste our time examining crackpottery and pseudoscience, we demand at least a modicum of respectable evidence. This evidence might be just some intriguing formulas supported by a lot of arm-waving (and I'm thinking of String Theory here, which should be called the String Hypothesis), but the formulas have to make sense and the arms have to wave in coherent directions.

    This is the status of the hypothesis regarding dark matter and dark energy. Anyone who states that these phenomena are "accepted," in the sense of being added to the canon of science, is simply ignorant of how science works. They are hypotheses supported by evidence, and therefore merit investigation. But they have not been proven either true or false, at least not in their entirety.

    Apparently you know as little about religion as you do about science. Every definition of "religion" includes belief in a god or gods, or something of that sort. A belief system based primarily on the assertion that there are no gods cannot possibly be a religion. The only exceptions are figures of speech, such as "football is my religion," and we all know this statement is not meant to be interpreted literally.

    It sounds like you are really talking about science, rather than atheism. As I already explained, science allows claims to be presented without proof, but they must be at least supported by evidence. At the beginning of the research the evidence is usually not sufficient to establish the claim as true beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is at least sufficient to be worth studying.

    This is as true of the claims of professional scientists as it is of the claims of religionists. Provide some decent evidence (not a tortilla with a scorch mark said to be the image of a Biblical figure of whom no portaits exist against which to compare it) and we'll study it.

    Speaking of impressions, you're certainly not making a very good one. Your description of the peer review process is hopelessly garbled, as is, very likely, your understanding of science as a whole, since you clearly don't understand two of the most important elements of the scientific method: 1. No need to prove a negative; 2. The Rule of Laplace.

    As another member has already pointed out, your overuse of the meaningless phrase "the speed of light is the ground state of the universe" firmly places you in the category of "not a scientist, and not even close."
  17. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Science can expand its scope to include new phenomena; that does not open the flood gates for everything non-scientific.
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    It does not open the gates to anything unscientific, much less antiscientific.
  19. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Agreed 100%, but IMHO it's actually unscientific to denounce, say, ESP as being antiscientific rather than simply not supported by evidence. We cannot definitively say that ESP does not exist, only that it has never been proven scientifically. I'm not trying to give credence to the woo-woo train riders, I'm simply trying to prevent them from corrupting my objectivity.
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    We may not be able to be definitive, but we do know enough about the nature of electromagnetic radiation to say that ESP over long distances (over 20 feet) is practically impossible for the unassisted human brain.
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Ah interesting! Is that related to how far any EM signals generated from the human brain could travel, or what? (Not that I think ESP would travel via EM...dammit now you guys have me defending ESP when that was NOT my intention)
  22. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Spidergoat,

    Yes. Who is it that told you PSI effects are caused by electromagnetic radiation? I have not heard of that theory.

    I would suggest you rethink your hypothesis as 20' won't cut it. Telepathy experiments have had success as far away as the moon.
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Please don't make me regret "defending the idea of ESP"

Share This Page