[David Maes]

A few days ago I was looking at this website and I saw that a theorie of everything would actually explane everything.

Until now we have this big bang theorie which explanes the beginning of everything...

It starts with totally nothing... (not even empty space)

Suddenly out of this nothing; their starts to exist like this very hot 'ping pong ball' of energy...

So what do you think about my question: how can their suddenly start to exist something like this 'ping pong ball of energy' out of totally nothing?

I mean, would the theorie of everything be able to have some kind of 'mechanism' to answer my question?

This may be a rather metafysical and filosofical question, but then again the real purpose of science is to know things...
I'm curious; would you have a solution?
What would the science we have untill now, answer?
CAN science even answer my question??

I mean, it's a logical question, isn't it?

If a theorie of everything can't answer it, than it's not a theorie of everything, because it doesn't even explain the REAL beginning.

The theorie may help us to be able to do a lot more things than now; but when we don't know everything, then maybe we would still don't know anything (just like now)...

Secund question...


I saw you said that quantummechanics is nothing more than a statistical interpretation of the incoming data. I kind of believe you!!

Maybe Bohr with his Kopenhageninterpretation just wanted to sell a book or something... by making an interpretation which is consistent but which he knows can never be right...

Now, the thing is quantummechanics is really the best proven theorie untill now... I have the opinion it CAN be interpretated by us; but I also think the interpretations we have now are wrong!

I mean... you have to be crazy to believe them...
And they just answer my opinion with: 'the truth is crazy'...
But when the truth is crazy; than why am I not crazy? Because I'm a part of the truth.

So here is my question...
Couldn't there be another way to interpretate quantummechanics than using statistical methods?
Couldn't we just kind of 'invent' a new math to interpretate the incoming data?

If quantummechanics is really nothing more than a statistical interpretation, then maybe the whole theorie is just SUBJECTIVE!
The incoming data are real but than the statistical interpretation could be SUBJECTIVE!
The purpose of science is to know things in an OBJECTIVE way...

Another thing...


You know that quantummechanics would never existed without positivism...

Positivism is 'first SEE and than believe'...

How could we be so sure that everything we PERCEIVE is the total OBJECTIVITY?

I mean... for example things you SEE; first lots of fotons are falling on your retine of your eye; than a fotochemical reaction starts; bringing a signal to your brain where you start to INTERPRETATE the incoming data and an image gets formed...

HOW COULD WE EVER BE SURE THIS IMAGE IS THE TOTAL OBJECTIVITY, WHEN IT GETS INTERPRETATED BY A BRAIN WHICH IS NOT OUTSIDE THE WORLD, BUT WHICH IS JUST A PART OF IT???
SO MY OPINION IS THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A THEORIE OF EVERYTHING, IT'S ONLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE A THEORIE WHICH GIVES A PERFECT DISCRIPTION OF WHAT HUMANS PERCEIVE!!
The problem is... without positivism we're stuck... we can't continue...
It could also be possible that this positivism is the real cause of the interpretationproblems we have with quantummechanics!

Ok, we are all perceiving the world the same way; because we all have the same brainstructure...
But does this prove that what we perceive is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH??
I personally think not, I THINK IT JUST PROVES WE HAVE THE SAME IMAGE OF THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! I THINK IT ONLY PROVES WE ARE LOOKING TO REALITY THE SAME WAY!!

When you for example think of reality beiing ONLY atoms and energy, than you ALREADY have a truth which is totally different than the world WE, humans, perceive... (because when I'm shopping for example I don't buy atoms...)

Third question


Would we really be stuck without using positivism and when we would only use mathimatics?? (the only LOGICAL language, without interpretation)




Fourth (and last question...)
(it's again a rather filosofical and metafysical one; but I'm just curious what the science we have now thinks about it...)

I have seen people with Alzheimer...
This gives me the opinion that without a brain we cannot be conscious, we cannot think or feel or perceive, we cannot create things...

Of course I know that a human brain is built from millions of neurons having billions of connections... so they are microscopic little and they are built in a very very extreme intelligent way... I kind of see them as AI...

It's just this very intelligent building of the brain (which we can't built ourselves) which makes me believe in kind of 'a force' which created this?

But I have made a logical deduction and now I don't know what to think anymore...

WHEN A HUMAN NEEDS A BRAIN TO CREATE THINGS, THAN 'THE FORCE' WOULD NEED A BRAIN TO TO BE ABLE TO CREATE US OR THE WORLD!!!

SO MY QUESTION IS... HOW DOES THE SCIENCE WE HAVE NOW EXPLAIN THIS?????

And one final thing...

I don't know anything about the mathimatics used in quantummechanics...

But I'm interested in what they mean (if they mean something of course...)

And indead, when I read two books of interpretation of quantummechanics, than I read two different interpretations...

So, would you know a book with only interpretations (and logical thinking) and no maths... which is the RIGHT interpretation???

[dleviwing]

David;
I hope I have interpreted your question correctly.
A1: What you are asking is what was once referred to as "The Final Question".
It would appear as though there is no possible way of obtaining an absolute answer.
You end up with two choices:
1… The existence of a deity that has always existed.
2… Existence is eternal.
Rather than selecting #1 and having to say where did God come from, I prefer #2.

A2: This requires that you understand the difference between the discipline of science measurements and the paradigm or philosophy used for interpreting the measurements.
Both QM and Relativity are mathematical gauge theories. The data or numbers represent a measured quantity of various scientific terms such as mass, energy, charge, force, and so on.
We use our scientific philosophical paradigm to interpret these quantities. When the data is literally interpreted, the philosophical paradigm becomes as abstract as the mathematical terminology. It is quite obvious that we DO NOT understand the true nature of these terms and thus produce bizarre explanations that seem to be pure nonsense.
This is why I feel that the TOE is a philosophical paradigm rather than another mathematical gauge theory like "String Theory".

A3: This question seems to attempt to disguises religion as science. Your conclusion are not founded in facts or experimental evidence and thus it is a belief system.
You must choose your own answer to this question.
Did God create man or did man create God?
I choose to believe man created God. This concept has significantly more imperial evidence than the other.

A4: "Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction" by John Polkinghorne is a book that dose not rely on mathematics to explain QM. It is published by the Oxford press.

If you are attempting to make sense out of the many interpretations that proclaim other dimensions of existence, time travel, warped space, hyper space, and other such interpretations of the numbers, I can only advise you that these are hypothesis without any scientific evidence and quite likely are pure imagination. (That's being nice!!)

Best regards;
Dave

[David Maes]

Thanks a lot of helping me out here...


You are a realistic scientist.

To dleviwing

I gess you're familiar with the 2-holes-experiment...

We 'shoot' lots of elektrons through 2 holes and we observate what happens when they went through those 2 holes on a screen; we get an interferencepatron.
So they are 'waves'.

We 'shoot' again lots of elektrons through 2 holes; but now we use light on the 2 holes themselves to see what happens with those elektrons passing.
Now suddenly on the screen we don't have an interferencepatron anymore ('waves') but we get a distribution on the screen which shows us the elektrons behave as 'particles'.

We also know that we can accelerate an elektron with an accelerator.
When we do that, the mass of the electron is getting bigger because the resistance to change of motion is getting bigger.

Now, my question is, what would happen if we combine the 2-holes-experiment with the accelerator...

For example when we accelerate lots of elektrons and let them move through 2 holes; first without lighting the holes; then with lighting the holes!!!!

Which results would quantummechanics predict???

I mean can you only accelerate an elektron as a partical, or can you accelerate a probability wave as well???

I hope you react???

And what would happen with the interference patron??

What's the definition of 'wave'?

When you just 'fire' 1 elektron through the 2 holes; than one time it choses the first hole and another time it choses the secund one. When you keep on doing this, and after many times you draw the positions for example on a paper; then you again get the interferencepatron. But you still cannot PREDICT where a single elektron will arrive! When you fire elektron after elektron than it follows what they call 'the probability wave'.

Is this really a probability wave? Why does it move one time through one hole and the other time through the other hole; I mean... what causes this??
Is it really impredictable which hole 1 elektron will chose?? What causes it's choice? Does this movement HAS a cause?? Is their CAUSALITY in it's choice??
Is the movement deterministic (which Einstein believed)??

Does the interaction between a proton in an atom and an elektron in the same atom happen immediately??? Because when it happens immediately, than it has to happen FASTER THEN LIGHT. Are does it happen in a relativistic way; this is with the speed of light??

Originally Posted by dleviwing

David;
I hope I have interpreted your question correctly.
A1: What you are asking is what was once referred to as "The Final Question".
It would appear as though there is no possible way of obtaining an absolute answer.
You end up with two choices:
1… The existence of a deity that has always existed.
2… Existence is eternal.
Rather than selecting #1 and having to say where did God come from, I prefer #2.

Can their be a relative answer?

Both possibilities can be right as well.

When you chose the secund choice 'existance is eternal', than this means it's there, it has always been their, and it always will be. So this means IT DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE. It hasn't been CAUSED by anything, it's just their and it always will be there.

When it doesn't have a CAUSE, then this means that FINALLY and IN REALITY every form it takes doesn't have a cause to!! (the universe, our existence, or any other form...) (Because when you say something has a cause, then this cause must also have a cause...) SO, WHEN YOU USE CAUSALITY, THEN YOU FINALLY MUST HAVE ONE CAUSE WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE, and by the fact that their is no possibility of starting up something out of nothing then you need a duity to start up something!

WHAT I MEAN IS... WHEN YOU SAY THAT EXISTENCE IS ETERNAL, THAN YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT CAUSALITY IS AN ILLUSION!!!

So this would mean that when we perceive something happen with a cause, then in REALITY IT WOULDN'T HAVE ONE!!!!

So finally... WHEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEITY, THEN YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT CAUSALITY BEING SUBJECTIVE!!!!!



Now I think I better understand Einsteins resistance against the subjectivity and non causality of quantummechanics...

Einstein believed in 'the force'...

He believed in CAUSALITY... That's how he created his theory of relativity which is the best theorie of CAUSALITY. He used his imagination, creativity and genious intelligence to create it... He believed everything had a cause!!!!

Suddenly the interpretation of quantummechanics said that there are a lot of things which has a cause, but there was acausality in the 'jumping' of elektrons for example, or of radio-activity or for example the choice being made of one elektron in the 2-hole-experiment...
This interpretation was against his intuition of causality.
Also subjectivity which means that we can have influence on the behaviour of an elektron for example was something he didn't believe in!

His theorie of relativity still needs a duity... But the interpretation of quantummechanics does not necessary needs the existence of a duity!

When Einstein was old, and still resisting, the other scientists said it was because he was getting to old... But his last work (when he was old) they have recently found predicted things 40 years before other scientist did...
So I gess, oeps, he still wasn't old in his mind!!!!

When Einstein was dying (in his bed), he was still writing his last calculations for his search for his 'theorie of everything' on his blankets...
Maybe we would use these smart calculations to go on....

Originally Posted by dleviwing

A2: This requires that you understand the difference between the discipline of science measurements and the paradigm or philosophy used for interpreting the measurements.
Both QM and Relativity are mathematical gauge theories. The data or numbers represent a measured quantity of various scientific terms such as mass, energy, charge, force, and so on.
We use our scientific philosophical paradigm to interpret these quantities. When the data is literally interpreted, the philosophical paradigm becomes as abstract as the mathematical terminology. It is quite obvious that we DO NOT understand the true nature of these terms and thus produce bizarre explanations that seem to be pure nonsense.
This is why I feel that the TOE is a philosophical paradigm rather than another mathematical gauge theory like "String Theory".

Indead... Just using a paradigm to interpret measurements is subjective because this means you already have to accept the theory that you can really implicate your paradigm on the measurements. A paradigm may be right on certain data but this doesn't mean it's right on all data... When you are putting sold in your soup to make it taste better indeed, it doesn't mean that when you do the same with your cola it will taste better...

So it's still not proven that you can implicate the used paradigm on all measurements...

So the REAL problem with the interpretation of quantummechanics may be that we are just using the WRONG paradigm to interprete the measurements. So the only thing we need to know the truth (or atleast a bit of it) is THE RIGHT PARADIGM!!!!!!!!!!!!



Another thing...: String theory still has to be proven as well you know....


You also said QM and relativity are gauge theories; measuring quantities of scientific terms (such as mass, force,...)...

Of course we have to take in account that we are 'human apes' or 'apes with clothes on' ... Just like apes we give signification to our environnement by taking things in our hands (the feel sense)... for example we take something in our hand like a stick and we use it to mesure distances by comparing the stick with the distance... then we say for example 10 sticks.... We even measure time like that... a second is a certain distance of a little stick making rounds in a certain time... of course we measure time, we feel a passage of time, but we cannot TOUCH time!! When we cannot touch it, maybe it's also a model or a consistent theory explaining what we experience and sort it in a way our brain can understand it, and using causality.
Maybe time is just a brain pattern?? Maybe causality is a brainpattern??
Isn't it strange that since the relativity theory we suddenly have to speak about 'timespace' instead of time and space??

We can measure 'force', because we experience that when we start running then we get tired, also horses etc...

WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS... EVERYTHING WE MEASURE (distance, time, force,......) IS BASED ON OUR OWN EXPERIENCES, ON OUR OWN WAY OF PERCEIVING THINGS. EVEN THOSE GAUGE THEORIES (RELATIVITY AND QM) ARE CREATED BY HUMAN SIGNIFICATIONS, BECAUSE 'FORCE' IS ONLY A HUMAN EXPERIENCE, A HUMAN SIGNIFICATION; DOES THIS MAKE FORCE A COMPONENT OF REALITY???? JUST BECAUSE WE EXPERIENCE IT????

I cannot help it but sometimes I have this feeling that relativity and QM are no more than 'ape theories'... (no offence I'm an ape to!)

Of course we don't see any fotons with our eyes and we cannot put our 'sticks' on them... so we have to use models or theories to connect all of our measurements.... in a consistent way (of course these theories or models may be consistent but may still be completely wrong...) That's why theories are nothing more than concepts which change all the time...

[Jonathan Abbott]

I like your theory about mind being matter, I also liked the other person's more scientific perspective. I myself could go either way, because I've read lots of books about the power of the mind and to me, it would make sense that if mind can control matter in some way (telekinesis), then it would make perfect sense that mind could be matter in some way.

Now back to the more scientific not so original (just kidding) We all know about the properties of matter, what it comes down to is what we can observe, we see stars out there in space and we know some of them have planets around them, not because we can see the planets but because we see the affect the planet has on the star, its wobble. If you look at the mind in the same way, cause and affect, We can't see the mind, but we can see the affect the mind can have on matter. Any way I would very much like a reply from the both of you..

[dleviwing]

David;
The electron, the wave, and the object that has the slits (actually a crystal) are all made of the same physical substance.
Any attempt to detect what slit the electrons are passing through will disrupt the electron frontal wave pattern and thereby making the electron wave interference disappear.
This is how I have viewed this over-ratted experiment for the past 40 years.
A true understanding of the fundamental physical substance of the universe will eliminate the hyped nonsense so predominant in scientific interpretations.

Originally Posted by David Maes

Indead... Just using a paradigm to interpret measurements is subjective because this means you already have to accept the theory that you can really implicate your paradigm on the measurements. A paradigm may be right on certain data but this doesn't mean it's right on all data... When you are putting sold in your soup to make it taste better indeed, it doesn't mean that when you do the same with your cola it will taste better...

Another thing...: String theory still has to be proven as well you know....

David;
As I stated; " It is important to distinguish the differences between the physical measurement, the abstract mathematics, and the interpretive paradigm." Our current interpretive paradigm is WONG.

Reality is not in the mind of the human species; Reality will continue to exist with or without us.

Please discontinue using theological logic. I do not allow myself to enter debates that have no real purpose.
I'm sorry David, I am a purely analytical person and try not to permit emotion to influence my thinking.

By the way, QM, and Relativity are not proven theories either; though there are many who would disagree with this statement.
Best regards;
Dave

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

David;
As I stated; " It is important to distinguish the differences between the physical measurement, the abstract mathematics, and the interpretive paradigm." Our current interpretive paradigm is WRONG.

I agree totally it's wrong. With the recieved data (recieved from physical measurement) science has made a great revolution (this is chemistry and computersciences, etc...). I said 'Bohr probably wanted to write a new book or something...' That will be a wrong interpretation of me to. I think he only created a interpretive paradigm (together with other scientists) because he hoped he could do something with it... (with respect for Bohr)...
But I still agree totally with you... it's wrong.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Reality is not in the mind of the human species; Reality will continue to exist with or without us.

Of course this is purely logical. I know if I don't exist anymore, that reality of course will continue. This is also part of the intuition I have (or at least I think I have...)
The universe will not explode when I'm not here anymore...

I respect your realistic opinion that my 'emotions' of 'a deity' won't get us any further. So let's keep 'god' or 'eternal existence' out of it.
I have this indomitable urge to know things, to learn things.
I gess it's my curiousity which made me ask those questions...

I feel very small in relation to the universe to... I even feel so small that sometimes I think my perceptions of the world are giving signification to the real world...

I think the real world is not the same as we experience it... I mean I don't see atoms; I see people, I see nature, I see the world, I see trees, etc....
These are things I see, so they have big emperial value...

But I think the real world is build only from atoms and energy (and waves of course)... This means when we are looking to this reality, light and fotons are reflecting on this real atomic world... By fotochemical reaction they give a chemical 'respons' which is going through the optic nerve, the chiasma opticum,... finally arriving in the visual cortex. Finally an image gets formed in our brain... Our brain works this way, the image which is given in it and which we finally see is a construction, built from other little fragments of signification 'flowing around' in the unconsciousness of our brain.

When our brain would see 'reality' than I gess it would have to see 'atoms'... of course they are so small we cannot see them and our brain just gives us an image of kind of an 'average' of these moving atoms, and interpretes this as reality. Our empiric evidence shows the existence of atoms (I even think we can take a picture of them...). So atoms have to be the real world.
When I'm looking to a table than my brain says it's 'a table'; but in reality it's more like millions of atoms... I don't see the atoms, my brain says it's 'a table'!! So I guess our brain takes the average of all those fotons coming in on our retine... and gives a signification to our environnement which we interprete as real...

When we eat, drink, breath,... we exchange millions of atoms a day...
So in reality we must be more like a patron in timespace, a patron which is nothing more than a passage of atoms... This patron will never exist for ever, but the atoms keep on exchanging... That's my vue...

So that's what I mean with subjective, I don't mean what some interpretations of quantummechanics say that 'reality only exists when we are looking at it'. This would mean that when I go upstairs and there is nobody downstairs, the table downstairs would not exist anymore; I believe that's nonsens. What I mean is that when we see 'a table' then we are looking at atoms; but because they are so small our brain gives them the signification of 'table'... which I believe is wrong!! Even when we see it!!

Why do I believe this...? When I was a little kid I visited my grandmother and their was like hanging this painting of a little girl with a horse... Now in the beginning I never saw a girl and a horse, I saw more like colors and spots on it, but I could not recognize the forms 'girl' and 'horse'; So it took me a few years before recognizing this form on the picture... I gess my brain wasn't enough evolved to recognize those patrons...

It is also scientifically proven that the amount of real stimuli on the eye itself is VERY FEW!!!
It's also proven our brain fills up the shortness and gives it's own signification to be conscious of this image. The only question is how far does the brain go???

There has also been some kind of experiment... They were making a subject looking to 'a tree' for example... Then with a special kind of echography or something (I don't know) they could see the parts of brain used for perceiving the tree because those parts were kind of 'lighting up'.
No the thing is, when they repeted this experiment and the subject was not looking at the tree, but just forming an image in his brain the same parts of the brain of the subject were 'lighting up'... Also when we dream we sometimes see a tree very detailed just like it's real...!

When you take drugs, you start having hallucinations which can look very real to!!!!

So there are 2 possibilities: one: the tree really exists like we percieve it but is just built from atoms (this is called 'reductionism') or two: the tree doesn't really exist; only the atoms of the tree are real and 'tree' is a signification formed in our brain (which is also not real but built from chemical combinations) by using fotons which reflect on the atoms of the tree...

So which possibility is right???

So I think the atoms (WHICH ARE THE REAL WORLD) keep on existing, but we do not.
(supported by emperial evidence that when we stop eating, drinking or breathing, we die)

I think the only thing which is REAL is the thing which keeps on existing: the atoms...
The thing which doesn't keep on existing (buildings, trees, us,...) is NOT REAL!!! or is AN ILLUSION!!!

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Please discontinue using theological logic. I do not allow myself to enter debates that have no real purpose.
I'm sorry David, I am a purely analytical person and try not to permit emotion to influence my thinking.

I stated that using the fysical measurement of those variables like 'power', 'time', etc... was also subjective.

And I said maybe we would only use mathematics to know the truth.

I apologize, because that's pure nonsens as well.

I think if we want to know the truth we have to be as objective as possible!!!
And indeed without positivism, without experiments, we're stuck, we're nothing... it's the only possible way of proving that information is right!!

So indead, when we only use filosophy in our quest for the truth, then we'll never find it, because it's only a believe system, we have to test the truth with our perception.
But... it's still not proven that my idea of 'power' or 'time' or ... being subjective is wrong or right...!
Maybe futur experiments will show us the truth!!

Originally Posted by dleviwing

By the way, QM, and Relativity are not proven theories either; though there are many who would disagree with this statement.

OF COURSE they aren't proven, this is the truth. They are just models of insight to get us closer to the truth, but they still have to be adjusted.

I even think the model of an atom of Bohr is not completely right....
It's certain we can use it for chemistry (which is a specific level of science) but also this model is not the complete truth.

Also Einstein said theories have to be adjusted to get closer to the truth.
The past has proven he's right. (The thing is each time people think they know everything... and then suddenly an new idea or concept can change everything!)

PS: Did you expect dinosaurs actually had fethers???
(Unbelievable, isn't it??)

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Abbott

I like your theory about mind being matter, I also liked the other person's more scientific perspective. I myself could go either way, because I've read lots of books about the power of the mind and to me, it would make sense that if mind can control matter in some way (telekinesis), then it would make perfect sense that mind could be matter in some way.

Of course according to what we perceive, when a mind would use telekinesis to control matter, it would only be able to control the matter of its own body!

Normally, we cannot make a stone move with our mind.

Normally, we cannot move the mind of somebody else.

Of course; their would still be a possibility that the mind can influence the mind of somebody else to! Of course this wouldn't happen because of the resistance of the other mind which also uses telekinesis. Both minds would interfere with eachother.

Of course normally we cannot make a stone move with our mind (according to our perception).
Maybe the stone has also a mind, which resists against your mind trying to make it move...
Then the fact is, that when your mind has enough influence to make move the molecules of your own body, so it can make move your hands, then you can replace it...

Their is also a possibility that everything our mind perceives is not real, so when you think you are moving the stone, you actually would not move it at all, you would only THINK you would move it, because maybe their is no stone. Maybe you don't even have a hand... Maybe when you perceive yourself using your hand to move the stone, you are just interfering using some kind of wave your mind sends with the wave another mind sends...

Some people even say that we cannot move a stone with our mind because we just don't believe it's possible; maybe we should believe it to do it???

Maybe you cannot move a stone with your mind because their are about 6 milliard people on this earth who don't believe you can do it...
Maybe the waves their minds send are influencing your wave and 'blocking' it which results in the fact that you can't move the stone...

Of course, the existence of telekinesis is not proven yet; what's also not proven is the non-existence of telekinesis...

So we cannot prove it... Telekinesis is also a 'believe system'... There is no imperial evidence...

But their IS one artificial form of telekinesis which exists and which is proven...
When you plant for example some kind of chip in your arm and this chip is connected to the neuronetwork of your brain; and you plant another chip for example on the steerwheel of a boat; and the chip connected with your brain sends messages to the steerwheel, THEN IT IS PROVEN YOU CAN STEER YOUR BOAT WITH YOUR MIND!!!

You can even play games like that just by thinking, without touching your keyboard.
This is the prove of the artificial properties of your brain!!!!

You can even control emotions with chips...

When you would plant a chip in one brain and plant one in the brain of another person, then you even would be able to use TELEPATHY!!!

When we would connect your visual cortex with some kind of computerprogram; THAN YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IF WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE IS REAL OR NOT; THIS IS VIRTUAL REALITY.

Maybe we are connected???

When you have a handicap on your legs, then we could stimulate the movement of your legs by planting chips on them and connect them with your brain.

When your blind, we would be able to connect a camera with your visual cortex.

Scientist are already busy creating artificial retines for blind people.

Of course, this sounds all great, but this is only in the beginning state...

But it's the futur...

In the futur you won't have to study because we will just plant a chip in you brain and you will be pilot for example...

I believe that in the futur machines or artificial intelligence will replace us, because we are artificial intelligence!

These forms of artificial intelligence will be able to 'read eachothers mind' and to make move other electronic machines with their thinking using Einsteins fotoelectronic effect. Of course all these machines (we are also a machine, but a biological one) will be very very intelligent and creative; they will be connected all to eachother and all together they will create on earth ONE FORM OF HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS, just like our neurons and cells created our organism or us!!!

Eventually all these forms of higher intelligence maybe will start to communicate with eachother and form some kind of deity...?


To get back to your principle of telekinesis...
The question is also when you are an American, would you be able to move a stone in Africa??
And would you be able to do it immediately?? (It would be like voodoo...)
If you would, then the signal you would send to make the stone in Africa move, would go faster than light. This means it would travel to the past.
This would mean it would have to break the borders of space and time, and relativity would be wrong. This is for scientists a holy principle, called the principle of lokal causality; 'nothing can go faster than light'. However Einstein made some paradox of that called 'the EPR-paradox'... some people interprete this as 'everything has to do with everything'... Of course this again is just a filosophy or an interpretation of the data recieved by the experiments in quantummechanics... so it's not proven to be true; of course it's not proven to be not true as well; so also this is part of a belief system.
(Of course I have never seen someone in Belgium for example influincing a stone in Africa...)

Also sending messages to the past can give you trouble...
Because if you go to the past and you change something, there can start to exist a 'butterfly effect' which changes everything in the whole universe... You would not be able to predict the consequences of your changes, it would be very dangerous, the whole universe could explode...
The 'butterfly effect' is the proven effect that when a butterfly in China moves its wings this can cause a tornado in America...
Because airmolecules moving is very impredictable (chaostheory).

Sometimes I have this feeling the butterfly effect does not only happen with airmolecules...
What I mean is, when you change a certain aspect in the past, than their starts to happen a chain reaction which changes everything which happens next... (causality).

Their is a paradox of travelling to the past...
For example... when you would travel to past and kill yourself in the past, then there wouldn't be a 'you' in the futur who can travel to the past to kill you... or maybe you would have to travel to a parallel universe...

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Abbott

Now back to the more scientific not so original (just kidding) We all know about the properties of matter, what it comes down to is what we can observe, we see stars out there in space and we know some of them have planets around them, not because we can see the planets but because we see the affect the planet has on the star, its wobble. If you look at the mind in the same way, cause and affect, We can't see the mind, but we can see the affect the mind can have on matter.

It's possible the mind affects matter, but it's also possible the mind is just matter and nothing more... (we don't have any prove now...)

Of course when you believe that their is a mind affecting matter (which is a machine), I think you would also have to believe that their is a mind affecting the consciousness of artificial intelligence (which can think, feel, create, make decisions,...) (Of course this kind of artificial intelligence hasn't been invented yet... but I believe it will!)

I think we are at the beginning of a great revolution in AI (I only hope we will have enough energy to keep on building it; I mean oil... and I hope we won't have accidents using nuclear energy....)

If you concider what's being built from oil... I mean plastic, cosmetics, medicines, ..., almost everything... I hope we even survive this crisis!!!!!
Because when their is no money, then there is WAR!!!

Sometimes we really are astonished how Einstein got to his special ideas and concepts which were eventually right, even sometimes 40 years before anyone else did!
Of course we all know about his IQ being very high (super genious).
He also combined his intelligence with being constantly (almost without rest) busy thinking and thinking and concentrating... every day... his whole life...
even when he was dying he was still busy...

When he was dreaming he was still busy... The basic ideas of his theory of special relativity he created while sleeping (dreaming); he was constantly thinking and observating; for example for his theory of general relativity (curvature of timespace) he was looking at insects, crawling around on curved surfaces... and he was thinking...
For his theory of special relativity he used a simple dream of cows and barbed wire.
He was also alone, because he needed space to think...

He had this kind of intuition, this was caused by his incredible imagination...
He had kind of an 'empathy' for very strange situations...
For example as a kid, he was thinking about what it would be like to overtake a lightbeem in his world... And he realised that he couldn't overtake it. He just saw it...

Also he had this ability to concentrate enormously...

Einsteins brain had two very strong abilities...

He was kind of an artist (he also played violin, liked Mozart, liked ART)...
He was very creative. That means he could think 'divergent'. That means you start with something and you create something NEW out of it, you construct something which doesn't exist yet, like a painting or a piece of art or something like that...

On the other hand he was a genious mathematician to!! He had the ability of thinking very logically and analysing things...
This is what we call 'convergent' thinking.

Finally it's the combination of those two abilities which made him what he was.

Sometimes he had to think a hundred times about something before he saw the truth... The difference between Einstein and ordinary people is that the hundred time; he was right!! (And he was sure about it)...

Sometimes he had to wait for about twenty years before science was able to prove he was right... But during these twenty years he already knew he was right!! Because of his imagination and ability to place himself into certain strange situations in his mind (kind of empathic ability) he 'saw' the truth in his brain.

So to be able to create a new concept or a new theory, you need the ability to think very logically but you also need creativity as well, that means you also have to be a bit like an artist...a 'painter', or a 'composer',....
I guess that's because reality is built not only in a very logical way, but also in a very artistic way... nature or reality (think about some galaxies...) is also 'a piece of art'...

When the 'communication' between 'the artist' and 'the logical' in the brain is running very well, then you can create new concept (of course sometimes this can take a hundred times... or maybe even a thousand times...)

What I mean is, on this website, their is all kind of people... Their are very smart logical thinkers, their are artists as well, creating very strange ideas which are a bit 'crazy'...
Sometimes we have the experience that someone is so convinced he's right, that in a discussion he starts to get angry...

Of course Einsteins relativity theory was also a bit 'crazy'...
When scientists like Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Heisenberg, ... were debating, they sometimes weren't questioning wether an idea was right or not, sometimes they were just discussing the fact wether the concept was 'crazy' enough or not... Some of those scientists were sometimes even dissappointed when they heared of a collegue that there theory was not 'crazy' enough...

The fact is for making new concepts we sometimes need "crazy" people because they are the only ones smart enough to create new concepts...

So, when, all of us, on this website, would form some kind of 'battery' of logical and creative thinking ('convergent' and 'divergent'), than we might have higher probability of finding new concept... because their is more than one brain connected to this website????????


What I wonna say is... their is a certain law of economics saying that within a company, there is much better result when people are working together then when they are working against eachother in a competitive way!!

So, instead of working against eachother in an egocentric way we should connect our brains together, maybe we could form some kind of 'higher consciousness' then...

It's like you go out and their are ten boys and ten girls for example.
Of course one girl is prettier than another girl...
Imagen the prettiest girl is a blond.
'When we all go for the blond, than the blond has all the power; the other girls will leave because they feel secund choice... so their will finally be the prettiest girl and the best boy. The rest has no result. But when all of the boys go for another girl than this blond, than the blond has no power anymore and then the boys win.'
I appologize being a little sexistic with my example, but it shows that being egocentric sometimes has less results...


So my opinion is, we have to respect every opinion on this website, no matter how crazy it sounds...
even when the opinion is totally wrong... I think even trying diserves respect.

New question to dleviwing...

Somebody conducted this strange kind of experiment...

He actually weighed the weight of humans before dying with scales, then he did the same during the dying proces and then after the dying proces of the humans...

He came with this strange result that the persons weight after dying was 21 grams less...

[Robert]

Originally Posted by David Maes

New question to dleviwing...

Somebody conducted this strange kind of experiment...

He actually weighed the weight of humans before dying with scales, then he did the same during the dying proces and then after the dying proces of the humans...

He came with this strange result that the persons weight after dying was 21 grams less...

This experiment was made by Dr Duncan MacDougall in the early 1900's. It would be nice to know if there is any more recent research in this area. I am reluctant to believe this result without knowing the details of the experiment. There are many variables to be taken into account (e.g. weight loss through respiration, inertia from breathing, body fluid shift, etc). If this phenomenon does indeed occur it should be investigated and explained. It would be too simplistic to simple attribute it to the existence of a soul. There could be other explanations. However, we should have the courage to go where the evidence leads, especially when it conflicts with your own deeply held beliefs and paradigms of how the world works.

It should also be noted that in another experiment there was noticed a momentary gain in weight in some animals of 18 to 780 grams anywhere from 10 seconds to 200 seconds following the last deep breath (see Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death). What could this mean?

Oh, and David? You gotta give people a chance to respond and not make so many sequential posts. I recommend summarizing where you can, starting new threads when your post diverges from the thread topic, or combining posts by editing a previous post when you think of more to say. You've got some good posts but they may be overlooked and not discussed when you have eight in a row like that.

Regards,
--Robert

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by Robert

This experiment was made by Dr Duncan MacDougall in the early 1900's. It would be nice to know if there is any more recent research in this area. I am reluctant to believe this result without knowing the details of the experiment. There are many variables to be taken into account (e.g. weight loss through respiration, inertia from breathing, body fluid shift, etc). If this phenomenon does indeed occur it should be investigated and explained. It would be too simplistic to simple attribute it to the existence of a soul. There could be other explanations. However, we should have the courage to go where the evidence leads, especially when it conflicts with your own deeply held beliefs and paradigms of how the world works.

It should also be noted that in another experiment there was noticed a momentary gain in weight in some animals of 18 to 780 grams anywhere from 10 seconds to 200 seconds following the last deep breath (see Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death). What could this mean?

Oh, and David? You gotta give people a chance to respond and not make so many sequential posts. I recommend summarizing where you can, starting new threads when your post diverges from the thread topic, or combining posts by editing a previous post when you think of more to say. You've got some good posts but they may be overlooked and not discussed when you have eight in a row like that.

Regards,
--Robert

I'm sorry for the many posts (and the long ones...) (have not much experience in it...); they always say 'keep it short and simple...' I guess it's just a bit letting my imagination go in to long texts trying to figure out something...

And I'm sorry, I haven't found more recent experiments about this.
I know this experiment is part of a book 'bizarre science' 'strange and sensational experiments' from a certain 'Schneider... ' (but I don't know if the book is available in English...)


If these results are true, then I do not understand the significance of those results... (because personally I don't believe in 'a soal')

Results are conflicting with our conventional theories.

First I thought maybe bacteria inside the organisme did a very quick exponential growth. (cells of bacteria can do a mitoses very quickly)...
(Everything in the body of the organism stops so bacteria can go their way...)
Bacteria also use energy!

But then I read in the article they could actually measure a wave in the brain, some kind of signal which gave the result of weight transient.

Also when some subjects were dreaming... weight changed...

So I don't know, I really cannot explane this fenomenon...
It's very interesting, it REALLY needs further investigation!

Even when we think of it being 'unethical'... Cutting open a corps is unethical to, but if humans hadn't done this, then there wouldn't be any surgical operations and many people would have had a much shorter life...



When the experiment is true, then it must have something to do with some kind of physical fenomenon we don't know yet?


Maybe when the sheep dies its brain influences the electronic scale so it's giving another weight...

Or maybe the weight is higher because of the equivalence between acceleration and gravity. Because when you are in an elevator and it's going up and accelerates very quickly, and you are standing on scales, then your weight increases.
Maybe when the sheep dies there is created some kind of gravityfield around the sheep or maybe the curvature of spacetime is changing...? Maybe we should put a clock on the sheep or do the experiment of Michelson Morley above the sheep??

I appologize telling you such complete nonsens...

But what I wonna say is, if the results of the experiments are really true and significant, then you see how they conflict with the conventional theories...


One question: did the scientists actually measure their own weight to???

Another idea... You know we can make blind people see by connecting a camera to their visual cortex... What if we would connect their brain with some kind of chip and translate the images to a screen?? (just an idea; of course these technics are only in the beginning stage; so it's probably science fiction)...

I've seen on TV people moving a ball on a computerscreen with their mind (by connecting their brain with the computer). Maybe we could do this experiment with someone who's dying (of course, I don't think he will be very interested, so it's probably a bad idea...)

To be honest with you, I just don't know...
(Ask Dleviwing; he's a lot smarter than me)