Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos

Jason,

[They may] "have even calculated the probability that consciousness--in the form of thinking, disembodied brains--can be momentarily produced by quantum fluctuations in an empty universe."

Next, we calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Dan,

Thanks for pointing out the PEAR report. That was fascinating. At one point he uses the phrase 'Consciousness Field', which is how I conceive of it. The results reported are confusing, and they present a pretty fair discussion of the problems of interpretation.

In my theory, the Consciousness field has been here from the beginning. It can interact with mass, which is how we move our arms and legs, etc. (Powered by chemistry of course, but steered by consciousness.) I have not spent much time on analyzing the type of results PEAR reports, because I did not know the data existed.

If I were to try to make sense of it, I think I'd start here: If the consciousness field behaves as I've conjectured, then it is strengthened by local momentum, and there is always much more local momentum in the cells and flows inside a biological body than in most places. [Yes, the Mississippi River may also induce a strong local 'consciousness' but it doesn't have the logical structure to support intelligence.] Anyway, living things do have the logical structures to support intelligence and also should locally strengthen the consciousness field inside the body. Feynman pointed out that materials can support ten thousand times the magnetic field that exists in empty space. In this sense a multi-celled body/brain may support as much or more than ten thousand times the concentration of consciousness (awareness and volition) as would emptier space.

And in that sense the body may be analogous to a 'potential well' and the incidents and events PEAR measures may be analogous to 'tunneling' out of the well.

I'm not proposing this 'tunneling' too seriously, just thinking off the cuff.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

My pleasure. I first became aware of this phenomena back in the late '80s on a TV program by David Suzuki called "The Nature of Things". This was a science magazine based out of Canada that covered nature and science in general. I still remember watching a demonstration of the phenomena in action and was "blown away". I never knew the details until I happened upon their website years later. Most scientists shy away from anything considered "paranormal" due the stigma that attached to it. I find it fascinating and use logic and judgement to determine if something unusual deserves further study and contemplation. In other words, don't always believe the skeptic's POV. They're usually happiest with the status quo.

Dan

Edwin,

Angels dancing on heads of needles is unimportant. In contrast, knowing whether or not a disembodied soul can sustain existence has significant consequences on how we view death. Entire cultures, civilizations and world spring up over that question.

Dan,

Physicists should perform thought experiments that analyze claimed paranormal activity. Paranormal activity falls under the topic of physics. Instead, the physics community thinks about time travel which has not been observed. I guess it safer that way.

Correction: "Entire cultures, civilizations and world religions spring up over that question. "

Jason,

In my opinion, a calculation based on "An infinite number of parallel universes in which hallucinating brains can pop out of empty space" has no connection to souls, or to anything real. But that's just my opinion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"...a calculation based on "An infinite number of parallel universes in which hallucinating brains can pop out of empty space" "

I think this easily goes beyond opinion. I think it is a clear logical refutation of the practice of imagining that ideologically desired answers, that are otherwise unattainable, exist somewhere out in the foggy swamp of unwieldy complexity.

James

Jason,

I agree that paranormal phenomena should be taken seriously by scientists. The two biggest issues with the various phenomena labeled as paranormal is the stigma that is attached to them and the fact that they are not easily studied via the scientific method. How do you get definitive, confirmable evidence to a phenomena that almost always atypical, heterogeneous, and transient in nature? Instead of scientists, we have "enthusiasts", some with very little, if any, scientific training and even less credibility looking for and gathering evidence. Throw in the jokers, pranksters, hoaxers and the skeptics (who can always find another explanation, no matter how far-fetched), it's no wonder many serious scientists discount them out of hand. This is why I consider the Princeton group to be courageous pioneers of a phenomena that still eludes easy explanation, and they've had their fair share of critics also.

Its kinda off subject, but since we're already there, one phenomena which does have definitive evidence that something truly unusual is occurring is that of crop circles. It has been reported that these were all created by a couple retired English pranksters and their copycats using nothing but strings to lay out a pattern and using boards with rope attached to each end to trample down the crops. This explanation does not account for the enigmatic nature of a genuine crop circle.

With genuine crop circles you get crops that are not bent nor broken, but lay down because they were subjected to a large source of energy that actually "fuses" the crops in their horizontal positions. They are often seen with expulsion cavities at the nodes of the plant. The soil in the circle has a high concentration of magnetite compared to the soil outside of the circle. And the crops are not killed in the process, but continue to grow. You would not have learned any of this if you had watched the National Geographic TV program entitled, ironically enough, "The Truth About Crop Circles" because they didn't report any of this! It's either extremely poor journalism or a deliberate attempt of disinformation by a producer with alternative agenda or views. If you care to see some of the real evidence, you can see for yourself at: http://www.bltresearch.com/index.php

There's a lot of bogus websites out there where people are trying to "cash in". This site is different and has a lot of good information and evidence of the genuine phenomena.

Dan

Dan and Edwin,

I think it comes down to this. The scientific community can either:

A. detect the existence/presense of any/all existing phenomena or

B. is very certain of the phenomena that it has confirmed.

The scientific community either cannot or is unwilling to do both. In other words, science cannot claim authority as to whether or not something exists. Three headed flying monkeys probably don't exist. But science lacks the authority to declare that they don't exist; science can only shrug and say that it hasn't seen any.

On a more serious note, science has no authority to declare that, God, aliens, big foot, ufos, ghosts, marshmellow men, pixies, sand people, or multiverses DON'T exist. All science can say is that it hasn't seen any of these.

My point is that skeptics have no scientific basis upon which to lecture us on what does not exist.

By the way, tractor beams physics exists.

OK, one quick comment and then I'll let the physics discussion resume. If you want to test the existence of the paranormal, reach out to a higher power, of God and good, and ask for assistance, help and inspiration with: physics. That is the test. If you start coming up with amazing ideas and plowing ahead of your peers, then you have your proof.

If a technician with two bachelors degrees can come up with a tractor beam by asking for help, what can a real physicist come up with?

Have you ever considered that the Big Bang might not be the origin of the universe, but the origin of consciousness? The expansion of the universe might be our conscious slice moving, literally, at the speed of light? This limit in speed may be dictated by the speed that our conscious slice is moving in the un-movable universe. And, it may explain the arror-of-time?

carmen_putrino@yahoo.com

Dear Carmen,

You might want to look at Fundamental Physics of Consciousness. While not completely compatible with your conjecture, it does assume consciousness as present since [at least] the Big Bang. It focuses not specifically on the origin of consciousness, but on how consciousness interacts with the physical world.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Whi is the Observer in Physics ?

Observer is consciousness.Attachment #1: Who_is_the_observer_in_physics.doc

Dear Carmen,

What you say is exactly my thinking too, I want to go further by using quantum entanglement as a way to secure that an observer constituted of baryonic particles will live in a byryonic universe. The entagled photons sent 380.000 tears after a possible origin become also "baryonic" so the observer creates his own universe, like an orobouros. (see my essay topic 913).

Now that I read the Princeton Pear experiments you can even wonder what is the range of this field of consciousnes (Klingman), you could also say that entanglement is now no longer nececerry it is the Klingman-field that originates for an observer his Universe.

so we need to move on observing and creating

Roy Munroe would say HAVE FUN

wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

Our conceptions of time are flawed...these obscure, mind boggling theories are a result of our classical definition of time being incorporated into quantum mechanics. When was the last time changes were made to the absolute meaning of time ? We have change our entire methodology to make its definition an absolute one. But it can never be so. As there is no isolated system in the universe. If all does interact it must at some point or another interfere with the definition. I mean what exactly does as instantaneous wavefunction collapse mean? The problem here is with 'instantaneous' and further the 'Instant'. I want to work on it, but I've been forced to study in an Engg Univ.

very good question, instantaneous wavefunction collapse !

what do we describe as an instant ?

in our 4-d universe the limit of a time span is the Planck time :

5.39121x10^-44sec.

smaller moments are not acceptable in our Universe, we enter after this length of time in another dimension where time is no longer measurable , which means in my opinion that the causality is no longer appliquable, which means that each (possible)moment fromthe past and the future are all together existing, it is in our opinion and from our deterministic point of view CHOAS...

The CONSCIOUSNESS we have is the only way for us to contact this FIFTH dimension, our consciousness creates lines between the points of chaos in this quintessence and so creates our analog world out of the digital chaos from the quitessence.

The COSMOS is our perception of the lines formed by our consciousness in the Chaos, this Cosmos is only one possibility of an infinite choice.

Wilhelmus

also read my essay

Dear All,

Universal I or singularity or conscience is the absolute truth and is the cosmological constant.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one's surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe or singularity that we live in.

S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind)

Truth is simple, accepting it is not.

Love,

Sridattadev.

The persuit is "over".

EinsteinGravity.com (must see)

talk to mystics like http://www.omniumuniverse.com ... there are many among us who don't need science to go where this article is pointing.

This is not really all that difficult and complicated. We all originate and grow from the center of the human body. F=ma is the bottom line in physics insofar as it can ultimately mean balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity (both at middle or half force/energy). This is what happens in dreams, as they demonstrate our growth and becoming other than we are in conjunction with instantaneity. Dreams demonstrate equivalent and balanced attraction and repulsion.

Inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration must be equivalent and balanced at half strength force/energy to fundamerntally unify physics. That is undeniable. Space must be equally, and BOTH, invisible and visible.