Matter and energy are at the heart of this discussion. Einstein said nothing ever dies, it just changes form. Following his hypothesis energy (in the form of thought perhaps) could have preceeded matter. What may have caused thus hypothetical occur ancestors is an enigma.
Quantum theory similarly offers a divergent explanation (see Sir James Jean’s (“The Mental Universe”) and the works of R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at John Hopkins University
For clarification of what my discussion is related to…
Biocentrism: The theory that life and consciousness are fundamental to understanding the nature of our reality, and that consciousness comes prior to the creation of the material universe.
And,
QUANTUM THEORY, where Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe could be a mental construction, or at the very least, that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the creation of matter.
This is as much a conversation about the Universe, it’s creation and our own, as it is “if a tree falls in the forest and there is not one there to hear it does it make a sound?”
If man’s cognitive mind can not think of a way that life preexisted our own beginning does that inherently rule out that consciousness was here before us?
We only have the wits (forgive the expression) God gave us to figure it out with - Spoken here light heartly.
Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan FRS (pronunciation: Listeni/ˈʃriniˌvɑsə ˈrɑmɑˌnʊdʒən/; 22 December 1887 – 26 April 1920) was an Indian mathematician and autodidact who lived during the British Raj. Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. Ramanujan initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation; Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: '“An equation for me has no meaning,” he once said, “unless it expresses a thought of God.”
Sensitivity to self acceptance, preceded by the acknowledgement of a power greater than one’s self is a moving and powerful acknowledgement. It stands in stark contrast to hard science’s need for proof.
The irreversible effect of one’s personal profession of a connection to that higher power, the witnessing of such a personal belief engenders on us is to believe it could be true; even if we have not had that same experience.
Is this a sharing of knowledge? Is a personal experience one person uses to bring something in the world, something which most would not believe possible yet can offer no rational reason for acceptance of, evidence that knowledge is therefor available and can be assimilated without instruction? If so, then for how long has knowledge preexisted its arrival at the time in history when occurred?
Again, this is a discussion about an enigma. One which I find highly intriguing.
To say “The original post in this thread is thinly disguised New Age nonsense.” is to pontificate.
That your indignation is so easily brought about, by nothing more that words you so easily choose to invalidate, is discrediting to your self as much as your intended receiver.
Consider kindness as more than a noun; when practiced it becomes verb. This is Old Age common sense.
The kindest thing I can say is you have no understanding of physics. Nothing in quantum theory says consciousness plays any role in creating matter. Einstein never said anything about life not being destroyed. E=mc2 simply means matter and energy are interchangeable. As I stated above, energy predates matter. This is purely a physical process. Nothing mystical about it.
Matter and energy are at the heart of this discussion. Einstein said nothing ever dies, it just changes form. Following his hypothesis energy (in the form of thought perhaps) could have preceeded matter.Except that as far as we know, energy doesn't come in forms complex enough to give rise to consciousness. Which rules out that hypothesis.
What may have caused thus hypothetical occur ancestors is an enigma.An enigma means that it is simply not understood yet. It's possible that we will never completely know what "caused" the Big Bang, or even if it NEEDED something to cause it. So, unless we have advanced degrees in quantum physics (which I don't), I don't see any pressing need to speculate much about it.
Just human nature to speculate. What I believe makes the difference is our individual personalities. Free will offers equal opportunity to share our perceptions in the light of our minds eye view of the world. Hard science, to me, is motivated by that same human curiosity.
Just human nature to speculate. What I believe makes the difference is our individual personalities. Free will offers equal opportunity to share our perceptions in the light of our minds eye view of the world. Hard science, to me, is motivated by that same human curiosity.So what do you believe? And more important to me, why do you believe it?
The kindest thing I can say is you have no understanding of physics. Nothing in quantum theory says consciousness plays any role in creating matter. Einstein never said anything about life not being destroyed. E=mc2 simply means matter and energy are interchangeable. As I stated above, energy predates matter. This is purely a physical process. Nothing mystical about it.I think he was refering to the idea in QT that the act of observation (by a conscious person) actually determines the outcome of various measurements, something like that. I never liked that idea myself, because how did anything happen before there were observers? But that's a different discussion. My point earlier was, ease up, this guy seems to be speculating on ideas that are tied to real science. Speculating and using prosaic words doesn't instantly mean we've got a fundie or a new age kook here.
The kindest thing I can say is you have no understanding of physics. Nothing in quantum theory says consciousness plays any role in creating matter. Einstein never said anything about life not being destroyed. E=mc2 simply means matter and energy are interchangeable. As I stated above, energy predates matter. This is purely a physical process. Nothing mystical about it.I think he was refering to the idea in QT that the act of observation (by a conscious person) actually determines the outcome of various measurements, something like that. I never liked that idea myself, because how did anything happen before there were observers? But that's a different discussion. My point earlier was, ease up, this guy seems to be speculating on ideas that are tied to real science. Speculating and using prosaic words doesn't instantly mean we've got a fundie or a new age kook here. It's not just that I don't like the thing about observation changes outcome, it's that it's wrong. I went to the trouble of reading some books and looking that up to determine what everyone is talking about. Should I not share my results? Should I have to write my own treatise in this forum, showing my work, providing references? Why? But simpler than that, Bio is missing a basic understanding of the division of the sciences. You can't say things about thoughts based on Quantum Physics because those two sciences have not been reconciled. If anything, it has been DISproved that your thoughts can affect quantum actions. Amy and Sheldon are trying to prove it in a TV comedy show, but it's not real science. Bio is taking cosmology and trying to leap to psychology without passing through all the chasms that separate chemistry, geology, biology and I'm sure others. That is the definition of "New Age"; take some common explanation of what actual scientific discoveries mean and connect them in some way that sounds interesting, but don't bother supporting it with any evidence or data. Then tell people they are close minded when they don't accept your made up conclusions or aren't interested in your baseless theory.
Some of Einsteins’ quotes include:
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
I am sure any reasonable person would not say to Albert that he has no understanding of physics; just because he also has his own perceptions of knowledge, imagination, and curiosity.
But then there were and probably always will be those who find it easier to judge rather than listen.
Thanks to everyone one for your contributions. Please accept my apology if I have offended anyone. This is my last comment on this thread.
Some of Einsteins' quotes include: Imagination is more important than knowledge. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. I am sure any reasonable person would not say to Albert that he has no understanding of physics; just because he also has his own perceptions of knowledge, imagination, and curiosity. But then there were and probably always will be those who find it easier to judge rather than listen. Thanks to everyone one for your contributions. Please accept my apology if I have offended anyone. This is my last comment on this thread.As far as I know, you did not "offend" anyone. I don't understand how that word applies here at all. Einstein used math to describe what he imagined. His theory was nothing but an idea until he did that. If he wrote a few paragraphs saying "energy and matter are the same thing" and left it at that, we would have never heard of him. If you write up your theory and gain the attention of physicists, then I will apologize to you. But I'm not sure what I'll be apologizing for. I did nothing here to prevent you from imagining whatever you want. I did nothing to stop you from speculating however you want. I just didn't encourage you or participate. I had to decide if that was worth my time. I could be wrong, but it's my choice.
BioPhilo said, Which is a good learning curve to experience. Thanks again.Good idea. Seems to me that life is defined as a organic substance having the chemical ability to divide and thereby increase in numbers, a probabilistic mathematical function. Chemical elements have a build-in potential to certain chemical mathematical permissions and restricrions IMO, "information" sharing as a mathematical sequence started with the first appearance of self-duplicating chemical compounds such as RNA Today we have made several information carriers (synthetic RNA) in a lab. It does not seem to be an extra-ordinary rare event in the greater mathematical Potential of the Universe David Bohm's *Implicate Order"..