*** Science Or God? ***

Science or God?


  • Total voters
    517

karnivore

in your face..
Re: ***science Or God?***

@Yamaraj

You tell me. It was you who started talking about stones and consciousness
My point was that there is no such thing as "holistic consciousness". BTW, u should be able to answer it since u r so sure about this crap.
Cells are not sub-atomic by any means. And you are not getting the point
OK. Then whats your point.
Logic, sire, logic!
Likewise, billions of inanimate atoms constitute a living organism. How is it even possible if the atom isn't alive itself?
In other words life = consciousness.
I'm sorry to say that you don't know what you're talking about. Quantum mechanics and quantum consciousness are NOT based on Aether by any means.
Who said QM is based on "aether" and who in the hell said that QM has anything to do with QC. BTW, do u know what is "aether" and why is it the core basis of QC. Do u know that the earliest believer of this garbage was Oliver Lodge. He invented "wireless telephony" which got him to think that "wireless telepathy" was also possible. Thats how the whole this started.
And, Einstein wasn't the only physicist ever born. He made many mistakes and eventually distanced himself from the active scientific community because of his beliefs and disbeliefs in certain key research topics of that time
True. But unfortunately, this might come as a shock to you, so brace yourself for the news, it was he who proposed the "theory of relativity" which, is the basis of QM.
I expect you to post a reply only if you understand the topic
Likewise.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

karnivore said:
OK. Then whats your point.
That if we, alive human beings made up of dumb atoms, can have consciousness, why can't the universe when it is also made up of intelligent beings?

karnivore said:
In other words life = consciousness.
Are you implying that eminent mathematicians and physicists like Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin are idiots and are talking from their rear? What's there to prove that the Universe isn't alive?

karnivore said:
True. But unfortunately, this might come as a shock to you, so brace yourself for the news, it was he who proposed the "theory of relativity" which, is the basis of QM.
Yeah, and it was Newton who found out about gravity which is the base of many great things in physics. But that doesn't mean whatever Newton might have said about QM (if he did, that is!) is THE truth.
 

karnivore

in your face..
Re: ***science Or God?***

@Yamaraj

That if we, alive human beings made up of dumb atoms, can have consciousness, why can't the universe when it is also made up of intelligent beings?
Thats why i brought in the analogy of a rock. Something inanimate cannot have "conscious". Thats what i am trying to say. Humans have conscious because of the "nervous" system. By your logic even my notebook has conscious, my writing desk has conscious, my commode has conscious, and even my $hit has conscious.
Are you implying that eminent mathematicians and physicists like Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin are idiots and are talking from their rear?
Lets not jump the gun here. Their theories are yet to be accepted by the scientific world. In fact their ideas about human "thought" is severely criticized. Also, no offense, they are included in the list of "Crack-pot scientists" compiled by John Baez.
What's there to prove that the Universe isn't alive
Simple, find the nervous system of the Universe. Well if u do that there's a Nobel prize up for the taking.
Yeah, and it was Newton who found out about gravity which is the base of many great things in physics. But that doesn't mean whatever Newton might have said about QM (if he did, that is!) is THE truth.
So u have given up reading what you write. Good for u.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

karnivore said:
Thats why i brought in the analogy of a rock. Something inanimate cannot have "conscious". Thats what i am trying to say. Humans have conscious because of the "nervous" system. By your logic even my notebook has conscious, my writing desk has conscious, my commode has conscious, and even my $hit has conscious.
Conscious is adjective, consciousness is noun. Therefore the Universe may have consciousness if its constituents are conscious.

What you know as a nervous system is in fact a network of electrical pulses and sensory/reactive parts. The complexity of Universe doesn't rule out any chances of it being alive and conscious.

karnivore said:
Lets not jump the gun here. Their theories are yet to be accepted by the scientific world. In fact their ideas about human "thought" is severely criticized. Also, no offense, they are included in the list of "Crack-pot scientists" compiled by John Baez.
Baez is a nobody before giants like Penrose. Smolin is a well respected scientist quite active in QFT, LQG and String theory. For the record, even you can compile a list of retarded people and put Einstein and Newton in it. But that won't make it any more authentic than random scribbling of a lunatic.

karnivore said:
Simple, find the nervous system of the Universe. Well if u do that there's a Nobel prize up for the taking.
You are no different from people who don't understand evolution and the randomness therein. Life (consciousness) is not bound by restrictions of a known pattern found on a tiny planet of an obscure solar system in a corner of an insignificant galaxy of the billions others in the known universe.

Consciousness can exist very well without a distinctive nervous system that you are familiar with. Given if you understand what life itself is. Your argument (life = consciousness) is an example of circular logic. Is an object alive because it has consciousness, or does it have consciousness because it's alive? What happens to your argument in case a (near)-perfect artificial consciousness goes live?
 

karnivore

in your face..
Re: ***science Or God?***

^^ Yes. U r absolutely right. Thax for the "enlightenment". Indeed QC exists, so what if it contradicts "Theory of Relativity", and indeed Universe is....errr....alive and kicking a$$, and we are the warts (and therfore the itch) in its testicles.

@mediator, u are right too, as always. I wish i could take a dip in your sea of wisdom and enrich myself. Pity. Pity. Pity.
 
OP
naveen_reloaded

naveen_reloaded

!! RecuZant By Birth !!
Re: ***science Or God?***

wwwwwwwwwwoooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww

where the hell is this thread running towards

i dodnt expect this much is there to debate about this topic..

but still many out there dont know how to diff from GOD AND SCIENCE...

coz they cant... its been buried deep into thier minds where they mingle each other with many twisting...
 

zyberboy

dá ûnrêäl Kiñg
Re: ***science Or God?***

naveen_reloaded said:
i dodnt expect this much is there to debate about this topic..
LOL.....u were right at the beginning wt happened now?

naveen_reloaded said:
i think this is the most controversial subject ever to be discussed...
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

karnivore said:
Indeed QC exists, so what if it contradicts "Theory of Relativity"
How exactly does it contradict with the Theory of Relativity? Care to explain?
Besides, GR itself contradicted with Newton's laws of gravity. String theory contradicts with crap load of other theories and hypotheses. This is how science works.
 

karnivore

in your face..
Re: ***science Or God?***

You guys just can't let go it, can u. Anyway read the following. This is a must read for all those who believe in QC, Consciousness of U and all that crap. I hav taken the liberty to edit the essay, because of space constraint. But please go through it, at least once, before doing the obvious - debunking it.

Sorry for the long post - i had to, and sorry for the lousy formatting.
The Myth of Quantum Consciousness :-
By, Victor J. Stenger
Published in The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with many whose egos have made it impossible for them to accept the insignificant place science perceives for humanity, as modern instruments probe the farthest reaches of space and time. It was bad enough when Copernicus said that we were not at the center of the universe. It was worse when Darwin announced that we were not angels. But it became intolerable when astronomers declared that the earth is but one of a hundred billion trillion other planets, and when geologists demonstrated that recorded history is but a blink of time - a microsecond of the second of earth’s existence……

……quantum consciousness has about as much substance as the aether from which it is composed. Early in this century, quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity destroyed the notion of a holistic universe that had seemed within the realm of possibility in the century just past. First, Einstein did away with the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest of the universe. Second, Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity. Atomic theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits – quanta…..

When Newton was prompted to explain the nature of gravity in non-mathematical terms, he replied that gravity might be transmitted by an invisible aether. He further suggested that the aether also may be responsible for electricity, magnetism, light, radiant heat, and the motion of living things that he, like his contemporaries, thought was the consequence of some source beyond inanimate matter. Even today, despite thepreponderance of evidence unavailable to Newton that life is a purely material phenomenon, people still speak of immaterial, vital forces such a ch’i, ki, prana, and psychic energy which have no scientific basis. Newton also had proposed that vibrations of the aether might be excited by the brain. This speculation forms the conceptual foundation for the modern myth of quantum consciousness and the related belief that the human mind commands special powers - psychic forces - that transcend the material universe…..

Electromagnetic waves beyond the narrow spectrum of visible light were predicted and soon observed and put to use in “wireless telegraphy.” One of the early workers in wireless telegraphy was the English physicist Oliver Lodge. While making major contributions to physics and engineering, Lodge joined William Crookes, Alfred Russel Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution) and other notable nineteenth century scientists in searching for phenomena that transcended the world of matter. If wireless telegraphy was possible, why not wireless telepathy? If electrical circuits could generate and detect ethereal waves, why not the human brain?.......

Near the turn of the century, Michelson and Morley sought to find experimental evidence for the aether and succeeded in showing instead that it did not appear to exist. Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept of an aether was logically inconsistent with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. Einstein concluded that electromagnetic waves, including light, could not be the vibrations of an aether

Einstein’s principle that no signals can move faster than light implies that separated events in the universe, even those an atomic diameter apart, cannot be simultaneously connected. This fundamentally contradicts the holistic view of an instantaneous interconnectedness among all things. Rather, relativity paints quite the opposite picture: a universe of localized particles that at any instant depend only on the other particles with which they are in direct contact. What is going on elsewhere in the universe at that instant can have no effect until the particles carrying the necessary information can get there, moving no faster than the speed of light. This is a far more complete form of reductionism than is present in pre-Einsteinian mechanics, where motions at superluminal or even infinite speeds were not ruled out by any known theory. Incompatible with the claims of the new holists, relativity not only supports the reductionist view - it makes it mandatory! A universal cosmic field like the aether, providing a mechanism for interconnectedness, requires a violation of Einstein’s relativity. But relativity has passed every experimental test that has been put to it since being introduced in 1905, so it cannot be casually discarded….

Now that the results are in, the new holists argue that relativity must yield, since quantum mechanics provides a mechanism by which signals can move faster than light. Quantum mechanics is indeed “spooky.” So, bring out the spooks! An ethereal, universal field that allows for the simultaneous connection between events everywhere in the universe must exist after all. Quantum mechanics is called on further to argue that the cosmic field, like Newton’s aether, couples to the human mind itself…..

……this seemingly profound association between quantum and mind is an artifact, the consequence of unfortunate language used by Bohr, Heisenberg and the others who originally formulated quantum mechanics. In describing the necessary interaction between the observer and what is being observed, and how the state of a system is determined by the act of its measurement, they inadvertently left the impression that human consciousness enters the picture to cause that state come into being. This led many who did not understand the physics, but liked the sound of the words used to describe it, to infer a fundamental human role in what was previously a universe that seemed to have need for neither gods nor humanity. If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than “observers,” perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement….

A careful analysis of the experiments that tested Bell’s theorem shows that the only objects that move faster than light are mathematical creations of our imagination, like the quantum wave function, which are not physical objects. It can be demonstrated that no signal carrying actual information moves faster than the speed of light. Neither conventional quantum mechanics nor Einstein’s relativity are violated.The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

I can see that you've learned a lot from this old and misguided article by a professor of philosophy, that you have grown accustomed to regard higher than the works of theoretical physicists like Smolin, Penrose and others.

Aether and relativity have nothing to do with QC or QM. You should really review your taste in technical articles and all those things you learn from them.
 

karnivore

in your face..
Re: ***science Or God?***

^^ Havn't gone through the entire article, have u ? Either that or u are indeed a genius. I posted it at 1:59 pm and u replied at 2:12 pm. It took u 13min to read, understand, and reply. WOW..........
 
Re: ***science Or God?***

Guys, this is not such a debatable topic if you just put common sense to it!!

It's sad to see that people still don't realise that the thing you call 'science' is the knowledge that god gave you and trying to use the knowledge he gave you against him is absolutely appauling!!

eg: Your dad/mom brings you up, teaches you everything in life, gives you knowledge and at the end when you grow up, to get something, you use all the knowledge they gave you, every technique they taught you against them!! That's what we are doing now. Talking about something to which you already know the answer. And those denying the existence of god which has been proven with clear signs time and again is just one of those mentally retarded. It's all in history and we humans have a very bad habit of forgetting history very quickly and asking the same dumb old questions that's has already been answered and proven!

Don't keep asking the same questions, rather go back and learn history, the previous discoveries and so called scientific break through and read the scripture god has sent. There you'll find the relation and understand the true existance of GOD!

I'm am not critizing science or anybody related to the scientific field, rather trying to tell that Science like everything else has been created by GOD and don't use the knowledge he gave you against him, for we are nothing in front of the all powerfull and all mighty!!
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

karnivore said:
^^ Havn't gone through the entire article, have u ? Either that or u are indeed a genius. I posted it at 1:59 pm and u replied at 2:12 pm. It took u 13min to read, understand, and reply. WOW..........
This wasn't the first time I was reading this article.
 
OP
naveen_reloaded

naveen_reloaded

!! RecuZant By Birth !!
Re: ***science Or God?***

Help~Is~Here said:
Guys, this is not such a debatable topic if you just put common sense to it!!

It's sad to see that people still don't realise that the thing you call 'science' is the knowledge that god gave you and trying to use the knowledge he gave you against him is absolutely appauling!!

eg: Your dad/mom brings you up, teaches you everything in life, gives you knowledge and at the end when you grow up, to get something, you use all the knowledge they gave you, every technique they taught you against them!! That's what we are doing now. Talking about something to which you already know the answer. And those denying the existence of god which has been proven with clear signs time and again is just one of those mentally retarded. It's all in history and we humans have a very bad habit of forgetting history very quickly and asking the same dumb old questions that's has already been answered and proven!

Don't keep asking the same questions, rather go back and learn history, the previous discoveries and so called scientific break through and read the scripture god has sent. There you'll find the relation and understand the true existance of GOD!

I'm am not critizing science or anybody related to the scientific field, rather trying to tell that Science like everything else has been created by GOD and don't use the knowledge he gave you against him, for we are nothing in front of the all powerfull and all mighty!!

please dont be a kid!!!

LOL...

u better start realising .....
 
Last edited:

Drizzling Blur

Devoted Metalhead \\m//
Re: ***science Or God?***

Science

Phew ! I cant believe people posting here on forums with the necessary intellect cannot decide on the right option.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

Drizzling Blur said:
Science

Phew ! I cant believe people posting here on forums with the necessary intellect cannot decide on the right option.
Your apparent intellect makes me feel jealous.

Anyway, here is an incomplete article from the New Scientist, posted in line of my rants on the subject of "Quantum consciousness and the Universe".

Spooks in space

* 17 August 2007
* Mason Inman
* Magazine issue 2617

POP. What are the chances that an everyday object - a rock, a chair, you name it - could suddenly appear out of thin air? Not zero, surprisingly. In fact, given enough space and time, it is conceivable that a conscious being could arise, even if only for a microsecond.

OK, such an event would be incredibly unlikely, but not impossible - at least in theory. Physicists have dubbed such hypothetical beings "Boltzmann brains", after the 19th-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a pioneer in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Boltzmann posed the question of whether the universe could have arisen from a thermal fluctuation; his work presaged the idea that a fluctuation could also give rise to a conscious entity that sees the universe. In this regard Boltzmann brains are not necessarily actual brains, but rather are a metaphor for observers of the universe that might appear spontaneously.

The idea sounds absurd, but it is helping cosmologists grapple with models of the universe, and our place in it. Cosmology, indeed most of science, assumes that we humans are typical observers in the grand scheme of things. Ever since the 16th century, when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus argued that the Earth is just a rock orbiting the sun, we have been dethroned from a unique position in the cosmos. The laws of physics seem to be the same in our neighbourhood as in the rest of the visible universe. So the idea has been enshrined that unless we have reason to think otherwise, we should assume that we are typical. "This assumption is very essential to everything that we do," says Alex Vilenkin of Tufts University in Massachusetts. "If we don't assume that our observations are typical of observers, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything."

That's because if we aren't typical, then whatever we see is not representative of the universe at large. So here's the problem: some well-established cosmological models predict that, trillions of years in the future, Boltzmann brains could vastly outnumber "ordinary observers" like us, who depend on aeons of evolution and life support. If that is true, ...
Source: - *www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html

Too bad, one must register to read the whole article, but we can still continue our discussion on the matter in the light of various other resources and texts being available both online and offline. Those interested are advised to read my previous posts in this very thread for a common man's overview of the subject.
 

Drizzling Blur

Devoted Metalhead \\m//
Re: ***science Or God?***

Yamaraj said:
Anyway, here is an incomplete article from the New Scientist, posted in line of my rants on the subject of "Quantum consciousness and the Universe".


Source: - *www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html

Too bad, one must register to read the whole article, but we can still continue our discussion on the matter in the light of various other resources and texts being available both online and offline. Those interested are advised to read my previous posts in this very thread for a common man's overview of the subject.

Interesting !
 

Tech$oft

Guy from Heaven
Re: ***science Or God?***

No i think there is god in every thing
so we must not forget the one who created all things and science is also created by the one god
 
Top Bottom