4 replies to this topic

[jugoso]

The Universe exists. Can any of its features be understood without understanding its Purpose?

At present, we focus our efforts and resources trying to explain the "outside" world as if we were separate from it.
Almost 2000 years ago, a small circle of people was advised: "Whoever does not know Self – does not know anything, but whoever knows Self – already has acquired the Knowledge about the Depth of the Universe."

Shouldn't we look WITHIN? Is this explicit advice of where and how to "seek" in order to find why it is that we and the Universe exist? Is the KEY to the entire Universe encoded in our own private consciousness?

How many more thousands of years do we need to realise and explore the significance of this advice?

We have the Freedom of Thought. We can either explore or ignore the Purpose of the Universe. Whatever our choice is - we are destined to experience its consequences, even if we cannot yet imagine any.

What do you choose?

This article considers the possibility that the non-deterministic behaviour of sub-atomic particles is a result of an intelligently encoded information transfer.

http://nujournal.net/choice.html

[FlyingAngel]

jugoso, on 03 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Almost 2000 years ago, a small circle of people was advised: "Whoever does not know Self – does not know anything, but whoever knows Self – already has acquired the Knowledge about the Depth of the Universe."

This phrase sounds like a spiritual enlightment (through meditation?), thus gain the knowledge of the universe.

I personally don't believe the universe just popped out from nothing. There is no such thing is total nothing. There must be something that always existed, at least a mechanic, a set of physic rules for a universe to be created.

But there's probably nothing called physics after all. It's probably an illusion we human created just to give an explanation for how things work around us.

Edited by FlyingAngel, 03 November 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[jugoso]

FlyingAngel, on 03 November 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

But there's probably nothing called physics after all. It's probably an illusion we human created just to give an explanation for how things work around us.

That´s one point the article makes i think. The author first notes that:


Very few scientific principles had greater impact on humanity than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle  even though the essence of the principle itself has always been highly controversial.
The origin of the uncertainty principle is very simple: we cannot imagine and conduct sufficiently accurate and non-invading experiments that would expose the reason for the non-deterministic behaviour of sub-atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg argued, that since the experimental study with any material apparatus has proven impossible, we do not need to create any theory, simply because we would never be able to verify it experimentally.
Instead, for practical reasons, he proposed to accept certain aspects of the sub-atomic reality as unknown and unexplorable. His uncertainty principle intelligently defined bounds of uncertainty and enabled us to use statistics as a way to quantify the sub-atomic processes. Heisenberg's approach turned out to be very practical and enabled the unprecedented development of material technology to take place. This in turn reinforced the belief in the correctness of the uncertainty principle. As a result, the uncertainty principle itself seems to enjoy the status of the Law of Nature and is no longer questioned.
The most famous challenger of the uncertainty principle was Albert Einstein, who kept expressing his disapproval for uncertainty as the basis of the Universe by saying that "God doesn't play dice". Although his view was that we should seek a sensible explanation for the observable non-deterministic behaviour of the sub-atomic world - he couldn't imagine any better alternative than the practical statistical approach of Heisenberg.

However, I thought the experiment with the college students demonstrated that we can come up with theories that may be able to predict with a fair amount of accuracy, but still really miss the bigger picture and what is actually going on

On the outskirts of a large metropolis, a group of highly intelligent college students was given a project: to investigate the "strange" behaviour of electromagnetic (EM) waves in the frequency range around 1.9 GHz, without being told that this frequency range is used for the digital mobile phone network.
To quantify their observations students have chosen two parameters: the frequency and the intensity of EM oscillations. Using receivers, scanners and spectrum analysers they soon concluded that the EM waves in the above frequency range behaved in an unpredictable random way.
They found that at any particular frequency the intensity of EM oscillations was highly uncertain. They also noticed, that there was a high degree of certainty that at "some" frequency a particular intensity level actually occurred at any given time. The problem was that it was impossible to predict at "which" frequency it happened at any given moment. They also encountered serious problems with the accuracy of their measurements. For example they noticed that their frequency estimates appeared "blurred" because the EM waves appeared in "lumps" or "bursts" that were very brief.
Inspired by "quantum mechanics", highly promoted in the 20-th century, students decided to adopt a similar approach. They defined their own "uncertainty principle", established bounds for their "uncertainty" and adopted a clever statistical approach, focusing on predicting the "probability" of observable events.
After a few months of work, the students had become very proud of their "theory", because it could actually predict probabilities of many events in their frequency band. They had become quite convinced that their theory actually "described the Reality". Statistically speaking - it DID...
Did you notice, however, that by adopting a statistical approach our students have completely MISSED millions of very real intelligent conversations? Isn’t it obvious that their conclusion has been determined and limited by their imagination?
Our students just couldn’t imagine that what appeared to them as "random" was actually the consequence of a very intelligently encoded information transfer. As a result - they didn’t even try to decode anything.
Let’s analyse in more detail why and how our students developed their belief in a "random process". The primary reason for their belief was that they couldn’t make any deterministic predictions about the EM waves they observed.
Note that there was nothing "random" in the EM waves. In reality, millions of people were making billions of intelligent CHOICES in their individual conversations every hour. For the purpose of the information transfer, all these choices were being continuously encoded into EM waves several thousand times per second. Our students had failed to imagine and explore this possibility, so they concluded that they had observed a "random" process.
Don’t you feel uneasy about the fact that the entire science on Earth in the 21-st century is built around the "uncertainty principle"? Aren’t we missing something truly important about the Universe.

I sometimes think we are missing a lot as we just lack the ability to perceive & understand what is truly happening around it. I think the world was created by intelligent design..

[Artaxerxes]

Our bodies are avatars for the soul.  A place for the soul, pure consciousness, to learn about time and space,  what it means and how it feels to be separate, and make memories of what it was like and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

The physics of the place we call heaven is very different from this universe.

[Jinxdom]

Neither and both. The essence of life is the ability to change. Chance and choice are just by-products of that.