The Higgs boson and God particle

[Trifoilum]

@Trifoilum materialist science is something like what you're saying, needing to make "sense" on a physical level, saying the outside exists first, or is all that exists. quantum physics takes a little different approach in that it says the inside is first, that consciousness is what makes the physical level even exist, so focus is put there. the amit goswami links are great reads if you want to understand this. Here is from his site if you dont want to click:
Nonlocality - We are all interconnected - even without signals, and experimental evidence is proving our inherent unity.
Tangled hierarchy - In our brain, we become one with the neuronal images of an external object because of a tangled-hierarchy, a circularity. The observer is the observed.
Discontinuity - The discovery of something new of value in thought is a quantum leap of Aha! insight.

The discontinuity is one thing you mentioned. So something is not understood, therefore it ends. Once it is understood, it begins again until a new end, progressing forever. It's unlogical to one who views life as having any true ends, because there is always a new beginning.

I can see how it works, but I still cannot see how working backwards in areas as vague as quantum physics and metaphysics can be anything beyond self fulfilling prophecies / backtracing.

You see-- even those things you copypastaed here-- they work only if you believe the rules-- the shape of their ideas, the thoughts. An outsider cannot look in, which is somewhat like what you said. A lot like religious faith.

It does not speak dogma, but it speaks with the same voice.

What if I don't believe / see in the same way?

If that is indeed true, to which I said, how alienating.

 

[Kmal]

@Trifoilum One can put the shoes on of another person and see what it is like, that doesnt make it permanent. If you see how it works, I dont see how you're an outsider, arent we all connected?

 

[Trifoilum]

@Trifoilum One can put the shoes on of another person and see what it is like, that doesnt make it permanent. If you see how it works, I dont see how you're an outsider, arent we all connected?

....OT warning to me and you.
Yes, you're right on the first sentence, And as for the second sentence, again, that is the point.
Again, if I don't see the same thing, can you even say it is so?

Can you call my red violet? Can I call your blue indigo?
Sure, but does it make any difference, if I don't see the same thing?
To whom are you speaking?

It's like clapping with one hand. In the end, it makes the same clapping sound, but it is one made by oneself, rather than reciprocation.

Which fits more with religion / belief than it is with science....

But again, let us end the discussion here. Thanks for your attention.

 

[Kmal]

[MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION] forgive my intrusion, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get me to understand. Are you asking if x is still x even if it is called y?

 

[Faye]

What would happen depends entirely on the nature of God. If God really did make us in his image, then things likely wouldn't change much. If, on the other hand, God is actually very good, the world would become unrecognizable. There is an almost infinite number of possibilities.

 

[Kmal]

What would happen depends entirely on the nature of God. If God really did make us in his image, then things likely wouldn't change much. If, on the other hand, God is actually very good, the world would become unrecognizable. There is an almost infinite number of possibilities.

In the image of the caveman? We've progressed past what we've started. The most likely option is your second suggestion- infinite possibilities along the lines of a virtual reality or a lucid dream world. Recent quantum revelations have blown the lid off of the materialist view of the world with consciousness being the basis of being rather than the materialist view. That alone allows for infinite possibilities. To quote [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] here "it looks like the mystics have been right all along."
1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

 

[Faye]

In the image of the caveman? We've progressed past what we've started. The most likely option is your second suggestion- infinite possibilities along the lines of a virtual reality or a lucid dream world. Recent quantum revelations have blown the lid off of the materialist view of the world with consciousness being the basis of being rather than the materialist view. That alone allows for infinite possibilities. To quote @muir here "it looks like the mystics have been right all along."
1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

How can research into quantum phenomena, which is by definition material substance, "blow the lid off the materialist view of the world"?

 

[muir]

In the image of the caveman? We've progressed past what we've started. The most likely option is your second suggestion- infinite possibilities along the lines of a virtual reality or a lucid dream world. Recent quantum revelations have blown the lid off of the materialist view of the world with consciousness being the basis of being rather than the materialist view. That alone allows for infinite possibilities. To quote @muir here "it looks like the mystics have been right all along."
1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”[b]—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

Yes now imagine if such knowledge was passed down through the ages within secret societies and that these societies peddled a literal form of religion to the people to stop them from grasping their true power

Such an elite would know that the battleground is consciousness for to mould peoples perceptions would be to then give shape to the material reality itself

I imagine that such elites would want to:

• destroy shamanistic cultures, whilst peddling literal religion (through for example imperialism and colonialisiation)
• ban pychadelics (that put you in touch with your unconscious mind)
• produce really depressing news stories full of fear and hate to increase anger and feelings of seperation in order to produce a suspicious, divided and cynical consciousness (which would in turn justify their own cynical behaviour as they monopolise all the power/wealth)
• push serotonin uptake inhibitor drugs onto the public (which inhibit the flow of energy between the conscious and unconscious mind....Jung says that individuation is the process of aligning the conscious and unconscious mind; how can someone do that if the energies are not flowing and they're not listening to their inner unconscious guide that is often saying that something is wrong in the world....cos it often is in the current sick society!)
• push a materialistic, consumer culture onto the public that would make them look outwards instead of inwards and would make them judge their own worth in material terms instead of more abstract terms such as compassion
• destroy community spirit and seek to make everyone compete instead to keep them divided and easily ruled
• seek to ignore, insult, ridicule or assassinate anyone who tried to expose their cynical behaviour

 

[Kmal]

How can research into quantum phenomena, which is by definition material substance, "blow the lid off the materialist view of the world"?

Because it's not material, it's energy or consciousness that vibrates to look and feel like material. Are we physically connected as in we're mutated together as a species? No, but we are connected in that we use all use the same consciousness, or energy to exist. It's not our physical bodies that exist first, its our consciousness, and through that everything exists, rather than the view that through the bodies and material things everything exists, or that everything is material. The materialistic view is becoming outdated, and thank goodness, because it can certainly lead to selfish behavior and fear.

@muir the funny thing about evil and darkness is that it feeds on itself. it will corrupt a human and bring them to great heights and show them their kingship, then it will knock it all from underneath them just to see them fall and hate everything again, thus becoming more evil. this is why evil never wins.
another amazing thing is we all have the script for the power within us, we just have to look and seek it. no need for any book, though they help ease the process, for the books came from within! no one can control that everything is within us all, and they dont want that out either.

 

[Faye]

Because it's not material, it's energy or consciousness that vibrates to look and feel like material. Are we physically connected as in we're mutated together as a species? No, but we are connected in that we use all use the same consciousness, or energy to exist. It's not our physical bodies that exist first, its our consciousness, and through that everything exists, rather than the view that through the bodies and material things everything exists, or that everything is material. The materialistic view is becoming outdated, and thank goodness, because it can certainly lead to selfish behavior and fear.

I don't see the difference between matter and energy. E=MC^2 or mass and energy and one and the same... unless you're assuming that research into quantum physics has somehow revealed some other sort of energy, which I doubt it has. Basically, energy is material, and sometimes people use the term physicalism instead of materialism in order to avoid confusion.

From wikipedia on Physicalism:

Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.

All of the research into quantum physics is still physicalist and, therefore, still materialist. I used to think it had shown something more about the power of the human mind or brain, but I've since learned that this is new age presupposition without and sound explanation behind it. All accepted scientific research still presupposes methodological naturalism, and in spite of some claims otherwise, no there does not appear to be a significant movement or 'awakening' in the scientific community to abandon that basis.

I would also like to add that there is a difference between materialism as in referring to the world or universe and materialism as in being greedy, selfish, or concerned with material possessions. They are completely separate philosophical notions that both happen to share the phrase 'materialism', which is another reason the term physicalism is preferable to avoid confusion. Research into quantum phenomena has nothing to do with the second notion of materialism.

 

[Trifoilum]

...this is something that has tickled my mind in the recent times, but [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] -really- has that conspiracy theorist-slash-avant garde revolutionaire-slash- antiauthoritarianism, don't you?

Oh, well. Do pardon if I cannot reply to you. There's a limit in conviction within people I just dare not / unwilling to touch. *curts*

@Trifoilum forgive my intrusion, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get me to understand. Are you asking if x is still x even if it is called y?

yes and no;
my point is really like perspective. Can you really call [a set of objects / traits / anything] as X if I / 'insert random person' see it as Y? Can you expect me / 'insert random person' to believe? (to see =/= to believe, after all, even when seeing involves a certain degree of acknowledgement)

Can you call my red violet? Can I call your blue indigo?
Sure, but does it make any difference, if I don't see the same thing?
To whom are you speaking?

But to a certain degree, it involves what you're talking above.
[MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION] : I think there's a sort of different....definition, or at least understanding inbetween society in general and people that generally dwell within this group of knowledge.
For people familiar with the term; sure, this is part of materialism, but other sort of people (for instance, me) will connect quantum physics and metaphysical studies into the realm of the supernatural.
Then come [MENTION=2259]Kmal[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and the similar type, whom....seek to define something, within these sorts of thing; a desire, a thirst to search, to know. Tangible, more explainable proof of mysticism, of godhood; of divinity. The proof of faith, so to speak.

Is it bad? Is it good? Is it right? Wrong? Who the hell knows?

I also completely agreed with your last sentence.

For the right kind of people, these discoveries won't take away from them their love of physical objects and what some people will call trivialities, brutalities, depravity-- if anything, it will drive them further.

 

[Kmal]

@Dragon Yes, the difference is none because they are one in the same. It's like nonlocality, everything is everywhere at once. The building blocks that make up the tree are the same ones that make up the mountains, or me or you. Physicalism, materialism, spiritualism, they are all seeing the same thing. What I'm wanting is the one that bears the best fruit for me, or gives me a better quality of life. I'm also wanting it to feel like truth, and everything starting with matter doesnt make sense to me. How did the matter get there? Was it just always there? That's an infinite quality and thereby makes it nonsensical to think everything originated from matter.
I use symbols to see things. Whatever the spirit is, or what the quantum energy is, or what the qi IS, isnt more important than the symbol used for it. Materialism (I've understood your distinction between physicalism) assumes that IS is all encompassing, when rather is is approximate. Assuming everything is matter and originated from matter negates infinite qualities and I feel that is rather important. Yes, there are definites, but they are only definite until something else is understood.

yes and no;
my point is really like perspective. Can you really call [a set of objects / traits / anything] as X if I / 'insert random person' see it as Y? Can you expect me / 'insert random person' to believe? (to see =/= to believe, after all, even when seeing involves a certain degree of acknowledgement)

Should I care if you believe? I dont. I've done my part in talking about it and you're helping me better understand my own understanding, so I appreciate it. As for your equation, no matter what someone else calls x it is approximate, and who is the closest? I understand I am not the closest, but I'm trying and all who else is trying is important to me and the progress of humanity as a whole.

 

[muir]

...this is something that has tickled my mind in the recent times, but @muir -really- has that conspiracy theorist-slash-avant garde revolutionaire-slash- antiauthoritarianism, don't you?

Oh, well. Do pardon if I cannot reply to you. There's a limit in conviction within people I just dare not / unwilling to touch. *curts*

I'm simply saying what i believe

I think if you focus on me then you're gonna distract yourself from what i'm saying. I'm not here to sell myself, i'm here to discuss certain ideas. So it really doesn't matter whether or not you like me...all that matters is whether or not there is anything of value for you in what i'm saying.

If there is then great....if there isn't then its not a problem, just look elsewhere for your answers...but focussing on me is pointless because muir is simply a vehicle for certain ideas

Then come @Kmal and @muir and the similar type, whom....seek to define something, within these sorts of thing; a desire, a thirst to search, to know. Tangible, more explainable proof of mysticism, of godhood; of divinity. The proof of faith, so to speak.

Is it bad? Is it good? Is it right? Wrong? Who the hell knows?

I also completely agreed with your last sentence.

For the right kind of people, these discoveries won't take away from them their love of physical objects and what some people will call trivialities, brutalities, depravity-- if anything, it will drive them further.

I don't see science as a bad thing. I think that science can potentially in time explain certain phenomena....i just think that it hasn't got all the answers yet

I don't think there has to be any hocus pocus, i just think that visionaries and mystics are often creating the hypothesis and the challenge for science is to then see if it can build a foundation of fact under that hypothesis that will stand or fall

I think the problem with science comes when thought becomes entrenched. Some people have a lot invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes fight to protect those paradigms even if scientific pioneers are overturning those paradigms

 

[Trifoilum]

Should I care if you believe? I dont. I've done my part in talking about it and you're helping me better understand my own understanding, so I appreciate it. As for your equation, no matter what someone else calls x it is approximate, and who is the closest? I understand I am not the closest, but I'm trying and all who else is trying is important to me and the progress of humanity as a whole.

As should I thank you for the same thing.
True; my original point was just-- my first question. Your responses only made me think more, perhaps defending more than I should, but nonetheless.

Although by this point it's -really- hard to see the point of this and Higgs-Boson Particle.....

I'm simply saying what i believe

I think if you focus on me then you're gonna distract yourself from what i'm saying. I'm not here to sell myself, i'm here to discuss certain ideas. So it really doesn't matter whether or not you like me...all that matters is whether or not there is anything of value for you in what i'm saying.

If there is then great....if there isn't then its not a problem, just look elsewhere for your answers...but focussing on me is pointless because muir is simply a vehicle for certain ideas

And I don't think you should stop saying them, regardless of what I feel.

Discussing..... I personally find your ideas and presentation too specific --borderlining too much to absurd accusations-- to read your points, much less your message, but you make a perfect point.

If that is what you believe, and if that is what you are pursuing, then godspeed.

I don't see science as a bad thing. I think that science can potentially in time explain certain phenomena....i just think that it hasn't got all the answers yet

I agreed on this one.

I don't think there has to be any hocus pocus, i just think that visionaries and mystics are often creating the hypothesis and the challenge for science is to then see if it can build a foundation of fact under that hypothesis that will stand or fall

That's also one way of putting it.
My point is not the value of me/you/anyone's rightness / wrongness but more of the difference within our own perspective-- or perhaps, desire.

I think the problem with science comes when thought becomes entrenched. Some people have a lot invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes fight to protect those paradigms even if scientific pioneers are overturning those paradigms

Wouldn't the opposite can also be applied?

 

[muir]

Wouldn't the opposite can also be applied?

What is the opposite as you perceive it?

 

[Trifoilum]

What is the opposite as you perceive it?

Same rules, different direction.

Some people can be equally entrenched in anything; whether protecting or changing or just being indifferent about the rules of the world (I'm one of them, to be honest)
so, quoting;

Some people have a lot invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes fight to enforce those paradigms even if scientific guardians are overturning those paradigms

Some people have nothing invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes ignore to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers are proving those paradigms

Some people have everything invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes continue to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers/guardians are overturning those paradigms

Just the usual bit of devil's advocacy.

 

[muir]

Same rules, different direction.

Some people can be equally entrenched in anything; whether protecting or changing or just being indifferent about the rules of the world (I'm one of them, to be honest)
so, quoting;






Just the usual bit of devil's advocacy.

my head hurts!

I posted a clip earlier i'll post it again below which is a real life example of what i'm talking about. It shows a scientist who eventually overturned a paradigm but was ridiculed initially when he first presented his findings:

[video=youtube;EZRTzOMHQ4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZRTzOMHQ4s[/video]

 

[Trifoilum]

my head hurts!

I posted a clip earlier i'll post it again below which is a real life example of what i'm talking about. It shows a scientist who eventually overturned a paradigm but was ridiculed initially when he first presented his findings:

[video=youtube;EZRTzOMHQ4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZRTzOMHQ4s[/video]

*grins*
I'm not -exactly- critiquing your point, you know.
Just asking whether if the opposite can also be applied. ;p

 

[muir]

*grins*
I'm not -exactly- critiquing your point, you know.
Just asking whether if the opposite can also be applied. ;p

*grins back*

I think you can move the words around to create different combinations some of which will make sense when applied to observable reality and some won't

What the tendency is with science is that being an empirical approach there is often a paradigm that is kind of accepted as conventional wisdom.

However sometimes a person comes along with a more elegant and more complete answer

Because we live in a money based economy mammon will usually play a part in proceedings. A scientist may care little for money, seeking answers instead, but he/she will still have to use money to some extent in order to carry on their research

But there's often more at stake than money. Sometimes pride is at stake. Sometimes a job position at a university or other organisation is at stake, a book they have published or even their socio/economic/political ideology might be at stake (see for example Chomsky v's the behaviouralists)

Some people however are just seekers; that's not to say that they are totally free from their ego, but that wealth, recognition and control are not their primary drives

Einstein (to paraphrase) said that in a world so full of possibility, dogma is indecent

As an elderly man Newton said:
[h=1]“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”[/h]

 

[Trifoilum]

*grins back*

I think you can move the words around to create different combinations some of which will make sense when applied to observable reality and some won't

Which does and which doesn't, then?

What the tendency is with science is that being an empirical approach there is often a paradigm that is kind of accepted as conventional wisdom.

The so called gut feeling / common sense, true.

However sometimes a person comes along with a more elegant and more complete answer

Before going down, I'd like to point out that for one successful breakthroughs in science (and let's not even talk about psychology), who knows how many failure / broken theories are there? Not to mention, the 'right' (at the time, within the agreement of someone/anyone, etc, etc, the implications aside) thing tend to receive much more publicity than others.

I'd say the amount of ....mmmm, wrong / false seems too judging / generalizing within these context, invalid / incomplete / imperfect theories are probably a lot more than those that are right.

But those believing those theories would generally lean towards the side of thinking they are (at least more) valid / complete / perfect than the others / the status quo, wouldn't they?

Do you agree?

Because we live in a money based economy mammon will usually play a part in proceedings. A scientist may care little for money, seeking answers instead, but he/she will still have to use money to some extent in order to carry on their research

But there's often more at stake than money. Sometimes pride is at stake. Sometimes a job position at a university or other organisation is at stake, a book they have published or even their socio/economic/political ideology might be at stake (see for example Chomsky v's the behaviouralists)

.......And.....?

Some people however are just seekers; that's not to say that they are totally free from their ego, but that wealth, recognition and control are not their primary drives

Right, but; do you think those seekers are free from zeal?

Einstein (to paraphrase) said that in a world so full of possibility, dogma is indecent

As an elderly man Newton said:
“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Again, and?

The way I see it, you're talking about dogma and (defensive, sometimes irrational) zeal.
I wasn't exactly calling your statement above -wrong-, but I'm asking whether if those can also be applied to the opposite case.

And apparently, from what you're saying, it can. So.... o-kay?