Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
andy4

Consciousness, the universe and death

21 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

What is consciousness? Where does the universe come from? How did you get here, and what happens after your death? I'll attempt to answer these here in a clear and concise manner, and will be posing my own thought provoking questions along the way.

I'll be dividing these into numbered sections for ease of comfort, and to provide everyone with points of reference on which part(s) you may agree or disagree with.

This may be long so strap in!

1. The universe is described as emanating from a central point many eons ago, called the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was theoretically nothing, or empty space pre Big Bang has always been there. That doesn't sound reasonable to me, and it sounds as dismissive as saying God did it.

What happens when you're a small child? You eventually have limited memories of being 1 or 2 years old because your consciousness isn't fully developed. The brain also isn't fully developed, yet it continues to do so until the time you are well into your 20's. Since you have much clearer and coherent memories of your later years after 8 or so years old, the idea that the brain isn't fully developed and therefore is said to explain why you can't remember very early memories because it isn't fully developed, makes the idea null and void to me. It's your ever expanding consciousness which isn't developed yet, and you have no idea of who, what, or where you are. Why does this matter you might ask? Well, as you get older and your consciousness expands, the world and the knowledge you've acquired make the world seem like a place of endless possibilities. It grows.

It ties into the next part.

2. The expanding universe.

As our collective knowledge as a species has developed, much like an individual consciousness does, the world around us has grown. Almost in a literal sense. First the discovery of "what is beyond that river", to "what about that channel of water", to "what about that ocean?" And now finally, "what about our universe?"

As our collective knowledge grew, so has our ability to seemingly "expand" the world around us, much like you would as a child learning new things. I hypothesize that the universe is expanding, not due to a Big Bang, but from our consciousness expanding and trying to find the "edge" of the universe. Not literally because we are trying to find the "edge", but because it's getting bigger as we look anywhere into the universe and observe galaxies and stars. It's expanding along with our consciousness. Before we got to the point of "what is across that channel of water", as far as we knew, there WASN'T a universe. Technically nothing exists until it is discovered or becomes known. It simply does not exist, and it only comes into being and becomes relevant for more than the discoverer when we all learn about it, and expand our consciousness. Again, like how when you were a small child, there isn't a thing called paying rent. Perhaps a bad analogy, but come up with one for yourself if you want to. Point being in part 2, that we are the creators of everything around us, including the universe. As your consciousness expands, so does the world around you, in quite a literal sense.

3. What is death?

We've probably read them before. "I died and went to another place feeling like I was there for 10 years, yet it turns out I was only 'dead' for 5 mins." Also known as a near death experience. Why is that important, and what plays into this which seems to have slipped many minds? Time. The simple act of measuring time and it's relevance. For instance, when you're asleep, by the time you fall asleep until the time you wake it feels near instantaneous. Yet if someone was sitting near you while you slept and was awake, it would take many hours, given you slept a full nights worth of rest. Time is relevant to the observer. How does that tie into a near death experience? Well, if you were to slip into a place, such as sleep, with no relevance of time, it wouldn't matter what your body is or isn't doing, especially if you're dead. Let's say you died right now. Instant, over. It wouldn't matter what your body is doing after your dead because where you go, aka, your consciousness which creates and expands this world around you, is in a place where time is no longer relevant, much like sleeping. If you believe in NDE's, or even just take them with a grain of salt, you could stay in a place of death or eternity forever and it wouldn't matter if your body was rotting it the ground because technically speaking, it never is. Just like how right now you're not alive and dead at the same time. You could seemingly remain in a place of non linear time forever, regardless of what your lifeless body is doing. In NDE's, people speak of another place with no way to measure time. Yet nobody has ever been there long enough to know how long an "hour" is at this place, which ties into the last point.

4. Rebirth, and a newly expanding consciousness.

Let's say you're in this place for what feels like ten years until suddenly...the "sun" in the sky moves. All of a sudden you have a way to measure time again. Suddenly... ever so slowly..,you have your first memory as a child, whatever it was for you. You've measured time again, your consciousness has once again come into being and is now expanding again. You have a way to measure time, and suddenly you're "reborn" again, a small child. And the cycle repeats over and over.

Sorry if this was long, and it may sound like the ramblings of a schizophrenic, but I assure you I've taken my meds today.

Kidding, I'm not actually schizophrenic, but I'd really like to hear others thoughts on this, in detail and not some, "this part doesn't make sense so I disregard the rest", type stuff. Seriously, please take your time to respond thoughtfully on this. I am willing to answer any questions and will adamantly debate anyone who wants to. And the responses don't necessarily have to be philosophically leaning, I'd actually love to debate or hear from someone with a more scientific background, so anyone can ask me any questions they want. Thanks.

Edited by andy4
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly it seems time is a variable that we don't yet understand. It seems when we dream, the actions we perform in these dreams, the intensity and timing seem to unfold hours of what normally would be required in real life. However in our dreams it only passes minutes. Something is obviously different concerning time passing. It might be as well that our brain can generate universes that we all can live in and remain stuck when we die. A looong dream auto generated by our dying conscience that can transpose us forever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically nothing exists until it is discovered or becomes known. It simply does not exist, and it only comes into being and becomes relevant for more than the discoverer when we all learn about it, and expand our consciousness.

How do you discover something that doesn't exist?

The fact people have died from illnesses no one knew they had destroys your "Technically nothing exists until it is discovered or becomes known".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll attempt to answer these here in a clear and concise manner

Then you'd be the first human being to ever do so.

1. The universe is described as emanating from a central point many eons ago, called the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was theoretically nothing, or empty space pre Big Bang has always been there.

OK, there was not "theoretically nothing", nor was there empty space before the big bang. Great strides have been made in the last few decades to understand this area of science, and there isn't a single scientist working in that field today that would describe the big bang in the way you have. Maybe do a bit of reading up about it?

I hypothesize that the universe is expanding, not due to a Big Bang, but from our consciousness expanding and trying to find the "edge" of the universe. Not literally because we are trying to find the "edge", but because it's getting bigger as we look anywhere into the universe and observe galaxies and stars. It's expanding along with our consciousness. Before we got to the point of "what is across that channel of water", as far as we knew, there WASN'T a universe. Technically nothing exists until it is discovered or becomes known. It simply does not exist, and it only comes into being and becomes relevant for more than the discoverer when we all learn about it, and expand our consciousness. Again, like how when you were a small child, there isn't a thing called paying rent. Perhaps a bad analogy, but come up with one for yourself if you want to. Point being in part 2, that we are the creators of everything around us, including the universe. As your consciousness expands, so does the world around you, in quite a literal sense.

There's probably a really good point in here somewhere. But it isn't true to say that consciousness expands the universe, or that nothing "literally" existed before we were aware of it. Its a philosophical argument as old as the hills, and I don't think holds much sway any more. And the bit I've bolded out is just flat out wrong.

3. What is death?

We've probably read them before. "I died and went to another place feeling like I was there for 10 years, yet it turns out I was only 'dead' for 5 mins." Also known as a near death experience. Why is that important, and what plays into this which seems to have slipped many minds? Time. The simple act of measuring time and it's relevance. For instance, when you're asleep, by the time you fall asleep until the time you wake it feels near instantaneous. Yet if someone was sitting near you while you slept and was awake, it would take many hours, given you slept a full nights worth of rest. Time is relevant to the observer. How does that tie into a near death experience? Well, if you were to slip into a place, such as sleep, with no relevance of time, it wouldn't matter what your body is or isn't doing, especially if you're dead. Let's say you died right now. Instant, over. It wouldn't matter what your body is doing after your dead because where you go, aka, your consciousness which creates and expands this world around you, is in a place where time is no longer relevant, much like sleeping. If you believe in NDE's, or even just take them with a grain of salt, you could stay in a place of death or eternity forever and it wouldn't matter if your body was rotting it the ground because technically speaking, it never is. Just like how right now you're not alive and dead at the same time. You could seemingly remain in a place of non linear time forever, regardless of what your lifeless body is doing. In NDE's, people speak of another place with no way to measure time. Yet nobody has ever been there long enough to know how long an "hour" is at this place, which ties into the last point.

I personally have no time for this near death stuff. The mind is demonstrably linked to the brain, and - to quote Sunshine - when it dies, we die.

4. Rebirth, and a newly expanding consciousness.

Let's say you're in this place for what feels like ten years until suddenly...the "sun" in the sky moves. All of a sudden you have a way to measure time again. Suddenly... ever so slowly..,you have your first memory as a child, whatever it was for you. You've measured time again, your consciousness has once again come into being and is now expanding again. You have a way to measure time, and suddenly you're "reborn" again, a small child. And the cycle repeats over and over.

Eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly it seems time is a variable that we don't yet understand. It seems when we dream, the actions we perform in these dreams, the intensity and timing seem to unfold hours of what normally would be required in real life. However in our dreams it only passes minutes. Something is obviously different concerning time passing. It might be as well that our brain can generate universes that we all can live in and remain stuck when we die. A looong dream auto generated by our dying conscience that can transpose us forever.

A journey to the shops in a dream doesn't actually mean putting your shoes on, getting your umbrella, making sure your ipod has battery life, and trudging 20 minutes down the road avoiding Jehovah's Witnesses and buskers. It means you dream about being in a shop, and - much like constructing memories - your brain fills the rest in.

Dreams don't happen in real time - in the same way that when you remember a good night out, it doesn't take you 6 hours to remember the whole night from beginning to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is consciousness?

While this study might not at first appear relevant to your question, on consideration it takes on a great significance to understanding the answer.

Consciousness can be described in very simple terms as "what we know". If we knew nothing we would not be conscious. Since memory is how we organise our knowledge, and it has been shown that the creation of synaptic connections modifies memory, then we can conclude that consciousness is a secondary phenomenon arising from the physical 'make-up' of the brain (and possibly also the rest of the CNS).

That being the case, the suggestions that consciousness plays any role in the universe outside the physical form of the conscious organism are poppycock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this study might not at first appear relevant to your question, on consideration it takes on a great significance to understanding the answer.

Consciousness can be described in very simple terms as "what we know". If we knew nothing we would not be conscious. Since memory is how we organise our knowledge, and it has been shown that the creation of synaptic connections modifies memory, then we can conclude that consciousness is a secondary phenomenon arising from the physical 'make-up' of the brain (and possibly also the rest of the CNS).

That being the case, the suggestions that consciousness plays any role in the universe outside the physical form of the conscious organism are poppycock.

Consciousness is "awareness". A dandelion has consciousness; as does each and every quantum particle. There is micro-consciousness and macro-consciousness. The Universe as a whole, is aware of itself; as is Earth. Mind is an out-growth of consciousness, and brain is a multi-functional connection to mind. Brain is definitely not the source of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consciousness is "awareness". A dandelion has consciousness; as does each and every quantum particle. There is micro-consciousness and macro-consciousness. The Universe as a whole, is aware of itself; as is Earth. Mind is an out-growth of consciousness, and brain is a multi-functional connection to mind. Brain is definitely not the source of consciousness.

Any test you can name which has reliability, repeatability and measurability will show otherwise. Take away the brain, and there is no consciousness.

And there is no information which suggests "every quantum particle has consciousness". That assertion is not only purely metaphysical but completely without any foundation in knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consciousness is "awareness". A dandelion has consciousness; as does each and every quantum particle. There is micro-consciousness and macro-consciousness. The Universe as a whole, is aware of itself; as is Earth. Mind is an out-growth of consciousness, and brain is a multi-functional connection to mind. Brain is definitely not the source of consciousness.

Everything you just said is not supported by research or evidence, the good thing is the OP's isn't either; you've come to the right place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to respond in detail later when I have more time, but everything everybody else is referencing are just theories. Nothing I have heard in this thread has been proven to be absolutely true so far, as far as science is concerned.

The simplest explanation is usually the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any test you can name which has reliability, repeatability and measurability will show otherwise. Take away the brain, and there is no consciousness.

And there is no information which suggests "every quantum particle has consciousness". That assertion is not only purely metaphysical but completely without any foundation in knowledge.

Exactly, take away the brain there is no consciousness, therefore there is nothing. No universe, no sun, no earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then you'd be the first human being to ever do so.

OK, there was not "theoretically nothing", nor was there empty space before the big bang. Great strides have been made in the last few decades to understand this area of science, and there isn't a single scientist working in that field today that would describe the big bang in the way you have. Maybe do a bit of reading up about it?

There's probably a really good point in here somewhere. But it isn't true to say that consciousness expands the universe, or that nothing "literally" existed before we were aware of it. Its a philosophical argument as old as the hills, and I don't think holds much sway any more. And the bit I've bolded out is just flat out wrong.

I personally have no time for this near death stuff. The mind is demonstrably linked to the brain, and - to quote Sunshine - when it dies, we die.

Eh?

It's been done before, and stated much more clearly than I have. Like I said, nobody seems to take this stuff seriously, and it gets dismissed far too easily without any thought being put into it.

Ok, I've done more reading up on it and guess what? Nobody can agree on anything. Don't forget that the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. It hasn't been proven to be true or false yet. 200 years from now people may look back and say how wrong and foolish we were to believe such. Times change, and so do our theories and ideas.

Than what is expanding the universe? Dark matter? Dark energy? Mind you that from what we understand the universe is increasing in it's expansion rate, not decreasing or remaining the same. We don't even know what dark matter and energy are, yet they make up 96% of the universe from what we are told. We cannot base theories on things about the universe and it's starting point, when we aren't even sure what dark matter or energy is, and yet we do anyways and seemingly call them facts. All the while basing other far fetched theories off of these theories. That leads you nowhere until you have a solid foundation and starting point, and it seems very counterproductive to do so without having a fact to back you up. "Well you don't have facts either." Well, I'm not basing my points off of unproven theories though am I? It starts and ends with us, couldn't be simpler.

You say you have no time for it? That is very dismissive and isn't going to help us get anywhere. Once again, you're basing your current knowledge of how the universe works on theories. Unproven theories, then saying that they are correct and everything else is wrong. That just does not in any way make sense.

Edited by andy4
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Everything you just said is not supported by research or evidence, the good thing is the OP's isn't either; you've come to the right place.

Research is inherently flawed. It takes our human bias and follows it blindly into theoretical hallways of no return. Unless of course it's obvious like, when you walk on the earth you stay put because of gravity. Not a theory, therefore it holds water. Big Bang theory, string theory, quantum physics, all theoretical. Yet, once again, most people seem to blindly accept them as being fact and will under no circumstance think outside of those theoretical chains and just dismiss everything else as being baseless. Every so often things about the nature of the universe change. For instance the age of the universe. Every decade or so it seems to grow older. Is the universe actually as old as we say or thought it was, or are we changing the age of the universe to fit into our world views and theories? That age of the universe is never a fact, and will never be proven as such. Things like that change so often that it's hard for me to accept that we know for an unequivocal fact that x works this way, therefore z will work this way. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

Definition.

Theory

Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic, such as a single or collection of fact, event, or phenomen. Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being is that without a solid, non theoretical base to stand on, all we will ever have are theories. They have changed constantly and will never cease in doing so. That is not how the scientific method works, you need to quantify a fact than base it off of that fact. Not build assumption upon assumption. 500 years from now do you really think that what we are saying now will be looked at as correct? Look back at theories of that same time 500 years previous. How many of those have we thrown out of the window or dismissed as being nonsense? Quite a good many. That will always be the case as we progress intellectually as a species.

Or, we can say that since we are here coming up with these theories, that they are made by us, and therefore everything we know and understand is nothing more than us expanding our consciousness and it is here because we are observing it. Without us how many theories would there be to explain quantum physics or the age of the universe? Without us, where is the universe? It's not there, because it simply isn't being observed and doesn't exist anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. What is death?

We've probably read them before. "I died and went to another place feeling like I was there for 10 years, yet it turns out I was only 'dead' for 5 mins." Also known as a near death experience.

To make progress in mathematics we employ math scholars; in medicine, researchers; in economics, economists; etc.

Why do we listen to every person who has an opinion about NDEs--from Carl Sagan's Brian's Brain to Charles Ryrie's The Word of the Near Death Experiencer?

We never would expect a blind person from birth to adulthood to paint Yellowstone Park landscapes.

From a person who has had an extensive NDE, IMHO, the only people who should listen to concerning the nature of NDEs are those who have had such an experience, those who research such, and better yet, those who are in both of these categories.

You may want to read Encouraged by the Light.

I personally have no time for this near death stuff. The mind is demonstrably linked to the brain, and - to quote Sunshine - when it dies, we die.

David J Chalmers, chair of the philosophy dept at Cambridge University has delivered a solid proof, based on Multiverse understanding, of what he coins Natural Duality. It can be found in the bibliography of the WikiBook on Concessness.

Nobody is arguing if the mind is linked to the brain but people are debating if the mind continues to exist after the death of the brain. From the statement above absolutely nothing has been said about the opinion that the mind can exist apart from the brain.

Very little paranormal stuff has been proven scientifically simply because it is an unknown of what is required to get paranormal activity to reoccur systematically. Reproducibility is a requirement to scientifically investigate things. The reason some people think the world is mechanistic is because we have proven so many easy to prove things. [if you can prove mathematically how three equal sized and weighted objects will interact in space, we will be able to extend Maxwell's equations considerably.]

Consciousness can be described in very simple terms as "what we know". If we knew nothing we would not be conscious. Since memory is how we organize our knowledge, and it has been shown that the creation of synaptic connections modifies memory, then we can conclude that consciousness is a secondary phenomenon arising from the physical 'make-up' of the brain (and possibly also the rest of the CNS).

That being the case, the suggestions that consciousness plays any role in the universe outside the physical form of the conscious organism are poppycock.

The book Science and the Paranormal by Prof. Arthur Ellison [RIP] of Cambridge University has a Cambridge and also a Yale scientific proof of global consciousness.

4. Rebirth, and a newly expanding consciousness.

Let's say you're in this place for what feels like ten years until suddenly...the "sun" in the sky moves. All of a sudden you have a way to measure time again. Suddenly... ever so slowly..,you have your first memory as a child, whatever it was for you. You've measured time again, your consciousness has once again come into being and is now expanding again. You have a way to measure time, and suddenly you're "reborn" again, a small child. And the cycle repeats over and over.

Thanks.

I will have to put off the reincarnation topic until tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research is inherently flawed. It takes our human bias and follows it blindly into theoretical hallways of no return. Unless of course it's obvious like, when you walk on the earth you stay put because of gravity. Not a theory, therefore it holds water. Big Bang theory, string theory, quantum physics, all theoretical. Yet, once again, most people seem to blindly accept them as being fact and will under no circumstance think outside of those theoretical chains and just dismiss everything else as being baseless.

You think research is flawed so you make up baseless explanations? Baseless describes it perfectly because you've made no attempt to support a word you've uttered. Hell even theoretical physics attempts to offer some form of hypothesis.
Every so often things about the nature of the universe change. For instance the age of the universe. Every decade or so it seems to grow older. Is the universe actually as old as we say or thought it was, or are we changing the age of the universe to fit into our world views and theories? That age of the universe is never a fact, and will never be proven as such. Things like that change so often that it's hard for me to accept that we know for an unequivocal fact that x works this way, therefore z will work this way. It just doesn't make any logical sense.
Are you saying refining an approximation makes no logical sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being is that without a solid, non theoretical base to stand on, all we will ever have are theories. They have changed constantly and will never cease in doing so. That is not how the scientific method works, you need to quantify a fact than base it off of that fact. Not build assumption upon assumption. 500 years from now do you really think that what we are saying now will be looked at as correct? Look back at theories of that same time 500 years previous. How many of those have we thrown out of the window or dismissed as being nonsense? Quite a good many. That will always be the case as we progress intellectually as a species.

How many scientific theories have been thrown out?
Or, we can say that since we are here coming up with these theories, that they are made by us, and therefore everything we know and understand is nothing more than us expanding our consciousness and it is here because we are observing it. Without us how many theories would there be to explain quantum physics or the age of the universe? Without us, where is the universe? It's not there, because it simply isn't being observed and doesn't exist anymore.

Then we'd be lying to ourselves, existence doesn't depend on human observation. You still haven't answered how you can observe something that doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think research is flawed so you make up baseless explanations? Baseless describes it perfectly because you've made no attempt to support a word you've uttered. Hell even theoretical physics attempts to offer some form of hypothesis.

Are you saying refining an approximation makes no logical sense to you?

I'm making no major attempt to say what I'm thinking is right, only that it has fewer assumptions and cuts to the chase in much fewer steps than say quantum physics or the Big Bang theory.

No, I'm just saying that the further we dig and base our ideas off of assumptions is where flawed theories and "facts" get muddled to the point where they make no logical sense.

Unless quantum physics or the theories on the multitude of mysteries of the universe are sorted out, they will be cast aside much like religion in the 21st century. Religion had too many sects because nobody could agree upon one thing and decided to come up with their own interpretations. All of these theories will be either revamped completely or thrown out when we finally realize they are all built on assumption after assumption. Mark my words, these theories we have today will be no more relevant than saying the world was once a flat place. I guarantee that, bet on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many scientific theories have been thrown out?

Then we'd be lying to ourselves, existence doesn't depend on human observation. You still haven't answered how you can observe something that doesn't exist.

Ok, instead of 500 years, let's go back throughout human history. How many ideas and opinions have changed because the theories and ideas keep on changing to fit our views and flawed assumptions? Many, so many have been cast aside and rendered obsolete that it's insane. We don't know everything today, and in due time will realize this. Theories of today will change and the theories of tomorrow will change, etc, etc. you cannot base theories on assumptions or critical thinking when there is no set base to refer them to.

Our scientific method has become so meddled that we are basing everything on baseless and unproven arguments. Seriously, how much logical sense does that make? You can't say for a fact that what we know today will be verified or even heard of in the future. It will and always will be ever changing.

However, we are always here, and as long as we are the universe and everything in it will be, including consciousness, and that cannot be argued because it's so easily verified. We are here, the universe is here, no assumptions or theories needed for that. It's so simple it's laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm making no major attempt to say what I'm thinking is right, only that it has fewer assumptions and cuts to the chase in much fewer steps than say quantum physics or the Big Bang theory.

Fewer steps? Sure. Fewer assumptions and cutting to the chase? Far from it. It answers little and supported by none, in fact the evidence contradicts it.

It's like saying the flat earth model has fewer assumptions because it doesn't need to factor in the earth's rotation and orbit, never mind the fact it's completely wrong.

No, I'm just saying that the further we dig and base our ideas off of assumptions is where flawed theories and "facts" get muddled to the point where they make no logical sense.
You achieved that in the first page.
Unless quantum physics or the theories on the multitude of mysteries of the universe are sorted out, they will be cast aside much like religion in the 21st century. Religion had too many sects because nobody could agree upon one thing and decided to come up with their own interpretations. All of these theories will be either revamped completely or thrown out when we finally realize they are all built on assumption after assumption. Mark my words, these theories we have today will be no more relevant than saying the world was once a flat place. I guarantee that, bet on it.

Says the guy who is doing exactly what he is falsely accusing scientists of.

It has to be obvious the explanation you've presented is inferior in everyway to these theories you are claiming to be flawed right? I mean dismissing the Big Bang theory (a scientific theory BTW) and offering a substanceless "theory" is just completely backwards.

How much do you want to bet our theories aren't thrown out?

Ok, instead of 500 years, let's go back throughout human history. How many ideas and opinions have changed because the theories and ideas keep on changing to fit our views and flawed assumptions? Many, so many have been cast aside and rendered obsolete that it's insane. We don't know everything today, and in due time will realize this. Theories of today will change and the theories of tomorrow will change, etc, etc. you cannot base theories on assumptions or critical thinking when there is no set base to refer them to.

Our scientific method has become so meddled that we are basing everything on baseless and unproven arguments. Seriously, how much logical sense does that make? You can't say for a fact that what we know today will be verified or even heard of in the future. It will and always will be ever changing.

However, we are always here, and as long as we are the universe and everything in it will be, including consciousness, and that cannot be argued because it's so easily verified. We are here, the universe is here, no assumptions or theories needed for that. It's so simple it's laughable.

The biggest problem here is you continue to lump all forms of investigation together and blamed the faults on the scientific method. You're comparing entirely different methods. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fewer steps? Sure. Fewer assumptions and cutting to the chase? Far from it. It answers little and supported by none, in fact the evidence contradicts it.

It's like saying the flat earth model has fewer assumptions because it doesn't need to factor in the earth's rotation and orbit, never mind the fact it's completely wrong.

You achieved that in the first page.

Says the guy who is doing exactly what he is falsely accusing scientists of.

It has to be obvious the explanation you've presented is inferior in everyway to these theories you are claiming to be flawed right? I mean dismissing the Big Bang theory (a scientific theory BTW) and offering a substanceless "theory" is just completely backwards.

How much do you want to bet our theories aren't thrown out?

The biggest problem here is you continue to lump all forms of investigation together and blamed the faults on the scientific method. You're comparing entirely different methods.

The evidence doesn't contradict the fact that we are here, talking about this and making our points. It's that simple. That's one reason I stopped getting into quantum physics for, to me it seemed blatantly obvious that all of the work done in that field needs a starting point. We are that starting point, and that's what we need to focus on and understand first. Then we will get the big picture, which so far, quantum physics has failed to explain, and will never do so. It will always be ever changing, but our conscious observations won't be.

Once again, how did the Big Bang come about? Actually, what was before the Big Bang, and before that? Nothing? How can all of this come from nothing?

I'd lean more towards the universe being a simulation of some sort rather than scientists now thinking it possibly couldn't be. Once again, that's not how a true scientific endeavor works. All possibilities must be explored on order to come up with one that we call a "fact" or "scientific theory."

I'll bet you whatever you're willing to. 50 years from now, they will be crumbling in the dust. Useless, baseless theories that got humanity nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.