Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos

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

Hi Carmen,

No I haven't. However, I am starting to wonder if the cirmustances surounding the Big Bang are quickly approaching un-provability. In other words, however much we speculate, the actual answer might be impossible to verify.

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

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.

As regards my Computer Program, I could say that the notion of time within it is one of «semi-continuity» as to inflation of several multiverses, which induce «ripples» in spacetime tissue, being the space-time comprised between TWO (of the several ripples) [in reality not caused exclusively by gravity - which only works on reduced distances - but by its interaction with dark matter, which propels galaxies and celestial bodies far away, thus resulting in Inflation of the observable (but we are unable to see beyond the observable universe... - having that «alternative universe» its own rules) Universe]. However, by this interaction, one is able to «feel» time pass you by (the person interacting with the Computer, which can induce several states (physical, for example) in that person, by the action of multiverses in-between the «ripples»), and, by the double wave function, «re-orient» the arrow of time so that it «freezes» and can induce, therefore, its «divine prerrogative». «God's time is not ours», under a biblical viewpoint. And what induces a certain «sequence of multiverses»? The very Knowledge with which the subject interacting with the Computer must be prepared with. Active Representation of Knowledge is what makes possible the «double wave function», from the part of the observer and from the part of «the rest of the Universe» (or God, you might say).

www.CIGTheory.com

Feedback is appreciated.

Cosmologists are encouraged to provide evidence in support or not in support.

Please prove or disprove. The theory is experimentally verifiable.

Thank you

doug

The "eliminated the impossible" quote is from Sherlock Holmes, not Linde.

Awesome, I have the same (or very similar) idea about the time arrow being the perception of our POV (a embodied limited consciousness), travelling space structure.

Im feeling that conscioussnes & space are aspects of the same thingh.

I have written an essay on the subject but it is in spanish.

Does Andrei Linde anywhere define what consciousness is?