Re: How to differentiate real time from my mind's projected reality?

Post by **Summerlander** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:32 am

Actually, it has recently been suggested that thermodynamics may explain gravity. The objective world exists and is not an illusion. Illusions arise in the minds of people and are products of misrepresentation in perception. The universe is very real and physical. Even the vacuum of space is physical and contains 'stuff'. See how illusory a saw is if you use it to cut your arm. How discreet are its particles?

Consciousness is the epiphenomenon of the brain and its interacting parts. Humunculi do not haunt the brain. The self is merely a sense - one that you can and will lose permanently one day. What remains to be explained is how consciousness emerges in the brain. You think you will still have that consciousness of yours when you die? If living people can be unconscious for long periods of time, how on earth can the decease have a chance at consciousness let alone a sense of self?

For the last time I will explain. All experience is in the physical brain. The phase is a manifestation of the brain using the same reality-making mechanisms that helps to create a coherent perception of the waking world. The phase world is only illusory in the sense that it appears to show things that exist in reality (i.e. it appears objective), but all is made up (as the brain is free to create any reality it likes in that state) and inconsistent with external world perception.

The phase world is only real in the sense that it is eventuated by electrical activity in the brain (physical in that sense) apart from being real to us in every way in terms of perception. For example, in the phase you may walk, run and fly - but in reality your body is not moving and you are not really going anywhere. In this sense, your perception in the phase can be said to be illusory. The same goes for dreams. Just because you are making love to a celebrity in a dream doesn't mean that you are actually doing it. What you are doing is actively thinking about it which in that state, it can almost seem like you are really doing it. That's an illusion, Jeff. An illusion is only a misinterpretation of what is going on - bearing in mind that what is going on is real in its own way. Don't mistake illusion with unreality. It's not rocket science, really - although mumbo-jumboers make it seem so.

Even dreams can reflect the fact that we are nothing at all. Remember those times when you lose your identity and you think you are someone else in a dream? Not to mention the loss of memory or/and the false ones. We are one big zero open to suggestions, my friend. The brain can reprogram itself many times over. We are only highly sophisticated supercomputers. There are no such things as ghosts.

Like LoLmart, you have the wrong logic about the real world and applying the concept of illusions in the right context, Jeff.

@ NOVA:

I don't agree with everything I do or say either.

This reminds me of something. Someone once theorised that conflict promotes awareness. Another said we could have evolved to argue and not to be rational... hmmm.

breadbassed:

In my opinion it is inevitably mathematical. Not sure about describing it as an entity although it could be part of a larger entity - not a God - more in terms of us possibly living inside a large animal in a larger universe... LOL! How awesome that would be!! I'm with you on the mind being zero and the zero is where we come from and to the zero we shall go. The energy in the universe also adds up to zero. Zero is all we are and in zero anything can be.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:52 pm

Summer,
I'm aware of the entropic gravity hypothesis,its one that I like and it is very interesting but other scientists have already claimed to have refuted it.Time will tell.

Yes,the universe is real,consciousness and the phase are real aspects of it too.We are part of the universe,we dream,the universe dreams.We are part of the universe,we are conscious,the universe has consciousness.

As for bodily damage and mortality,man you have no idea just how much I am aware of this reality and the things I've seen in my job.This is why I too take issue with the idea of a loving,personal,creator and the new agey idea the we ,somehow, choose or pre plan our lives and sufferings in order to 'learn lessons'.(A crock o' shit IMO) A loving God would not allow the suffering of the world.An omnipotent God would not need to evolve states or creatures.The universe is a hostile place indeed.

There is nothing wrong with my logic SL.As for consciousness as an epiphenomenon:As Ray Tallis indicates,you do not seem to take your own claim seriously.Do you understand that causality runs in one direction according to this idea? Do you understand that if this were true,you literally would not be able to communicate about your phase experiences in the physical world??

As for death,which seems to be your real beef,this is another issue but I will reply honestly in risk of being criticized by you.You ask "You think you will still have that consciousness of yours when you die? " My answer is not straight forward.Personal identity and the conventional content of our consciousness (the world as we know it) is contingent upon social interactions,environmental interactions,feedback loops,embodiment and much more probably.Obviously these things are transitory and are lost upon bodily death.An identification with these things will also be transitory.Does something continue? The answer depends on one's assumptions.There is evidence suggestive of some type of continuance. If this is temporary or not no one can honestly answer.There are NDE reports with veridical content that deserve consideration.There are ones from congenitally blind people even.Conventional explanations are insufficient.There is also the work of Ian Stevenson in regard to the possibility of reincarnation.

One extremely compelling case is that of Shanti Devi's.Allegedly:As a child she retained a continuing chain of memory-from a past life,through bodily death,through a period of experiencing a void with a single light shifting back and forth from some perspective,to birth,to a small child who continuously reported that she was really 'someone' else from the time that she could speak again.After years of this her parents and an official investigative Gov. team took her to her previous village to find her former husband,child and home.All of her detailed information proved correct.She even led them to money that she had hidden.She was a Hindu and dedicated meditator.She claims to have repeated God's name throughout her alleged transition process as a mantra.(Personally,if true,I'd imagine that any mantra might do.) Does this make reincarnation a reality ? I don't know,maybe there are other explanations but the brain alone is not one of them.If true,obviously,if we can't always remember what we had for dinner last week;remembering a 'past life' might be alittle more difficult eh?

Again,my logic is fine.As for the rest of your comment I say this:
To perceive the 'real world' the mind must share properties and qualities with it.The brain,as a purely physical object through and through, (dead matter) does not share properties or qualities with the intentional appearances you call the 'real world'. Therefore the brain does not 'simulate' the 'real world'.

If a brain does not simulate a first order world (A brain itself is an appearance in consciousness) it cannot be appealed to to simulate a second order world.The idea that the brain generates the phase is one non explanation piled on top of another.

Now,to distinguish between "illusion" and "real" in your terms relies upon material brain processes that possess expectation,memory (in the phenomenal sense) and relative frames of reference.To say that material brain processes "expect" or "compare" or "memorize" is to smuggle in mental properties.This presupposes consciousness and mentality and can not be used to explain these things.This is poor logic. (Why should our logic or mathematics correspond to anything at all BTW if it is epiphenomenal ?)

We certainly don't have to agree but if you want to concede that brain cells and processes could have consciousness at their level I can get on board with that.Its conceivable to me that we are a biological colony of conscious entities that share,integrate and compress information in some non local 'global workspace' that stands in some causal relation to the world.As I have conjectured before,awareness could be a fundamental property of the universe that is instantiated by suitable organisms.

To go out further on a speculative limb,if this is a multiverse,like the example of gravity in string theory,perhaps consciousness even 'leaks' to other branches.The late physicist Gerhard Wassermann (who you will no doubt scream 'crackpot' about)proposed that free mirror matter may form what we esoterically call 'astral bodies'.A mechanism of interaction,he suggested,could be through graviton exchange and kinetic mixing of photons and mirror photons. Before you deride this idea consider that at least it explains the experience of being pulled back to a body and seeing phase imagery unlike the blanket "illusion" dismissal. Is it true? I have no F'n clue but it is worth consideration IMO.

No need to continue this back and forth over this stuff though.Pragmatics is where its at,that's why I'm here. I had 6 consecutive OBEs last night in fact.What ever it is,I just love the phase!

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:17 pm

My answer to the original question is that we should be careful about what we say that we 'create'. All we can know is through our sense perceptions and the mind independent existence of any object or environment , 'real' or otherwise can only be an abstraction to us.Cultivating memory and good practice is the way forward IMHO.Do experiments Lolmart.

Everyone seems to give good practical advice here otherwise and I concur if anyone cares...

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:33 pm

I might add that I too enjoy Summerlander's posts here eventhough I disagree on things.He has talents for writing and communication as well as art that I can appreciate.If I come off as combative it is not intentional.It is just that these issues are ones that I am a bit passionate over and these topics give me a chance to express myself,even if nobody reads it,I can store my mind droppings here...

Post by **Summerlander** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:36 pm

I'm flattered!

You're a good speaker too and you certainly make everyone aware of interesting ideas, even though a lot of them I find hard to swallow. But then again, what do I know? I just want to point out that one doesn't always get sucked back into the body (or perceived stencil). There have been some instances where I have literally been ejected from the body to land a few feet away from it in the phase (sometimes after spinning). So, Wasserman's theory does not tally with my experience. My reasoning is that the pulling back sensation may be manifested by a thought/misconception (conscious or unconscious) that "in the body" is where we truly belong. In other cases it may simply be the expectation of resistance or that separation will be difficult.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, Jeff, LoLmart and everyone else. This is a nice little thread. It's quite informative.

breadbassed · Post by **breadbassed** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:36 am

I agree that you two seem to be the powerhouses or rational arguments, im glad that you are holding opposing positions otherwise it wouldn't be especially interesting reading, everyone agreeing all the time! lol

SL, It's true it can be hard to grasp how consciousness can survive death. I agree with what Jeff was saying, that once you remove all of your material knowledge what's left would be a very stripped back version of what we currently know. As you previously said, the unconscious continues for long periods of time without any conscious activity. In fact consciousness has evolved out of the unconscious (i'm sure you would agree), so the unconscious can survive indefinitely without consciousness (perhaps eternally?).

So perhaps the idea of an unconscious part of yourself surviving death is more acceptable? But then as consciousness has evolved, is it possible we can evolve to have consciousness after death also? Perhaps becoming conscious in the dream state is almost like a stepping stone of evolution, so the conscious and unconscious synthesize in some manner? Would the pinnacle of evolution be that of the conscious mind having full access to the unconscious? Would this be the same as enlightenment in eastern religions? Therefore you have no need to re-incarnate, as you have become fully conscious/evolved?

Its also true what you say about the universe always being in a zero state. The universe is zero expressed in an infinite number of ways

Just some ideas. I know I don't have the eloquence of debate that you two hold but i'll throw in my two cents!

Post by **Summerlander** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:14 pm

That's still a valid argument. Perhaps evolution is favouring the spread of consciousness to the point where it can survive bodily death. Or maybe consciousness is an inevitability in the sense that, if there is unconsciousness, then consciousness must also exist symmetrically. Or perhaps consciousness is merely the conservation of energy and its momentum in a highly integrated biological system, a "Newton's cradle" as it were that continues for as long as the system is operational.

The cerebral "cradle" will continue forever as its collisions maintain the energy and momentum. It would forever support itself if the body didn't deteriorate and die. Perhaps we are evolving into stronger beings to the point where we will live longer and it may get to the point where consciousness is forever preserved within an indestructible brain. At the moment, there is no evidence that that is the case in nature but our growing intellect may allow us to understand the nature of reality at a level where we will know how to manipulate it to that advantage.

Then again, are we sure that living forever is an advantage? Do we really want to be conscious forever? The first 100 years is fine. 200 years and it would start to bore the hell out of you. Now how would you feel after having lived for this long: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000? What would your mental state be like? What is so bad about death?

Death is part of nature. The atoms that maintain your form will be recycled and will go on to form other things. This is naturally meant to be. If we can manipulate this, then perhaps there should be a trial first. A willing subject should be tested and his mental health monitored. We should see how long a human being can stay sane after having lived for so long (IMO). We need a virtual Connor MacLeod. If he starts chopping heads off after 300 years then maybe that should be our ideal limit of life.

For how long?

Even living in the ideal world of the phase forever could quickly turn into a nightmare. Remember, in infinity you have all the time you need to try everything your imagination can conceive an infinite number of times over. Eventually you'd get to the point where you'd be asking yourself: "what haven't I tried?" Or saying to yourself: "I've done that so many times!"

Finally, you'd start to crack up as you'd realise that even your thoughts have been repeated so many times giving you a sense that there are no new thoughts. What a prison being conscious would turn into! You'd be begging for an end! Even if that end means that there might be a new beginning - as long as you have no recollection of having previously lived. Ideally, you'd want the conscious nightmare forgotten. At that stage, the idea of absence from life would seem like a blissful concept to your tortured and tired mind.

On this note, let me leave you here with an interesting quote:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:30 am

Breadbassed,
Thanks for the compliment.You make interesting points about the unconscious and I kind of relate them to the idea of 'potential consciousness'.Maybe it exists in potential the way energy and fields are thought to have potential-which would be kind of a mind-matter unification too perhaps...? $:-\$ About zero,I think the following link is very interesting.Scientists like Von Neummann, Vlatko Vedral and Penrose (I think) have talked about similar such things.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

Summerlander,
You make a good case for death there!

Post by **Summerlander** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:54 pm

I think Dio would be able to tell us more about that kind of emptiness if he came back to life (would he even want to be alive after what he went through?). Well, provided that he remembered what it feels like to be in that state of nothingness. This sort of "emptiness" or still mind can be experienced while you are still alive via meditative states. It seems that living people can distinctly remember their minds being still and lacking thoughts. But the living possess a working brain capable of recording information... where is that in a dead person? They might as well be naturally unconscious and blissfully unaware of anything whatsoever.

Earlier, I might have come on a little strong in my views but I am only trying to raise awareness on what is scientifically hypothetical, theoretical and proven fact. Again, it bears repeating that, in the realm of science, the hypothetical stance is extremely tenuous compared to theoretical solutions proposed by experts which often prove to be accurate or are in the least on the right track. Yes, scientific theory has a lot of substance otherwise it wouldn't be considered. Like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's astronautic theory, for example! This genius calculated the propulsion required for a rocket to safely escape the Earth's gravity (even more remarkable is the fact that he was self-taught)! Yes, this is rocket science and the theory was on the money!

To highlight the relevance to the topic, let me point out that we have two ideas going here. One where we are intrinsically empty (but there is obviously room for manifestations which may or may not come about naturally), and the other regarding the primacy of consciousness which expresses itself through matter (or mind over matter). The latter is more hypothetical. Less evidential is the concept of a soul departing from the physical body.

Spectacular NDE reports, that purport to prove the existence of a soul capable of exiting the physical body, lack veracity (sorry LoLmart). A test where a message has been placed on a high shelf out of sight of patients and hospital staff was set up. NDErs have yet to mention such message in their reports. In fact, any of us can enter the phase and attempt to read the message.

So far, in my own deck of cards trials (see Phase Experiments: ESP), I have not been able get one card right (at least not a hundred percent). It appears, however, that my subconscious comes up with numerous possibilities before it settles on a particular outcome which often comes about after I have fixed my gaze upon a manifest possibility. This doesn't mean to say that the phase state is useless in providing solutions (or guessing). On the contrary, I think it does better than wild guessing as it provides us with the opportunity to access information that was gathered subconsciously.

I got the suit right on my last trial and perhaps this came about because a side of me might have picked up something from the way my wife behaved prior to my trial. Perhaps Stacey unknowingly gave me clues. A subconscious talking to another subconscious perhaps? Anyway, so far, the only thing that seems apparent is that the phase provides a great glimpse of how our minds work and it's amazing.

Back to my point made earlier, the existence of a soul concept remains scientifically hypothetical. So is the God notion (not to offend any believers here but if you have strong reasons to believe in a deity or a creator of the universe, do express your views and make me understand what makes you believe).

But before you launch your protests, know this...

The majority of scientists don't believe in God based on the fact that this one remains only a hypothesis. God is supposed to operate the universe and our lives (according to Judaic-Christian-Islamic faith but disregarding Deism). This means that evidence for His existence should be scientifically detectable. So far, no controlled experiment provided an observation that cannot be explained by natural means which would, as a result, force science to seriously consider the existence of a world beyond matter. Again, I apologise if this doesn't sound good to some but I'm just highlighting facts here.

Studies have been conducted on prayer. All evidence shows its ineffectiveness. Is God asleep at the wheel? Doesn't he answer to prayers? The evidence in this area strongly suggests his non-existence. Remember Bruce Almighty? I love that film. It depicts what would happen if all the prayers were answered. If prayer worked, or if God obliged to your every wish, the effects of this should be observable. Unless, of course, God is a capricious entity. Millions of prayers have been said every day for thousands of years and yet not a single miracle has been scientifically verified - and remember that asking for a life improvement and then winning the lottery the following day is not proof of anything (such event, although highly unlikely, is still possible and thus natural means can explain it - the chance in probability is still there!!)

Likewise, revelations from the lord in mystical experiences lack confirming evidence. Often, believers misinterpret such experiences through their faith and underestimation of mind power (the real origin of their experiences). If anything, the experiments that Michael Raduga has conducted demonstrate the creative power of our minds and there is no reason to believe that what people experienced before was supernatural and not the product of phase states, dreams, and other hallucinatory experiences.

Equally, no evidence for intelligent design of life on Earth is found either (sorry, Breadbassed, as I know that this is where you somewhat stand - at least from the perspective of Nassim, where fractals, dimensions, infinity and other geometrical concepts are glibly presented and yet his mathematical logic would bring shame to Pythagoras and other experts who have long passed and knew less than what we do today). The Fibonacci sequence in nature is not proof of design either.

The complexity in the structure of life is certainly not evidence as some like to claim (as explained in earlier posts). Life looks exactly as it should according to Darwinian evolution.

When we were more ignorant, religious powers were more content, and then, the more we learned, the more challenged they felt in maintaining their doctrine. To use a famous example, there was Ptolemy with his geocentric ideas that appeared to support religious belief and they loved him. Along comes Copernicus and says that we are not the centre of the universe and that the planets, including the Earth, revolve around the sun. They wanted to stamp him out. Galileo, his successor, also encountered the same troubles. Their theories, which proved correct, contradicted biblical passages - e.g. the Earth was not supposed to be moving!

The universe didn't need a creator either (check out legitimate Lawrence Krauss if you haven't already: he'll explain why as well as giving you a good understanding of what nothingness is in physics - creationism has got nothing on him... nor anything for that matter!!). It required no miracles to manifest itself. If you don't like the Big Bang theory (even though the evidence for this one is still visible in our skies), you might like the theory of a multiverse where our universe originated from another. The latter can be hard to grasp but it is still far more substantial than the creationist debacle. Everything looks exactly as it should if there were no God.

The blind faith of religion in the world makes people acquire warped thinking as they passionately hold on to infeasible concepts and ideas. Because of this, a lot of them (especially the zealots and the devout) lack paying attention to evidence.

Finally, most religions claim that we have a soul. Again, no mentally induced phenomena that are independent of brain chemistry is found. God is also said to be the source of morality and yet no evidence for a supernatural origin in human behaviour is found. People of faith generally behave no better than those who have no faith, and, in some cases, God worshippers can behave a lot worse. But this isn't just about God worshippers. Spiritualists, or people who consider themselves to be spiritual, can be just as bad (go on spiritual Forums and see how you are received if you propose the materialistic worldview and deny the existence of spirit in your humblest opinion...

)

Religion did help to bring people together in the birth of civilisation, mostly to get people to compromise with one another, for many, it provides comfort (although I'd rather see people finding comfort in facts rather than, ahem, fairy tales), and, it was and still is being used as a means to control. But never forget that our moral behaviour evolved socially. This is fact.

By the way, I hope you guys have heard of sociologist Herbert Spencer. He coined the term "survival of the fittest". I think you will find this link I found interesting:

http://www.bolender.com/Sociological%20 ... pencer.htm

breadbassed · Post by **breadbassed** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:04 pm

Summerlander wrote: Equally, no evidence for intelligent design of life on Earth is found either (sorry, Breadbassed, as I know that this is where you somewhat stand - at least from the perspective of Nassim, where fractals, dimensions, infinity and other geometrical concepts are glibly presented and yet his mathematical logic would bring shame to Pythagoras and other experts who have long passed and knew less than what we do today). The Fibonacci sequence in nature is not proof of design either.

It's funny that you mention Pythagorus, as it was the secret group which he started (and exist to this day) who were the authors behind the God Series aforementioned.

Also, infinity is more than just a geometrical concept, it is completely ontological. There was a Horizons episode on BBC not that long ago called 'How big is the universe', and the scientists on the program had discovered/calculated that the universe is in fact infinite in size, and how did they do this? Using Pythagorus' theory!

Post by **Summerlander** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:46 pm

That's why I mentioned Pythagoras - for emphasis. Pythagoras held metaphysical concepts but he was excused as he knew less - also, at that time, the belief in multiple lives was probably received with less scepticism. The mumbo jumbo we see today, though, could still make him squirm.

The real issue here is not whether the universe is infinite or not (but I very much doubt that scientists arrived at such conclusion using what I think you are referring to: Pythagorean theorem). The only thing we can be sure of is that our local universe is expanding. Its infinity is not a certainty. There could, however, be a multiverse, and this may in fact be infinite.

Anyway, I abhor any form of faith or religious belief. It's jumping to conclusions from hypothetical stances. There is no creator and no intelligent design. The universe is mainly a 'soup' teeming with matter manifestations that arose from chance and interact in a probabilistic way. Any patterns we see in nature are natural (even the amazing ones are coincidental and if you think outside the box I think you'll find that they're inevitable - it would be truly weird if there weren't any!)

Remember, there is only significance if we assign significance to such observations and concepts. That's all.

breadbassed · Post by **breadbassed** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:36 pm

Yeh i did mean Pythagorean theorem.

http://gorillavid.in/u0qyqxzw61mf

For your viewing pleasure

Post by **Summerlander** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:28 pm

I'm watching it!

"The universe is so big we may never find the edge!"

How is this an affirmation in certainty that our universe is infinite?

EDIT:

LOL! Bread, I watched it! Do you realise that the video you posted, especially where using the "giant triangle" to measure the size of the Earth and the universe is concerned, can be found in the links I've already posted before concerning Lawrence Krauss? Here, watch this one! Watch all of it and see how meaningless the universe really is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

As far as we can measure (note the wording here), our universe COULD be infinite, because, as far as we can tell, space is flat. Like I said before, there could be other universes too, but this is yet to be verified. Btw, whether it is infinite or not, what's it got to do with intelligent design or backing up an ancient religion?

For example, infinity (in the context of an endless multiverse) can be a completely natural thing with no need for a creator. In fact, it would seem weird if space itself ended or if we couldn't add one more digit to the biggest number we can possibly think of. Infinity is something that can be epistemically derived even by a ten-year-old (I've seen this happen: when his younger brother asked if "2000" was the highest number, the ten-year-old reasoned that there is no highest number because one can always add something to whatever amount has been conceived).

breadbassed · Post by **breadbassed** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:12 pm

Infinity being real surely just further shows the ontology of mathematics. If the universe is purely mathematical, which you seem to agree with, and zero is mind, then there must be a part of the universe (zero/mind) which is eternal, you cannot create 'nothing' and you cannot destroy it either. Energy cannot be destroyed or created, and is always the same throughout the universe, and is therefore eternal. Anything eternal CANNOT have a creator, otherwise it wouldn't be eternal!

So if infinity and zero are 'real' then zero should be the realm outside of space and time, the singularity, which encompasses everything, hence we are all connected mentally. If your mind is zero, then your mind cannot be destroyed, or created. Therefore you are also eternal, your mind has evolved from being unconscious to conscious. As i said before, perhaps consciousness is not everlasting, but your zero would be.

Also if the universe is infinite, the multiverse theory is flawed, as something infinite can't have anything outside it, otherwise it isn't infinite. (Although this doesn't mean that there can't be other universes within ours, albeit unobservable).

As Krauss said, the universe's energy is always zero, and it came from nothing, therefore nothing/zero/mind, was where the universe started. 'Physicality' or real numbers (1 +) came out of the mental singularity.(No God, just an infinity of zeros/souls/unconscious minds).

Thanks for this video, it was interesting, its completely confirmed everything that i have learnt from Hockneys books. To me its further proof that mind is primary to matter, its just scientists don't realize it yet.

Consider how much our knowledge of the universe is increasing. Now imagine another 100, million, or billion years of human evolution (assuming we were around that long and earth doesn't die, or we moved to another habitable planet). Would we gain complete understanding of how a universe is made? Would we then be able to create one? Would that then make us "Gods"?

I do agree with what he says toward the end "There's more we don't understand about the universe than we do".

He also mentions how galaxies are moving away faster and will eventually go 'faster than the speed of light'. Relativity says that anything moving that fast will have infinite mass. The universe is evolving back into a mental singularity, from pure potential (unconscious universe) to pure realization (conscious universe).

Post by **Summerlander** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:59 pm

Thanks for this video, it was interesting, its completely confirmed everything that i have learnt from Hockneys books. To me its further proof that mind is primary to matter, its just scientists don't realize it yet.

No. You have misinterpreted what was explained in the video and you have dismissed what the void means in physics. The void contains quantum fluctuations. The nothingness in the realm of physics is always something and will contain energy. The nothingness you are thinking about is a different kind of nothingness. For example, imagine that we are in an empty void and there is distance between us. If there is distance, then there is something and that something will have quantum particles that pop in and out of existence. But, if there is absolutely nothing between us, then we would be stuck together because even distance would not exist. I hope you are getting a clear picture now.

So when Krauss says that the universe arose from nothing, he is really saying that it arose from the nothingness of the realm of physics, in which case, even the spatial void contains energy. It is not the zero that you are thinking about.

Again, simple misconceptions are what lead pseudoscientists to sway laymen with their mumbo jumbo (and I'm sorry but Hockney is one of 'em). Another example is when Thomas Campbell uses the word "observation" literally when he says that consciousness collapses reality through observation. That is nonsense. When physicists use the word "observation", they are using it in the context of measuring something, and, naturally, measuring the state of something will always have an effect on the thing that is being measured. Campbell, however, managed to convince his fans that something magical is going on with the double-slit experiment.

He also mentions how galaxies are moving away faster and will eventually go 'faster than the speed of light'. Relativity says that anything moving that fast will have infinite mass. The universe is evolving back into a mental singularity, from pure potential (unconscious universe) to pure realization (conscious universe).

No. You are getting confuddled with special relativity and general relativity (things are not that black and white, there are lots of grey areas in nature). The universe is indeed expanding, but it is not because its galaxies have infinite mass. Have you heard of the inflation theory? You must have because I'm pretty sure it is mentioned in the video you posted. Here's the Wiki link about it anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

It's a theory but it has made a series of predictions that have been confirmed already (also check the evolution of galaxies while you're at it - it's very interesting). So, more than anything, space expands.

I think we are understanding the universe better than ever before. We clearly see what is happening and there is nothing supernatural and certainly not coming from something outside of space and time as they say. If the universe is seen to behave a certain way but the cause is not immediately observable, calculations and predictions can still be made around what we know that the invisible agent does - as in the case of dark matter and energy. It is only a matter of time before scientists identify and observe the theoretical matter and energy. We see their predictions coming true all the time. Just recently, we saw how the Higgs boson qualified from its theoretical status into a confirmation. The Higgs field permeates everything and gives particles their mass.

The universe is not a living being either. It is a natural stage where evolutionary processes are surely taking place. But these evolutions are not necessarily for its betterment or the betterment of any conscious creature that inhabits it. Remember, we are here by pure chance. Had things happened in a slightly different way, if there was no SPONCH in the way that it's structurally arranged, then we wouldn't be here and life might not even have happened. Our evolution into consciousness was eventuated by the random spark of our origin followed by the billiards-like process of natural selection.

It did not happen because a universe as living entity was dormant and suddenly woke up. The mind arose as a product of matter and it happened by chance on this planet. I don't by this mental singularity business. The mind is an epiphenomenon of naturally complex states of matter. It was non-existent before, then it emerged in a largely unconscious state, and today we see the conscious part growing in its evolution - and this will last for as long as our species survives. That's all.

I don't see how the expanding universe is a factor in a hypothetical concept such as "mental singularity". If the atoms and the subatomic particles that make up what is "you" now disassemble, I guarantee you that any existent mind will dissipate and so will consciousness. There is no realisation taking place, only incidental experience.

To finalise, you can always add to a figure like this: 0.00012465749... in order to eventually obtain a positive integer. In fact, you can multiply that figure a number of times to get a result that will be more worthwhile as it goes beyond decimal places. However, if the figure is just a "zero", you can multiply that by as many times as you want and the result will always be the same. Zero means zero.