Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Does The Universe Have An Ego?


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Alive, to me, is about consciousness

 

 

 

Perhaps this subject needs another thread, if there's any interest.

 

I would like to have a definition of "consciousness" and have it demonstrated that inert matter possesses it. I know what science says, but those not satisfied with that should explain themselves, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Botfx.

 

Btw, I'm not happy with "Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen" either - even if it's recommended by Danny Kaye.  wink.png  I find Hugh Everett's ideas on how the wave function collapses more appealing. 

 

Which brings me neatly back to the very point I made about OC's take on Natural Theology, yesterday.  Quantum scientists have done the very thing Philosophers and Theologians have done - divided themselves into schools of thought; adhering to this theory, holding to that model or adopting a given paradigm.  That's what happens when a definitive and conclusive answer to a question hasn't been or cannot be reached.  People opt for what appeals to them.  

 

When I say 'appeals' to them, what I mean is that some people are swayed by the internal consistency of an argument.  Others might be drawn by the explanatory power of a counter-argument.  Or perhaps a certain theory carries with it hints of a deeper, more fundamental order that might exist in reality.  So they adopt what appeals to them.  I count myself as a supporter of the Everett Interpretation - so I'm practicing what I'm preaching here and applying the the same standard to myself as I did to Clay.

.

.

.

.

 

Btw Botfx, would you describe yourself as more of a Panentheist, than a Pantheist?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither, if anything I would fall into some form of deism if I accepted any form of higher power at all. I currently hold that I am a full agnostic, with the opinion that it is impossible to prove or disprove the concept of any form of higher power exists or is needed. That said, I tend to think that it is much more difficult to maintain the existence of an anthropomorphic "God" or gods than it is to argue from a deist position.

 

I would be much more comfortable with a higher power that does not take an active, decision making role in creation. That is, something that is more of a grounding principle, without personality as such. I certainly don't think there is any kind of being that continues to take an active role in the continuing operation/evolution of the Universe/Multiverse. (Though I must admit that the concept of a cosmic consciousness could be an interesting line of thought.)

 

Again, I take Tillich's idea of God as the ground of being to an extreme where it would be hard to even call it deism when I think about what might be acceptable as God, if such could ever be proved. (And if OC is sharp he can say I hold to Natural Theology, and be wrong. smile.png )

 

BTW, I will be the first to admit that I have only a layman's knowledge of physics in any serious sense. Please feel free to correct me when I mis-use or confuse terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither, if anything I would fall into some form of deism if I accepted any form of higher power at all. I currently hold that I am a full agnostic, with the opinion that it is impossible to prove or disprove the concept of any form of higher power exists or is needed. That said, I tend to think that it is much more difficult to maintain the existence of an anthropomorphic "God" or gods than it is to argue from a deist position.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying that, Botfx.

 

I would be much more comfortable with a higher power that does not take an active, decision making role in creation. That is, something that is more of a grounding principle, without personality as such. I certainly don't think there is any kind of being that continues to take an active role in the continuing operation/evolution of the Universe/Multiverse. (Though I must admit that the concept of a cosmic consciousness could be an interesting line of thought.)

 

Again, thanks for the explanation.

 

Again, I take Tillich's idea of God as the ground of being to an extreme where it would be hard to even call it deism when I think about what might be acceptable as God, if such could ever be proved. (And if OC is sharp he can say I hold to Natural Theology, and be wrong. smile.png )

 

Hmmm... is that the sound of a gauntlet being thrown down, I wonder?  wink.png

 

BTW, I will be the first to admit that I have only a layman's knowledge of physics in any serious sense. Please feel free to correct me when I mis-use or confuse terms.

 

Ah well then!

 

As one layman to another another, who am I to correct you on matters cosmological? 

 

I'm no expert.  The title, 'enthusiastic amateur astronomer' might fit me best.  Perhaps all I can do is tell it as I (superficially) understand it - leaving trained professionals like Bhim to delve more deeply. 

 

Anyway, that's one of the benefits of this forum.  Nobody here knows it all * , but those with expertise in a given field can help other folks out... and vice versa.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

.

.

.

.

*

Maybe some believe they know it all, eh? wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe some believe they know it all, eh? wink.png

 

 

Those who think they know it all are particularly annoying to those of us who do. :)

 

(Did I mention that I freely admit to being an arrogant prick?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe some believe they know it all, eh? wink.png

 

 

Those who think they know it all are particularly annoying to those of us who do. smile.png

 

(Did I mention that I freely admit to being an arrogant prick?)

 

 

No, you didn't actually mention that.  But I did pick that up, along the way. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who doesn't want to be an arrogant prick is the real question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who doesn't want to be an arrogant prick is the real question?

 

To be (an arrogant prick) or not to be (an arrogant prick) that is the question, James.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

It just seems that "entanglement" covers all levels of organization.

 

from entanglement definition: 2.A complicated or compromising relationship or situation.

 

from relationship definition: 1.The way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected.

 

 

from compromise synonyms:

 

 

1

vb adjust, agree, arbitrate, compose, compound, concede, give and take, go fifty-fifty (informal) meet halfway, settle, strike a balance

 

 

 

2

n accommodation, accord, adjustment, agreement, concession, give-and-take, half measures, middle ground, settlement, trade-off

 

 

 

3

vb discredit, dishonour, embarrass, endanger, expose, hazard, imperil, implicate, jeopardize, prejudice, weaken

 

 

just some stuff to throw out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

 

 

will give you an idea of what we are talking about. Which describes a property involved in quantum physics. If you have a sharp mind and are young enough not yet gone to college I suggest going into that field as it is going to revolutionize the telecommunications industry. Although it might just explode your head. The above definitions you gave do not apply to the conversation at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems that "entanglement" covers all levels of organization.

 

from entanglement definition: 2.A complicated or compromising relationship or situation.

 

from relationship definition: 1.The way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected.

 

 

from compromise synonyms:

 

 

1

vb adjust, agree, arbitrate, compose, compound, concede, give and take, go fifty-fifty (informal) meet halfway, settle, strike a balance

 

 

 

2

n accommodation, accord, adjustment, agreement, concession, give-and-take, half measures, middle ground, settlement, trade-off

 

 

 

3

vb discredit, dishonour, embarrass, endanger, expose, hazard, imperil, implicate, jeopardize, prejudice, weaken

 

 

just some stuff to throw out there

 

No End, don't... 'just throw stuff'.  PageofCupsNono.gif

 

If you are referring specifically to quantum entanglement, then please say so and also cite your source material, as JamesG has done.  If you aren't referring to quantum entanglement, then what are you referring to? 

 

The proper definition of a word's meaning is vital to any proper discussion of it.  However, dictionary definitions of words cover ALL of their possible meanings. They cannot ALL be relevant to the subject under discussion (the universe's ego) can they?

 

Please be specific. 

 

 

BAA

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

 

 

will give you an idea of what we are talking about. Which describes a property involved in quantum physics. If you have a sharp mind and are young enough not yet gone to college I suggest going into that field as it is going to revolutionize the telecommunications industry. Although it might just explode your head. The above definitions you gave do not apply to the conversation at hand.

Thanks, I feel like I have some mental concept of entanglement.  What I see the defintion saying is that even as large as diamonds may have entanglement properties. Why not anything larger regardless of organization?  How, realistically, if we are holding true to science form, can we say that entanglement DOESN"T happen at a different organizational level?  .....or system level?  You are right, I don't know the specific language of physics, but the definition of synonym is:  exactly or nearly the same meaning but using a different word in the same language.  So when we say per the official entanglement defintion, " A complicated or compromising relationship or situation.", how is it illegal to apply this to humanity?  By default, I am an organization of particles....mass, gravity,etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

 

 

will give you an idea of what we are talking about. Which describes a property involved in quantum physics. If you have a sharp mind and are young enough not yet gone to college I suggest going into that field as it is going to revolutionize the telecommunications industry. Although it might just explode your head. The above definitions you gave do not apply to the conversation at hand.

Thanks, I feel like I have some mental concept of entanglement. 

 

End, feelings can be wrong. 

Please check your feelings with the facts.  Then you will see if your feelings are worth following or not.  Our feelings don't determine what's true - the facts do.  If your facts and definitions and source materials are correct - this gives you the proper foundation to start from, ok?  Your feelings aren't a good place to start from because what you feel at any given moment need not apply to anyone else.  However, the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is true for everyone, everywhere.  Facts first, not feelings.

 

What I see the defintion saying is that even as large as diamonds may have entanglement properties. Why not anything larger regardless of organization? How, realistically, if we are holding true to science form, can we say that entanglement DOESN"T happen at a different organizational level?  .....or system level? 

 

End, if you are holding true to the scientific method, then you are obliged to play by it's rules. 

Football players don't use baseball rules on the gridiron, do they?  So, why use the rules of the English language (e.g., applying synonyms) in a scientific context?  You're mixing oil and water here.  Please stop defining quantum entanglement with a dictionary.  That's not what the dictionary's for.

 

You are right, I don't know the specific language of physics, but the definition of synonym is:  exactly or nearly the same meaning but using a different word in the same language. 

 

End, JamesG told you that the [dictionary] definitions you were using do not apply to the conversation at hand.  Please heed his words.

 

So when we say per the official entanglement defintion, " A complicated or compromising relationship or situation.", how is it illegal to apply this to humanity?  By default, I am an organization of particles....mass, gravity,etc.

 

No. That's not correct End.  You are using the wrong terms from the wrong source to describe quantum entanglement. 

It doesn't refer to awkward social interactions between people.  It doesn't refer to the complicated relationship between animals and plants in an ecosystem.  It doesn't refer to the complex ways in which information is moved around in computers.  It's nothing to do with anything else except the correct definition.  Define it correctly first, then see if it can be applied elsewhere, ok?

 

Btw, it's not illegal to use a non-scientific source to discuss something scientific - but it is wrong and inaccurate and misleading.  Please use science to discuss science. 

A good working definition of quantum entanglement was given to you by JamesG. 

But you've ignored that, in favor of your own inaccurate, inappropriate and misleading take, End. 

 

Now, nobody here can stop you from just ignoring the facts and ignoring other people's input and ignoring the rules of science and of language.  But if you're just going to carry on and on and on, pissing into the wind, please be advised of the following.

 

Some folks here regard the truth as an important thing and they feel duty-bound to make sure that it's properly served in this forum.  If that means correcting bad science, poor logic and the improper use of words... then so be it.  Other people besides you will be reading this and they don't deserve to be mislead about what quantum entanglement is and what it clearly is not.  In fact, they don't deserve to be mislead about anything.  .

.

.

BAA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

My particular organization prefers to think about this in any manner it conceives BAA.  If it bothers you, you are welcome to disassociate/disentangle.

 

Thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with BAA.  If making up stuff makes you feel good then go ahead and make stuff up to make yourself feel good.  But while you are at it make up your own words and terminology.  Don't steal words from math, science or any field that is looking for truth.  Making stuff up is the opposite of looking for the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a better question for you does my hair have an ego?

My hair does. I'm going to put it straight though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

I agree with BAA.  If making up stuff makes you feel good then go ahead and make stuff up to make yourself feel good.  But while you are at it make up your own words and terminology.  Don't steal words from math, science or any field that is looking for truth.  Making stuff up is the opposite of looking for the truth.

Regardless of nomenclature, the blessed defintion says that a range of small things up to diamonds display these properties.  So in that, and just a simple answer will suffice, in any lauguage, where is the data that shows humans don't display these properties? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the others end3. You can feel free to use the English language however you see fit but like other people have stated before its not honest and its not advancing the conversation. By honest I don't mean that you are inherently lying to purposefully deceive others but honest In the sense that you don't realize that you don't understand the concepts being discussed and inadvertently are misrepresenting yourself to others in this regard. We are not trying to be overly critical and there is no sense to get defensive. Part of understanding is having the humility to admit you are wrong. Entanglement works on a sub-atomic level this is the quantum. Things on the sub-atomic level do not behave with the same properties as the atomic level. for example on the sub atomic level any one particular particle can exist at any given place at any given time however this does not mean that the atom in which it most commonly resides in  can do the same thing. Again I am trying to explain this in layman's terms this is not the most accurate way to give this example. The point being what is "possible" on the quantum is not possible in the atomic this is why entanglement cannot apply it to humanity because the physical laws in which our atoms operate do not operate the same way on the quantum. The two are incompatible to suggest that they are is misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

a better question for you does my hair have an ego?

My hair does. I'm going to put it straight though.

 

yelrotflmao.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equivocation is when the same word has multiple meanings and somebody mixes them up in a way that is not appropriate.  It confuses people into thinking what is false might be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the data is available on the internet use google scholar. And that wiki definition can be a bit misleading it states a number of subatomic particles as large as this does not mean the same as. There are certain diamonds HEAVILY manipulated to be used in quantum computing that can exhibit these properties this does not mean that they are permanent. As I have stated before if you theory holds true and we are all entangled with each other than to prove yourself right we just need to examine to particles change the spin of one and observe the other to see if this is the case. Fortunately this is not the case as if this were true there would be no life as all particles would fail to interact we each other because everything would have the same properties the same behaviors and the same charge. The fact that we have compounds life stars and so forth is evidence enough that entanglement does not occur on a mass scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

Equivocation is when the same word has multiple meanings and somebody mixes them up in a way that is not appropriate.  It confuses people into thinking what is false might be true.

Synonym can be exactly the same meaning.  So I am at a loss as to why I may not use a different words for exactly the same meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

I have to agree with the others end3. You can feel free to use the English language however you see fit but like other people have stated before its not honest and its not advancing the conversation. By honest I don't mean that you are inherently lying to purposefully deceive others but honest In the sense that you don't realize that you don't understand the concepts being discussed and inadvertently are misrepresenting yourself to others in this regard. We are not trying to be overly critical and there is no sense to get defensive. Part of understanding is having the humility to admit you are wrong. Entanglement works on a sub-atomic level this is the quantum. Things on the sub-atomic level do not behave with the same properties as the atomic level. for example on the sub atomic level any one particular particle can exist at any given place at any given time however this does not mean that the atom in which it most commonly resides in  can do the same thing. Again I am trying to explain this in layman's terms this is not the most accurate way to give this example. The point being what is "possible" on the quantum is not possible in the atomic this is why entanglement cannot apply it to humanity because the physical laws in which our atoms operate do not operate the same way on the quantum. The two are incompatible to suggest that they are is misleading.

Thank you, that is all I was asking for was a respectful reply.  In my mind's eye is a visualization of the association and disassociation of these particles which doesn't necessarily mean I have the world's knowledge base in the same place.  I shall read.  Thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

 

 

Equivocation is when the same word has multiple meanings and somebody mixes them up in a way that is not appropriate.  It confuses people into thinking what is false might be true.

Synonym can be exactly the same meaning.  So I am at a loss as to why I may not use a different words for exactly the same meaning.

 

.......

 

you are not understanding that you are not using a synonym. The way you understand these concepts it is a synonym but that does not mean that it is. Your definition of entanglement and ego and so forth and so on are being misapplied in the context of this discussion. This does not mean that you cant understand these concepts better this is what I am trying to help you do. The first step like I pointed out above is being willing to admit you are misinformed on the matter. It is clear that you are not a quantum physicist so unless you want to learn and understand it by picking up a text book the best you can do at this point is as mymistake points out is Equivocate. I feel that your interest in these subjects is a good start and I encourage you to continue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

 

 

will give you an idea of what we are talking about. Which describes a property involved in quantum physics. If you have a sharp mind and are young enough not yet gone to college I suggest going into that field as it is going to revolutionize the telecommunications industry. Although it might just explode your head. The above definitions you gave do not apply to the conversation at hand.

Thanks, I feel like I have some mental concept of entanglement.  What I see the defintion saying is that even as large as diamonds may have entanglement properties. Why not anything larger regardless of organization?  How, realistically, if we are holding true to science form, can we say that entanglement DOESN"T happen at a different organizational level?  .....or system level?  You are right, I don't know the specific language of physics, but the definition of synonym is:  exactly or nearly the same meaning but using a different word in the same language.  So when we say per the official entanglement defintion, " A complicated or compromising relationship or situation.", how is it illegal to apply this to humanity?  By default, I am an organization of particles....mass, gravity,etc.

 

 

Have you looked into the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.