Here is a simple experiment: Create matter from nothing. Is that too difficult. Yes.
Here is another experiment: Tell me where God came from.
Here is the answer: The reason people find it difficult to believe the big bang is
a. they believe what they have been taught.
b. they believe in a book.
c. the believe God is real simply because they imagine God in their mind.
d. It is natural physics and human instinct to be puzzled at the thought of "matter from no matter."
e. Here is the idea though, if they can think of God as creating matter, they need not think more about the origins of matter, because God created matter. And since God is too complex for science or philosophy, God always being there from the beginning is an enigma thats o.k. to leave unexplained.
Here's another thing: Whats so strange about matter always being there? An infinite loop of matter colliding with itself then exploding, and then due to gravity combining again then exploding. The only thing about it that is puzzling is our own instinct and teaching.
Here's the thing about religion: It is just a bunch of people following a book, with no actual proof, a book that threatens to torture you eternally if you don't obey its text. It sounds just like a guideline to keep homo sapiens from killing each other, using fear of punishment.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Here is a simple experiment: Create matter from nothing. Is that too difficult. Yes. |
Um. No. Matter pops in and out of existence all the time. Read for yourself. | Indi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Here is a simple experiment: Create matter from nothing. Is that too difficult. Yes. |
Um. No. Matter pops in and out of existence all the time. Read for yourself. |
Why is this in such secrecy? This clearly disobeys the "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." I am surprised I had not heard of this. Maybe this is like the "secret" that Columbus was a "bad guy and threatened his on crew not to tell Spain that they were not really in India."
Education is such a damn conspiracy...
EDIT: I read the first part of the article and it turns out you "virtual particles" contain no atoms. Atoms are matter so I don't stand corrected. 
There's no conspiracy. Published scientific findings are all publicly available.
...ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ ἰησοῦς. Aiya. >_<
First, as Gagnar says, this information is not a secret. It has been public knowledge since the early 1900's. Remember E = mc²? Just get yourself a modern physics book. Conservation of matter/mass is false. Matter is created and destroyed all the time.
Second... particles don't contain atoms, atoms contain particles. >_< Atoms are made up of electrons, up quarks and down quarks, plus a smattering of gluons, photons, gravitons and Higgs bosons to hold it all together. All of those particles can pop in and out of existence via vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle exchanges and various other mechanisms.
The point is that you don't need God to explain the origin of matter. If you care, you can study up on the Big Bang, and the quark gluon plasma immediately thereafter, and find out where matter came from (according to current scientific theory).
But what's disturbing is the wrong-headedness of what you're trying to do. Pretend that it's true that we can't explain where matter came from, so that if you asked a scientist how matter came into existence all they could say is "i don't know, i can't explain that". What you're suggesting we do is this:
- Theist: Explain where matter came from (or what started the Big Bang, or whatever).
- Scientist: i can't. We scientists haven't figured that out yet.
- Theist: Then it must be God.
- Scientist: What? Why?
- Theist: Because you can't explain it.
- Scientist: We couldn't explain where diseases came from a thousand years ago. They thought it was demons. Eventually we found out what causes diseases. And similarly, eventually we will figure out where matter came from (or what caused the Big Bang or whatever).
- Theist: But you don't know now.
- Scientist: No, we don't know now.
- Theist: Then it must be God.
- Scientist: *sigh* Fine then. Let's say that God created matter (or caused the Big Bang or whatever). Then explain where God came from.
- Theist: i don't need to explain that. God is just awesome. There's no need to explain God.
- Scientist: ....
If it's ok to say that you don't need to explain where God came from, then why isn't it ok to say that you don't need to explain where matter came from (or what caused the Big Bang or whatever)? Just cause it's "God"? That doesn't work. Yes I am an atheist too. I was just trying to convey a theist's mentality that God needs no scientific explanation. But thanks for the information about matter being able to spawn from nothing...just like Colombus' being a murderer, yet another thing they try to hide in standard education...
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Yes I am an atheist too. I was just trying to convey a theist's mentality that God needs no scientific explanation. |
What is wrong with that? If God is beyond science, then God is beyond science. Science doesn't cover everything, after all.
The only time a problem arises is when a theist brings God into science while at the same time saying that God doesn't follow the rules of science. It's all or nothing. Either say God is beyond science and keep him the hell out of science, or say that God can be part of science and let him be subject to the same rules and restrictions as any other part of science. It's this half-assed equivocation that causes problems - saying it's ok to bring God into science while saying he's above the rules of science - that's simply not acceptible.
But saying God needs no scientific explanation is just fine... so long as you don't make him a scientific explanation for something else.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| But thanks for the information about matter being able to spawn from nothing...just like Colombus' being a murderer, yet another thing they try to hide in standard education... |
i'm not entirely clear on why you think that there is some conspiracy withholding information from you. What is the highest level of physics that you completed? Highschool? First year college/university? You're not going to cover things like virtual particles in any of those courses because they're simply too advanced. Maybe the reason you've never heard of these things is simply because you didn't do enough physics.
Conservation of matter will hold for any system you will probably every have to work with in your entire life. It holds for all normal macroscopic interactions between bodies, it holds for chemical reactions, and so on and so forth. It really only fails for extremely high energy reactions (like nuclear reactions or relativistic regime effects), extremely low energy reactions (like vacuum fluctuations), or on the subatomic level (virtual particles). For something like the early universe right after the Big Bang, you had an extremely high energy soup, which is what caused so many quarks - the building blocks of matter, which eventually became the physical universe - to be created. For all "normal" physics - the physics you probably would have done so far in school - conservation of matter works well enough.
------------
Anyway, you're really wasting your efforts. Using science to disprove God is as braindead as using it prove God. The only time you should bother to discuss the "scientificness" (or lack thereof) of God is in those cases where some numbnuts or another is trying to rewrite science texts to fit their God into it. Other than that, don't bother. If a theist says God needs no scientific explanation, just shrug and say: "good, because science needs no godly explanation, so let's just keep the two separate" and be done with that.Yeah man I am only in 11th grade...which explains the lack of knowing about virtual particles... 
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Yeah man I am only in 11th grade...which explains the lack of knowing about virtual particles... |
There you go. "Never assume malice when ignorance or human stupidity suffice." Or in this case, don't assume people are hiding things from you until you're sure that the reason they haven't told you isn't simply because they haven't thought to yet. Keep up with physics, and eventually you'll get to the really interesting stuff. | Indi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Yeah man I am only in 11th grade...which explains the lack of knowing about virtual particles... |
There you go. "Never assume malice when ignorance or human stupidity suffice." Or in this case, don't assume people are hiding things from you until you're sure that the reason they haven't told you isn't simply because they haven't thought to yet. Keep up with physics, and eventually you'll get to the really interesting stuff. |
I hope so...they keep teaching me they same things I learned in 8th grade... | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Yeah man I am only in 11th grade...which explains the lack of knowing about virtual particles... |
There you go. "Never assume malice when ignorance or human stupidity suffice." Or in this case, don't assume people are hiding things from you until you're sure that the reason they haven't told you isn't simply because they haven't thought to yet. Keep up with physics, and eventually you'll get to the really interesting stuff. |
I hope so...they keep teaching me they same things I learned in 8th grade... |
Heh, that's high school for you. Just get the basics down solid - the good stuff doesn't come until late second or maybe third year college or university. | Indi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Yeah man I am only in 11th grade...which explains the lack of knowing about virtual particles... |
There you go. "Never assume malice when ignorance or human stupidity suffice." Or in this case, don't assume people are hiding things from you until you're sure that the reason they haven't told you isn't simply because they haven't thought to yet. Keep up with physics, and eventually you'll get to the really interesting stuff. |
I hope so...they keep teaching me they same things I learned in 8th grade... |
Heh, that's high school for you. Just get the basics down solid - the good stuff doesn't come until late second or maybe third year college or university. |
Ah...cool, I thought it was because I had a gpa of 1.618 | Indi wrote: |
...ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ ἰησοῦς. Aiya. >_<
First, as Gagnar says, this information is not a secret. It has been public knowledge since the early 1900's. Remember E = mc²? Just get yourself a modern physics book. Conservation of matter/mass is false. Matter is created and destroyed all the time.
Second... particles don't contain atoms, atoms contain particles. >_< Atoms are made up of electrons, up quarks and down quarks, plus a smattering of gluons, photons, gravitons and Higgs bosons to hold it all together. All of those particles can pop in and out of existence via vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle exchanges and various other mechanisms.
The point is that you don't need God to explain the origin of matter. If you care, you can study up on the Big Bang, and the quark gluon plasma immediately thereafter, and find out where matter came from (according to current scientific theory).
But what's disturbing is the wrong-headedness of what you're trying to do. Pretend that it's true that we can't explain where matter came from, so that if you asked a scientist how matter came into existence all they could say is "i don't know, i can't explain that". What you're suggesting we do is this:
- Theist: Explain where matter came from (or what started the Big Bang, or whatever).
- Scientist: i can't. We scientists haven't figured that out yet.
- Theist: Then it must be God.
- Scientist: What? Why?
- Theist: Because you can't explain it.
- Scientist: We couldn't explain where diseases came from a thousand years ago. They thought it was demons. Eventually we found out what causes diseases. And similarly, eventually we will figure out where matter came from (or what caused the Big Bang or whatever).
- Theist: But you don't know now.
- Scientist: No, we don't know now.
- Theist: Then it must be God.
- Scientist: *sigh* Fine then. Let's say that God created matter (or caused the Big Bang or whatever). Then explain where God came from.
- Theist: i don't need to explain that. God is just awesome. There's no need to explain God.
- Scientist: ....
If it's ok to say that you don't need to explain where God came from, then why isn't it ok to say that you don't need to explain where matter came from (or what caused the Big Bang or whatever)? Just cause it's "God"? That doesn't work. |
PWNED.
Nice explanation, Indi.I find it rather funny that the atheists gather in "Philosophy and Religion" to discuss Science. I've forgotton what the original post was now, for all of your chatter about Science having nothing to do with God. I cannot pretend to know what it must be like to not believe in a higher power. Now granted I'll be the first one to admit Religion is a farce, that what we have been sold as a way to live our lives has not produced Peace or Unity or anything of the sort, which if you ask me would be the purpose for relgion. But Spirituality is another thing all together, Relgion being a manmade concept to control the masses, Spirituality being a very real connection to our Source.
Don't judge me as some bible thumping preacher though, I just can't explain away all the coincidences it took to create the perfect conditions to manifest our realm as mere chance, I honestly feel there was an intention behind the creation of the Universe. Even the smallest varience in the conditions of the big bang and we would not be here having these experiences, I feel there must be some reason it all went down like it did.
Do either of you have any spirituality to speak of?
| IceCreamTruck wrote: |
| I find it rather funny that the atheists gather in "Philosophy and Religion" to discuss Science. |
It would appear that you are easily amused. And... quite confused.
Atheists, along with theists, gather in philosophy and religion to discuss philosophy and/or religion. If someone, in the course of discussing philosophy and/or religion, brings up an alleged connection between philosophy and/or religion and science, that connection gets discussed. It's as simple as that.
| IceCreamTruck wrote: |
| I've forgotton what the original post was now, for all of your chatter about Science having nothing to do with God. |
Yes, obviously it becomes problematic when there's too much discussion in a discussion forum. But don't worry, there is a solution.
Look to the right of my post. You should see a bar stretching all the way up and down the side of your screen beside where the posts you're reading are. At the top of that bar is a little up arrow, or possibly an upwards pointing triangle. At the bottom of that bar is a little down arrow, or possibly a downwards pointing triangle. If, in the course of reading our posts, you find that they are more than your mind can handle and have pushed the original topic out of your mind, what you have to do is keep pushing the little up arrow on that bar - or possibly an upwards pointing triangle - until it takes you to the original post, which you will see when the posts stop moving even though you're still clicking the little up arrow on that bar - or possibly an upwards pointing triangle. Once you have refreshed your memory about the content of the first post, you may use the little down arrow on that bar - or possibly a downwards pointing triangle - until you get back to where you were last reading...
... assuming you remember where that was.
No, don't bother to thank me. i'm just happy to help.
| IceCreamTruck wrote: |
| Don't judge me as some bible thumping preacher though, I just can't explain away all the coincidences it took to create the perfect conditions to manifest our realm as mere chance, I honestly feel there was an intention behind the creation of the Universe. Even the smallest varience in the conditions of the big bang and we would not be here having these experiences, I feel there must be some reason it all went down like it did. |
In other words, you are unable to comprehend any way the universe could have come into existence without the intervention of a divine being. All fine and good. But your lack of knowledge and imagination do not constitute anything even approaching an argument for the existence of such a being. Which was one of the things EanofAthenasPrime was getting at indirectly in his original post (see instructions above for how to go back and find it).
| IceCreamTruck wrote: |
| Do either of you have any spirituality to speak of? |
Either of whom? Either implies two people. To date, not including you, there have been four contributors to this discussion. Which two do you mean?I'd like you not to think it was IceCreamTruck responsible for the few posts I did under his name, and hopefully excuse my tired ramblings as just that. I have to admit after getting quite caught up in the dynamic of ya'lls quaint little discussion that I was frankly at a loss of words to what I could say that could perhaps spare me your wrath, although I have to admit your glib and sarcastic remarks are taken with a grain of salt, and lightly chuckled at.
By the By, it's 3:30 am here in Franklin,TN but I'm all the sharper this morning... and I'm intrigued enough in you alone to join this forum, so here I am, but make no assumption on how I'll appear. I'm no dummy, and I aim to amaze with the statements I'll issue in reply to some of the very thought provoking discussions being held. But I've never held being insulted very kindly in my heart, so please don't go out of your way to belittle me.
And if you will please, soften your heart to include, instead of ostracize,
I'm new. 
I promise I'll not disappoint.
Bernadette | Indi wrote: |
No, don't bother to thank me. i'm just happy to help.
| IceCreamTruck wrote: | | Don't judge me as some bible thumping preacher though, I just can't explain away all the coincidences it took to create the perfect conditions to manifest our realm as mere chance, I honestly feel there was an intention behind the creation of the Universe. Even the smallest varience in the conditions of the big bang and we would not be here having these experiences, I feel there must be some reason it all went down like it did. |
In other words, you are unable to comprehend any way the universe could have come into existence without the intervention of a divine being. All fine and good. But your lack of knowledge and imagination do not constitute anything even approaching an argument for the existence of such a being. Which was one of the things EanofAthenasPrime was getting at indirectly in his original post (see instructions above for how to go back and find it).
| IceCreamTruck wrote: | | Do either of you have any spirituality to speak of? |
Either of whom? Either implies two people. To date, not including you, there have been four contributors to this discussion. Which two do you mean? |
I apologize for not correctly referencing the people to which I was addressing, and of course not citing quotes and examples so early in the Game, I was of course refering to yourself and the other(s) that have no god. I'm curious is all. I guess I'd hoped I'd just get answers not bitched out about semantics.
I may not have empirical evidence that a "God" exists, but I do have a feeling about non-local intelligence, and the workings of the Universe. I've seen creation in action, I've felt the Power given me, or if you prefer the Power that I have. I don't need to anthropomorphize my creator to know I'm created, or to know that I'm a creator,and I don't have to prove anything to anybody when it comes to my own personal experience.
I myself have seen the Universe rise to intention, my own and others. Whether or not this author illustrated the point that we are creators and have the ability to manipulate matter with our minds, with or without accepted evidence, I agree it's not only possible it's happening. I'm sure you know not everything in the scientific community is agreed upon. Noetic Sciences for example. An area of interest. See also uncharted human potential, what the brain is capable of when not limited, or perhaps properly trained.
Have you ever seen the movies "The Secret" or "What the (bleep) do we know?".... if so opinion...?
If you haven't seen "The Secret" take a moment to visit
www.thesecret.tv
for a small fee you can see it in it's entirety, but you can of course get plenty of info there for free. I recommend this movie highly, and hope that by the Power of Our Will Humanity will take back society from those who have sought to oppress us. Oh! Another movie I just saw that you may be familiar with, that was SPECTACULAR was Zeitgiest, yes? I'm curious where in the World you reside, and what your perspective is of the country I currently call home.
I take this opportunity to better understand our Universe and not just bicker about God. I would like to say though, Life is Love is God to me, The Universe is animated by the Consciousness of the Creator and the Created, the difference is I believe they are One and the same, most theists believe they are seperate, and until I know what you believe, you're just another person who doesn't see things the way I see them.
A riddle for you:
When using The Force, what do you call the opposite of the Dark side?
Cheerio!
Bernadette 
create matter from nothing. from the physical science point of view this is impossible. even the simplest pair annihilation and pair production of photons require matter. unless ofcourse if you are referring to the ultimate being. but scientifically, this is an impossibility.
It is my belief that any "impossiblity" can be temporary,
the "laws" can be broken, and it will be blasphemy until it is Universally accepted.
It's all indoctrinization, whether Scientific or Religious, the limits we believe in are the ones that impede the most forward progress.
George Bernard Shaw said:
| Quote: |
| All great truths begin as blasphemies. |
Perhaps I've not researched this enough but, this company says they are breaking more than one "Law" widely known to be set in stone. Opinions?
www.steorn.com | prizma wrote: |
| I guess I'd hoped I'd just get answers not bitched out about semantics. |
Is that what you'd hoped? Then in future, you might want to avoid using your first words on joining a discussion to mock the participants. If you don't want to take our "chatter" seriously and can't even be bothered to read up a mere half dozen posts when you forget an important point, i don't see how you can really expect us to take you seriously. i give respect by default, but the moment someone starts showing disrespect, i feel no further obligation to. When your very first words are disrespectful... well what did you expect?
| prizma wrote: |
| I may not have empirical evidence that a "God" exists, but I do have a feeling about non-local intelligence, and the workings of the Universe. I've seen creation in action, I've felt the Power given me, or if you prefer the Power that I have. I don't need to anthropomorphize my creator to know I'm created, or to know that I'm a creator,and I don't have to prove anything to anybody when it comes to my own personal experience. |
Good for you. All of that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion here, of course, but nevertheless, good for you.
| prizma wrote: |
| I myself have seen the Universe rise to intention, my own and others. Whether or not this author illustrated the point that we are creators and have the ability to manipulate matter with our minds, with or without accepted evidence, I agree it's not only possible it's happening. I'm sure you know not everything in the scientific community is agreed upon. Noetic Sciences for example. An area of interest. See also uncharted human potential, what the brain is capable of when not limited, or perhaps properly trained. |
Also entirely irrelevant. You're going for 100% irrelevancy here. Not bad. That's not easy to do.
For the record, the point of this thread, originally, was to try to demonstrate that arguing from ignorance is not a valid way to prove anything. All too often, people try the old "God of the gaps" routine to argue for the existence of various gods.
| prizma wrote: |
Have you ever seen the movies "The Secret" or "What the (bleep) do we know?".... if so opinion...?
If you haven't seen "The Secret" take a moment to visit
www.thesecret.tv
for a small fee you can see it in it's entirety, but you can of course get plenty of info there for free. I recommend this movie highly, and hope that by the Power of Our Will Humanity will take back society from those who have sought to oppress us. Oh! Another movie I just saw that you may be familiar with, that was SPECTACULAR was Zeitgiest, yes? |
i have seen WTFDWK, but i will not give any currency of value to see the non-free one. If i come across it for free somewhere, and there's nothing better on (which will be difficult unless all 600 channels i have are showing reruns of Star Trek: Voyager), then i will check it out. As for Zeitgeist - if you're not talking about the Smashing Pumpkins, then i've never heard of it.
But i am compelled to ask... who exactly is oppressing us (or seeking to oppress us)? In what way are they attempting to oppress us? How is "Humanity" different from "society" in that context?
| prizma wrote: |
| I'm curious where in the World you reside, and what your perspective is of the country I currently call home. |
i have resided in 15 different countries for varying periods of time (not counting places i went to on vacations or for short-term visits), and i have 3 concurrent citizenships. Right now, i am in Ontario, Canada, pretty much Toronto. i can't comment on what country you call home until you divulge what country you call home.
| prizma wrote: |
| I take this opportunity to better understand our Universe and not just bicker about God. |
That would seem to be rather misguided in a thread discussing arguments for the existence of God. Why not make a thread specifically for your purposes?
| prizma wrote: |
It is my belief that any "impossiblity" can be temporary,
the "laws" can be broken, and it will be blasphemy until it is Universally accepted.
It's all indoctrinization, whether Scientific or Religious, the limits we believe in are the ones that impede the most forward progress. |
Scientific "laws" are not laws in the sense of commandments - the fact that we use the word "laws" for them is just a historical artifact from the age when science held that God commands/influences everything in the universe to happen, and the commandments he gave to the universe are the laws that nature abides by. That usage went out of vogue when alchemy did.
The modern meaning of the word law in a scientific context makes what you say nonsensical. You cannot "break" a scientific law. Either you are in a regime where the law does not apply, or the law was wrong to begin with.
When someone claims that a scientific law that a scientific law that has held for hundreds or even thousands of years is suddenly null and void, it is hardly surprising that said claim is greeted with scepticism. No competent scientist will accept such a claim without a serious analysis of it, in order to rule out human error in the experiment among other things. And even once that scientist has confirmed that there was no error, there's still a matter of explaining why it is so - simply being unable to explain what might have gone wrong in an experiment is not reason enough to completely rewrite human understanding.
You call it "impeding", but you completely miss the point. Science is not a race. Being wrong is far, far worse a sin in science than being slow. Science is designed to be methodical, deliberate, and precise - so it can take a long, long time - decades even - to verify that a revolutionary new finding is not a mistake. No one is "impeding" anything, they are just making sure that a new discovery is not a grand mistake - and because it takes such a long, hard time to correct mistakes, it's better to not make them in the first place.
As for religious laws, well sure, you can break them until you're blue in the face. But if it's your religion, you will have to consider the consequences. And if you don't believe in the consequences... then maybe it's not really your religion after all.
| prizma wrote: |
Perhaps I've not researched this enough but, this company says they are breaking more than one "Law" widely known to be set in stone. Opinions?
www.steorn.com |
You will find that this company has already been discussed here.I guess I'd hoped I'd just get answers not bitched out about semantics.
| Indi wrote: |
| Is that what you'd hoped? Then in future, you might want to avoid using your first words on joining a discussion to mock the participants. If you don't want to take our "chatter" seriously and can't even be bothered to read up a mere half dozen posts when you forget an important point, i don't see how you can really expect us to take you seriously. i give respect by default, but the moment someone starts showing disrespect, i feel no further obligation to. When your very first words are disrespectful... well what did you expect? |
I apologize for my attitude the other night, I was up all night fighting with you guys in my head. Trying to see things the way you see them, and somehow articulate my views. I will admit I'm way too new here, and have much to learn, and will get the hang of all this in Time.
| prizma wrote: |
| I may not have empirical evidence that a "God" exists, but I do have a feeling about non-local intelligence, and the workings of the Universe. I've seen creation in action, I've felt the Power given me, or if you prefer the Power that I have. I don't need to anthropomorphize my creator to know I'm created, or to know that I'm a creator,and I don't have to prove anything to anybody when it comes to my own personal experience. |
| Indi wrote: |
Good for you. All of that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion here, of course, but nevertheless, good for you. |
I may have been wrestling with trying explain why I believe what I do, or trying to somehow relate to the original post, again perhaps it's too late for me to be wasting your time, so please excuse me...
I myself have seen the Universe rise to intention, my own and others. Whether or not this author illustrated the point that we are creators and have the ability to manipulate matter with our minds, with or without accepted evidence, I agree it's not only possible it's happening. I'm sure you know not everything in the scientific community is agreed upon. Noetic Sciences for example. An area of interest. See also uncharted human potential, what the brain is capable of when not limited, or perhaps properly trained.
| Indi wrote: |
Also entirely irrelevant. You're going for 100% irrelevancy here. Not bad. That's not easy to do.
For the record, the point of this thread, originally, was to try to demonstrate that arguing from ignorance is not a valid way to prove anything. All too often, people try the old "God of the gaps" routine to argue for the existence of various gods. |
Hmm, seems I may have been thinking about another post when replying, a shame really, because some of what I was trying to say might've made sense there, I apologize again for my errors, I've been trying to get on and reply and follow along, late in the evenings and mornings, I've been moving and have had my whole Life up in the air, so my mind has not been much about me at all times, I really should try to do this at a more respectable hour and do you more respect by posting in a more sane fashion. It's so funny our old ways of saying things, I almost typed God knows what Time it is now... Time... Curious really.. and how does "God" relate? Honestly I feel a little attacked for holding belief in "God" but my views are different and strangely Scientific (If I dare call it that) and I'm just trying to chart out a little of my own Spiritual Science, however oxymoronic that may sound to you, I think there may be some value in looking at life the way I do, and so I carry on.
Have you ever seen the movies "The Secret" or "What the (bleep) do we know?".... if so opinion...?
If you haven't seen "The Secret" take a moment to visit
www.thesecret.tv
for a small fee you can see it in it's entirety, but you can of course get plenty of info there for free. I recommend this movie highly, and hope that by the Power of Our Will Humanity will take back society from those who have sought to oppress us. Oh! Another movie I just saw that you may be familiar with, that was SPECTACULAR was Zeitgiest, yes?
| Indi wrote: |
| i have seen WTFDWK, but i will not give any currency of value to see the non-free one. If i come across it for free somewhere, and there's nothing better on (which will be difficult unless all 600 channels i have are showing reruns of Star Trek: Voyager), then i will check it out. |
You may not be willing to give anything of value in exchange for the information shared in that film, but I found it interesting and thought provoking at the very least, and honestly have applied some of the principles in my daily life with results, just thought I'd turn you on to some experiments in Consciousness.
| Indi wrote: |
As for Zeitgeist - if you're not talking about the Smashing Pumpkins, then i've never heard of it.
But i am compelled to ask... who exactly is oppressing us (or seeking to oppress us)? In what way are they attempting to oppress us? |
Those that designed Religion and God, in "Zeitgeist" I learned of some of the history of the beliefs held by many today, and deduced that the mass disception played out on us over the past couple thousand years has steered Humanity off on a very confused course, but that does not mean there isn't "God" it just means we haven't really understood what "God" really is.
My attempt at helping you along the path of Understanding I've taken:
| Author Neale Donald Walsch in "The New Revelations" wrote: |
the dialogue becomes urgent....
There are five things you can choose now if changing the World, and the self-destructive direction in which it is moving, is what you wish to achieve.
1. You can choose to acknowlege that some of your old beliefs about God and about Life are no longer working.
2. You can choose to acknowledge that there is something you do not understand about God and Life, the understanding of which will change everything.
3. You can choose to be willing for a new understanding of God and Life to now be brought forth, an understanding that could produce a new way of life on our planet.
4. You can choose to be courageous enough to explore and examine this new understanding, and if it aligns with your inner truth and knowing, to enlarge your belief system to include it.
5. You can choose to live your life as demonstrations of your highest and grandest beliefs, rather than denials of them.
These are the Five Steps to Peace, and if you take them, you can shift everything on our planet. |
| Indi wrote: |
| How is "Humanity" different from "society" in that context? |
By that I mean, todays Society has been engineered by those in Power, to manipulate the different factors in putting together a machine of workers, striving for what they're told to strive for and endlessly strung along by the carrot of ever changing morals, standards, and values. Taxing our very right to live, and chaining us into a perpetuating cycle of debt and servitude, confusing us by any means possible, and subverting the Truth inorder to more efficiantly control us.
I'm curious where in the World you reside, and what your perspective is of the country I currently call home.
| Indi wrote: |
| i have resided in 15 different countries for varying periods of time (not counting places i went to on vacations or for short-term visits), and i have 3 concurrent citizenships. Right now, i am in Ontario, Canada, pretty much Toronto. i can't comment on what country you call home until you divulge what country you call home. |
Excuse my oversight, I'm in the USA, and I see corruption as far as the eye can see in the political arena, I notice much about the state of things right now, including some pretty interesting information about the climate of control in the World. Seems to me, the World is at War, and we have been in a World War for over 50 years, it's just been kept quiet, and is now just coming out into the light. Like what about Nazi occupation of America, the assaults on the public here, Floride and chorine in the water ( which as far as I have heard is really bad for us), Chemtrails, poisonous food, just to begin. Facts point to the fact that Bush and "The Terminator"( you know Ah-nold),have relatives on the Nazi side of WW2, I wonder about these things, and perhaps shouldn't have brought them to this discussion but to me all things tie back in when discussing the existance of God, because I see God as the evolution of us all, the "good" and the "bad", and I was trying to get your opinion on all thats going on in our country. You know our rights are slowly being erraticated, and a New World Order is being attempted, right?
I take this opportunity to better understand our Universe and not just bicker about God.
| Indi wrote: |
| That would seem to be rather misguided in a thread discussing arguments for the existence of God. Why not make a thread specifically for your purposes? |
Not if I see The Universe and "God" as One and the same, is it so hard to believe that Life might be God, that the process of having awareness and experiences might be God, Godding, might our definition of "God" be outdated, could God be a verb, and a noun, and an maybe an adjective, might this not a matter of proof, but just perspective? True... Science and Spirituality split a long time ago, and it was agreed that never the twain shall meet, but I just have this feeling that someday Love will be a measurable energy that may give us new varibles to consider and make what we know to be so concrete seem like dust in the wind.
It is my belief that any "impossiblity" can be temporary,
the "laws" can be broken, and it will be blasphemy until it is Universally accepted.
It's all indoctrinization, whether Scientific or Religious, the limits we believe in are the ones that impede the most forward progress.
| Indi wrote: |
Scientific "laws" are not laws in the sense of commandments - the fact that we use the word "laws" for them is just a historical artifact from the age when science held that God commands/influences everything in the universe to happen, and the commandments he gave to the universe are the laws that nature abides by. That usage went out of vogue when alchemy did.
The modern meaning of the word law in a scientific context makes what you say nonsensical. You cannot "break" a scientific law. Either you are in a regime where the law does not apply, or the law was wrong to begin with.
When someone claims that a scientific law that a scientific law that has held for hundreds or even thousands of years is suddenly null and void, it is hardly surprising that said claim is greeted with scepticism. No competent scientist will accept such a claim without a serious analysis of it, in order to rule out human error in the experiment among other things. And even once that scientist has confirmed that there was no error, there's still a matter of explaining why it is so - simply being unable to explain what might have gone wrong in an experiment is not reason enough to completely rewrite human understanding.
You call it "impeding", but you completely miss the point. Science is not a race. Being wrong is far, far worse a sin in science than being slow. Science is designed to be methodical, deliberate, and precise - so it can take a long, long time - decades even - to verify that a revolutionary new finding is not a mistake. No one is "impeding" anything, they are just making sure that a new discovery is not a grand mistake - and because it takes such a long, hard time to correct mistakes, it's better to not make them in the first place.
As for religious laws, well sure, you can break them until you're blue in the face. But if it's your religion, you will have to consider the consequences. And if you don't believe in the consequences... then maybe it's not really your religion after all. |
I may have some pretty far out faiths when it come to what is possible and what I'm capable of, but it is that kind of scientist that makes the breakthroughs that no one else thought was possible. Forgive me if I don't follow the "Laws" or "Rules" laid out by those before me, and ( I wish I wasn't too tired to think, squinting at my screen in the dark while Kendall sleeps next to me) excuse me for questioning things set in stone because I feel that nothing stays the same, the only thing constant is change, and that each moment however similiar to the last is irrevocalibly different, and so I propose that I can use my mind to influence my reality in every moment I am aware of my surroundings and may even influence it with conscious effort, sub-consciously or super-consciously, or supra-consciously. There are many levels on which creation is possible. I just see so much potential in the use of the Power we have as equals to God, Everything is Energy right? Has it not been said God is Everything, doesn't Quantum Physics allude to Unity, can that include Consciousness? These are valid questions, grant me pardon for being all over the board, but I am doing my best to look outside the scope of our five senses to understand my creator, my creation and my creations.
As for all the tangents we get on trying to disprove things impeding an improvenment in quality of Life, I'm just trying to think of ways to come to some agreements so we can move on to the important issues of using Science to help with Spiritual or religious issues, unifying people rather than dividing them.
Perhaps I've not researched this enough but, this company says they are breaking more than one "Law" widely known to be set in stone. Opinions?
www.steorn.com
I hadn't seen that one, but I'd seen mentioned before. and bashed as a sham, but I was not satisfied with the discussion there, and wanted to bring it up again for the sake of Scientific Laws being debatable. I have seen videos on this company, aside from what available on their site. I was curious your thoughts on the science of how it works, and if you think they are doing what they are saying they are doing. I wanted to add that in relevance to this posting because they hypothesize breaking laws like matter from nothing, maybe it has no relevance at all, but I'm definitely curious to see the results of testing I'm not capable of doing right now. I look forward to linking my understandings as the mass opinions change with new insights.
| Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking.
Just don't imagine for a moment that you're making a scientific claim, or considering the problem in a scientific manner. |
Odd, I would have thought to accuse you of that... But that's beside the point. |
Yeah, yeah, you want to accuse me of something, get in line.
i say it again - you explicitly asked how to consider the problem scientifically. You have been told. That is all. If it makes you feel better to call me names because the answer you were given doesn't match the way you thought science should work, you'll find that i really don't care.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | So, I say that I'm taking your method of examining their claim by proxy. In that case, I'm still right in the middle of the testing stage, so if asked for a conclusion now, I would have to give an answer of 'conclusion not yet reached'. |
Or to put it another way - original hypothesis still in effect, no evidence to the contrary observed.
The current hypothesis is that it's a sham. When contrary evidence comes along, it will be considered. If none ever does, despite testing, then it would probably have really been a sham all along... coincidently, which is what the current "conclusion" is.
If you can't stand being wrong, don't use the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't advance unless someone is proven wrong... or until we've exhausted all avenues of investigation towards proving them wrong. No theory, no hypothesis, no anything in science is ever proven right. Either they've been proven wrong, or we've run out of objections to test for the time being. |
I don't think this gentleman "called you any names", but just pointed out the irony that you would say that "You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking", all the while seeming that it drives every aspect of your life and thinking. You run very rigidly by Scientific method in our everyday discussions, and when debating God and all manner of things unprovable by science perhaps it would serve us to entertain that the Science we use will not suffice to prove God, and it might behoove us to expand our defintions a bit, find new ways to "prove" God, or accept that it is just not possible through the Scientific Method but may be possible using some other formula.
The Sun is now up here, and I'm tired of going through each detail trying to be sure I'm not misunderstood, I hope I've made some kind of sense today. (Although we are still opporating in a time that doesn't even reference the position of the Sun correctly, to be correct, the Earth has swung back around to face the sun on my side of the globe, but where's the simple way to say that? The Sun no more comes up than the Earth is flat, but our Paradigms have been skewed for many eons, and we are just now coming to a point where we can admit we've been wrong about some things. A very prideful race we are indeed.) | prizma wrote: |
| I myself have seen the Universe rise to intention, my own and others. Whether or not this author illustrated the point that we are creators and have the ability to manipulate matter with our minds, with or without accepted evidence, I agree it's not only possible it's happening. I'm sure you know not everything in the scientific community is agreed upon. Noetic Sciences for example. An area of interest. See also uncharted human potential, what the brain is capable of when not limited, or perhaps properly trained. |
Are you sure you're in the right thread? i have seen those kinds of topics discussed elsewhere, but not here. Are you getting mixed up about what is being discussed where?
| prizma wrote: |
| Hmm, seems I may have been thinking about another post when replying, a shame really, because some of what I was trying to say might've made sense there |
Yes, that's what i was starting to suspect was happening. The reason we break conversations into threads is so that they follow a coherent train of thought. i don't memorize every conversation i take part in, and frankly aside from a handful of people i can't tell most people on Frihost apart. When i check a thread, i look back to follow the thread of the conversation, then go from there. When you respond in one thread to conversations from a half-dozen other threads from all over the place, i have no idea what's going on, and i simply can't follow.
For example:
| prizma wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking.
Just don't imagine for a moment that you're making a scientific claim, or considering the problem in a scientific manner. |
Odd, I would have thought to accuse you of that... But that's beside the point. |
Yeah, yeah, you want to accuse me of something, get in line.
i say it again - you explicitly asked how to consider the problem scientifically. You have been told. That is all. If it makes you feel better to call me names because the answer you were given doesn't match the way you thought science should work, you'll find that i really don't care.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | So, I say that I'm taking your method of examining their claim by proxy. In that case, I'm still right in the middle of the testing stage, so if asked for a conclusion now, I would have to give an answer of 'conclusion not yet reached'. |
Or to put it another way - original hypothesis still in effect, no evidence to the contrary observed.
The current hypothesis is that it's a sham. When contrary evidence comes along, it will be considered. If none ever does, despite testing, then it would probably have really been a sham all along... coincidently, which is what the current "conclusion" is.
If you can't stand being wrong, don't use the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't advance unless someone is proven wrong... or until we've exhausted all avenues of investigation towards proving them wrong. No theory, no hypothesis, no anything in science is ever proven right. Either they've been proven wrong, or we've run out of objections to test for the time being. |
I don't think this gentleman "called you any names", but just pointed out the irony that you would say that "You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking", all the while seeming that it drives every aspect of your life and thinking. You run very rigidly by Scientific method in our everyday discussions, and when debating God and all manner of things unprovable by science perhaps it would serve us to entertain that the Science we use will not suffice to prove God, and it might behoove us to expand our defintions a bit, find new ways to "prove" God, or accept that it is just not possible through the Scientific Method but may be possible using some other formula. |
i have no idea where that came from, what we were talking about, what name calling you're referring to... nothing. i can't comment on it at all because:
1.) i don't know why i was saying what i was saying (obviously i was responding to something, but i don't know what).
2.) i don't know what your comments are referring to - i don't see anything in that that would make you think that the scientific method drives every aspect of my life and thinking. What i see is me trying to explain how the scientific method works. If explaining how something works means that you let that thing drive every aspect of your life, i worry about my friend who teaches abnormal psychology.
3.) i don't see how any of that relates to what was being discussed in this thread - so if it does, i'm obviously missing something.
But for the record:
"...when debating God and all manner of things unprovable by science perhaps it would serve us to entertain that the Science we use will not suffice to prove God, and it might behoove us to expand our defintions a bit, find new ways to "prove" God, or accept that it is just not possible through the Scientific Method but may be possible using some other formula."
Of course. That "other formula" is called theology. It's a branch of philosophy. But it's not science because it doesn't use the scientific method. It's that simple.
| prizma wrote: |
| Like what about Nazi occupation of America, the assaults on the public here, Floride and chorine in the water ( which as far as I have heard is really bad for us), Chemtrails, poisonous food, just to begin. |
Well, in order:
1.) As far as i know, there has never been a Nazi occupation of the US except in lame-ass sci-fi plots. It's like Godwin's law of jumping the shark. Whenever a show has to bring in Nazis as bad guys, it's past its prime. Enterprise, i'm looking at you.
2.) i don't know of any assaults other than the usual violence.
3.) Fluorine and chlorine are both very poisonous, but not in the forms and concentrations that exist in drinking water (otherwise it wouldn't be drinking water). Just because something is poisonous at a high concentration does not make it dangerous at low concentrations. Oxygen is poisonous at high concentrations, but it's hardly life threatening when we breathe it, eh?
4.) i'm not sure what chemtrails you are referring to.
5.) Everything is poisonous. It's all just a matter of concentrations.
"Facts point to the fact that Bush and "The Terminator"( you know Ah-nold),have relatives on the Nazi side of WW2'
i am not in the habit of judging people based on their relatives.
"I wonder about these things, and perhaps shouldn't have brought them to this discussion but to me all things tie back in when discussing the existance of God"
Yes, well, for those of us who don't think like Dirk Gently, those kinds of connections are not always clear. For someone who doesn't believe that any god exists, they're really not going to see a link between God and fluoridation. Unless you just want to confuse your audience, you'd be best to stick to more coherent topics.
"You know our rights are slowly being erraticated, and a New World Order is being attempted, right?"
You mean your rights in the US? Honestly, not my problem. As far as i'm concerned, if you are worried about your government taking away your rights, elect a different government.
| prizma wrote: |
Perhaps I've not researched this enough but, this company says they are breaking more than one "Law" widely known to be set in stone. Opinions?
www.steorn.com
I hadn't seen that one, but I'd seen mentioned before. and bashed as a sham, but I was not satisfied with the discussion there, and wanted to bring it up again for the sake of Scientific Laws being debatable. |
Fair enough, but this thread is not the place for that. This thread already has its own topic. If you want to discuss the scientificity of Steorn's claims, and/or why they are (or are not) scientific, then you will have to do that in a thread where that is on topic.I realize I've been posting quite erradically, my apologies, seems that the only time I get to post I'm much too tired to make any sense. I'll leave this thread, but I want you to know Indi, you give good conversation and I look forward to meeting up with you in other threads. I'd like to invite you to my first thread, http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-77970.html#655621, seeing as you don't believe in God, it would honor me greatly to have your presence in the discussion, I still hold the belief in God, however scientifically unprovable it may be. I realize that the scientific method has failed to prove God, but does that mean God does not exist? | prizma wrote: |
| I realize I've been posting quite erradically, my apologies, seems that the only time I get to post I'm much too tired to make any sense. I'll leave this thread, but I want you to know Indi, you give good conversation and I look forward to meeting up with you in other threads. I'd like to invite you to my first thread, http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-77970.html#655621, seeing as you don't believe in God, it would honor me greatly to have your presence in the discussion |
Thank you, and i shall certainly look into it. i should warn you that it may be a while before i post because 1) there is quite a lot to read (discussion is already underway, and i always try to read everything before i jump in) and 2) it is a complex and multi-layered issue that i have not considered before, so it will take me a while to form a coherent understanding of it, let alone an addition or criticism.
| prizma wrote: |
| I still hold the belief in God, however scientifically unprovable it may be. I realize that the scientific method has failed to prove God, but does that mean God does not exist? |
No, it does not.
For starters, science has not ruled out the possibility that a god exists. It has simply failed to find, predict, or explain one, so far. If someone says "God exists", science will not say "yay" or "nay". It will simply be silent.
But even more, there's no reason to believe that science would have anything to do with an existent god. If the god that created the universe operates between the cracks of science - for example, by manipulating things on levels that science cannot rigorously describe like tweaking things at the quantum level - then science will have nothing to do with it. | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| There's no conspiracy. Published scientific findings are all publicly available. |
haha yes, no secrecy.. Published findings are available!!! lol | Indi wrote: |
| prizma wrote: | | I realize I've been posting quite erradically, my apologies, seems that the only time I get to post I'm much too tired to make any sense. I'll leave this thread, but I want you to know Indi, you give good conversation and I look forward to meeting up with you in other threads. I'd like to invite you to my first thread, http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-77970.html#655621, seeing as you don't believe in God, it would honor me greatly to have your presence in the discussion |
Thank you, and i shall certainly look into it. i should warn you that it may be a while before i post because 1) there is quite a lot to read (discussion is already underway, and i always try to read everything before i jump in) and 2) it is a complex and multi-layered issue that i have not considered before, so it will take me a while to form a coherent understanding of it, let alone an addition or criticism.
| prizma wrote: | | I still hold the belief in God, however scientifically unprovable it may be. I realize that the scientific method has failed to prove God, but does that mean God does not exist? |
No, it does not.
For starters, science has not ruled out the possibility that a god exists. It has simply failed to find, predict, or explain one, so far. If someone says "God exists", science will not say "yay" or "nay". It will simply be silent.
But even more, there's no reason to believe that science would have anything to do with an existent god. If the god that created the universe operates between the cracks of science - for example, by manipulating things on levels that science cannot rigorously describe like tweaking things at the quantum level - then science will have nothing to do with it. |
Yet are we not the Scientists, and as we Evolve so may our definitions, what about how other Sciences have evolved with new discoveries? I still have the hope in my heart that somehow we will link our spirituality with our creation, and will develop new Sciences that apply in new arenas....
I like to be out at the forefront of pioneering New Frontiers of thought, and visions of things to come only the wildest imaginations have dreamt.
To Life! | Indi wrote: |
But even more, there's no reason to believe that science would have anything to do with an existent god. If the god that created the universe operates between the cracks of science - for example, by manipulating things on levels that science cannot rigorously describe like tweaking things at the quantum level - then science will have nothing to do with it. |
I'd like to add one thing for you to consider, perhaps we are actually facets of a larger System, A Larger Consciousness that one might call "God", and whatever Quantum Tweaking may be happening not only to us but through us. I've been honest about my loose grasp on the Science of the most recent addition to study, Quantum (mechanics, physics, field, what are the differences?)
I know a complete breakdown would be to lengthy but I'm doing my own thought experiments out here, Consciousness Experiments seem more apt a term, to prove directly or indirectly some existance of the thought that started it all. I Love my Creator, and feel like a Creator myself. I see the awsome Power in my hands, I see the Elegant Universe, calling my name, beckoning for me to discover her.
It's a beautiful thing! | prizma wrote: |
Yet are we not the Scientists, and as we Evolve so may our definitions, what about how other Sciences have evolved with new discoveries? I still have the hope in my heart that somehow we will link our spirituality with our creation, and will develop new Sciences that apply in new arenas....
I like to be out at the forefront of pioneering New Frontiers of thought, and visions of things to come only the wildest imaginations have dreamt. |
It is true that topics that were once the sole domain or religion, or flights of fancy, eventually became science. If there were such thing as a true scientist in the 17th century, he would have never dreamt that science would one day be seriously discussing what happened during the process of the universe's creation spasms. Perhaps one day such topics as transcendent consciousness or the existence of a god may become science.
But not today. If a group of thinkers were to sit around in the 17th century and discuss the shape the universe, or what went on during creation... well, think about what it would sound like. They wouldn't be dumb, but they simply would not have the tools available to test or even understand what they're talking about. We understand that the universe is expanding because we have understood the nature of light and the concept of redshift, and because we advanced in our understanding of geometry and how that might apply to space/time... which in turn led us to the evidence and understanding of what is going on regarding the universe's expansion. Without those tools... we would be ignorant fools stumbling around in the dark.
To say today that "god is ____" is meaningless nonsense, whatever ____ happens to be. Why? Because we simply do not have the tools to test or even conceive of what a god might be like. We would be like 17th century natural philosophers trying to figure out the shape of the universe. Oh, sure, we'd have ideas that we think sound reasonable, like that "the universe is a perfect sphere". Heck, that even sounds reasonable today. But our current tools tell us that it is not spherical in nature, it his hyperbolic - something they would not even be able to conceive of, let alone consider plausible. If a 23rd century scientist showed up today and told you "god is a cucumber", what would you think? Total nonsense? Completely inconceivable? Sure. But those are the same things the 17th century "scientists" would say about our knowledge of the universe today. Think about it.
You can't just "leap ahead" in science. Every new idea, every new hypothesis, every new law and every new theory is painstakingly built up step-by-step from what we already knew. Often this process leads us in directions we could not predict (and i predict that trend will continue), but the process is such that no matter how wacky the direction it seems to be taking us, we can be confident that we are always, always moving toward the truth, however slowly. You take just one careless leap and *poof*, you're off the grid, and you have no way of knowing whether you're moving toward the truth or completely ass-backwards away from it.
Maybe science will go in the direction you think it will, maybe it will go the opposite direction... maybe it will go off in a direction that no one today can even conceive of. You can't force it to go in the direction you want, and you can't force it to move any faster than it's going to go. If that's not good enough for what you want... then you will have to abandon the idea of using science.
| prizma wrote: |
| I'd like to add one thing for you to consider, perhaps we are actually facets of a larger System, A Larger Consciousness that one might call "God", and whatever Quantum Tweaking may be happening not only to us but through us. I've been honest about my loose grasp on the Science of the most recent addition to study, Quantum (mechanics, physics, field, what are the differences?) |
It is a bit of a fad now to come up with all kinds of mystical interpretations of the concepts of quantum physics - there are many pseudo-scientific religions popping up all over the place that purport to base their beliefs on ideas "supported" by the findings of quantum mechanics. i hope that it's needless to say that most are patent bullshit.
In all honesty, quantum physics is hard. You really do have to have a strong mathematical background to get it. And that's part of the reason that these pseudo-scientific religions are so successful. They say things that use just enough of the truth to make the appear to be scientific to people who have only passing knowledge of the field... but anyone who has the background to properly analyze their claims can spot the crap easily.
i have actually dedicated a good deal of time over the last few years with friends trying to write a very simplistic introduction to quantum physics that does not require third-year university level math - for the general public to help combat this growing pseudo-science religion trend. We made some progress that i am proud of, but not nearly as much as i would have hoped. It's really hard to do because i can tell you (for example) that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle above a certain value (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), but to show you why... without the math... that's hard.
Here's a practical example: i can tell you that the idea of you controlling quantum probabilities is complete nonsense no matter what scientific perspective you use... but i can't prove it to you. Not without months and months of teaching you hard math and quantum mechanics fundamentals. Now, why would you believe what i say? You have no reason to - i'm just a random ****** on teh intarnets. But if only i could show you... well then things would be different.
i guess i can help you with this much, though: quantum physics is the name of the branch of physics based on the idea that the fundamental properties of the universe are quantized. Quantum mechanics is technically just one branch of quantum physics that deals only with quantized energy, but not quantized time or force (other, more modern theories, attempt to quantize force and time, among other things). A quantum field is a field that is quantized, like an electric or magnetic field. (All this may not be perfectly accurate because in all honesty, most people - myself included - use a lot of the terms interchangeably, so i never remember the details about the differences.)
Of course, if you don't understand what "quantized" means... that description probably won't help much. But "quantized" is not difficult to explain.
| prizma wrote: |
I know a complete breakdown would be to lengthy but I'm doing my own thought experiments out here, Consciousness Experiments seem more apt a term, to prove directly or indirectly some existance of the thought that started it all. I Love my Creator, and feel like a Creator myself. I see the awsome Power in my hands, I see the Elegant Universe, calling my name, beckoning for me to discover her.
It's a beautiful thing! |
All of that is rather romantic, which is not really problematic... the problem is that it's all completely without any coherent basis. If you want to talk about "god" or "consciousness", that's fine... but until you can define those words in a scientific context... any talk about them will not be science.I'm not realy up on quantam physics but technically are'nt virtual particles borrowed from the future and so not 'matter from nowhere'
| breebree wrote: |
| I'm not realy up on quantam physics but technically are'nt virtual particles borrowed from the future and so not 'matter from nowhere' |
i can't say i've ever heard of them as "borrowed from the future". Are you sure you're not thinking of antiparticles - which propogate backwards in time?
But it is no secret that matter come from "nowhere". This picture shows an electron and a positron being spontaneously generated out of nowhere by a high energy photon - basically, creating matter from energy. But this happens all the time in nature without the help of particle accelerators. The empty space that makes up the volume of our universe - the space between and within atoms - is not empty, it is bubbling over with particles being created and destroyed all the time. | indi wrote: |
| i can't say i've ever heard of them as "borrowed from the future". Are you sure you're not thinking of antiparticles - which propogate backwards in time? |
No, it was on a documentary, im sure it was virtual particles. It said that a vacuum is not necessarily empty space and that it can borrow particles from the future provided that it repays them straight away and so the average contents of a vacuum is nothing. Its one of those bizarre concepts such as not being able to know the speed and location of an atom at the same time and the whole schrodinger's cat thing.
