Quantum Theory

[regnauld]

---

Maybe GOD is a PARTICLE or GOD PARTICLE in science!

[regnauld]

Einstein in his nobel prize award winning work photoelectric effect showed that light is particle. (photons) later de Broglie shows that a particle has a corresponding wave. (he also won the nobel prize for this) these shows that particles are waves and waves are particles but one could not use both state simultaneously.
Could we therefore consider consciousness as a wave function? perhaps, if we could define what consciousness is in the first place because consciousness is debated in cognitive science and it is not equal to brain waves. One could actually register brain waves but not necessarily conscious, and the problem of consciousness is that other minds could never knows "what-it-is-like-to-be" an other mind, human or not, organic or computer. (consciousness maybe constituted as a quanta but not that quanta are constituted by consciousness)

the problem of consciousness is more speculative than empirical. it is a problem in cognitive scientists for now, while the problem of "as long as God thinks then we exists" is an assertion in Classical Metaphysics, that existence halts when God stops to "think."

"Consciousness is the ground of being." - AMIT GOSWAMI (Quantum Physicist)

[The_Child]

Maybe GOD is a PARTICLE or GOD PARTICLE in science!

yes perhaps, but the term "God Particle" was used to refer to that particle which have been theorized as the missing gap in explaining Mass in the UNiverse. Higgs Boson particle is the more proper term for it. the term "God Particle" is a misnomer, it is not God.

Although Dr. Amit Goswami is a theoretical physicist into quantum mechanics, one must divide him from his purely scientific pursuit from his philosophical pursuit, meaning, the early Goswami is more scientific than his later stage. As you can see, it is premature to marry quantum mechanics with advaita vedanta thought, or philosophy in general. thus when he mentioned: "consciousness is the ground of all being" we see that his purely philosophical rather than scientific, consciousness is a problem in cognitive science/philo of mind, while being is purely a metaphysical issue. Science does not ask what is being, it assumes being as such.
when he say consciousness is the ground of all being, again we have that subtle hint of shankaracharya: the connection between higher consciousness lesser consciousness, i.e., lesser atman greater atman and lesser brahman and greater brahman ... at the end there is only one, one consciousness under the greater brahman, this one consciousness itself is Brahman, is Being. and remember that lesser atman, (self + consciousness) travels like a river towards the sea then the Ocean attempting to break maya (illusion) and thus achieving oneness, this is the true being, true reality, Brahman. From this we see the background of dr. amit goswami's statement.

cheers.

[Allstars]

god is clouds.

[akimz]

nindot sad baya to ang "What the Bleep do we know down the rabbit hole"

[regnauld]

nindot sad baya to ang "What the Bleep do we know down the rabbit hole"

Yes bro and the message there is ENERGY FOLLOWS THOUGHT or CONSCIOUSNESS - An ancient TRUTH proclaimed by the god of WISDOM, Hermes Tresmigestus!

[bluedes]

I thought quantum theory ato istoryahan dire..

[vanschen]

Einstein in his nobel prize award winning work photoelectric effect showed that light is particle. (photons) later de Broglie shows that a particle has a corresponding wave. (he also won the nobel prize for this) these shows that particles are waves and waves are particles but one could not use both state simultaneously.
Could we therefore consider consciousness as a wave function? perhaps, if we could define what consciousness is in the first place because consciousness is debated in cognitive science and it is not equal to brain waves. One could actually register brain waves but not necessarily conscious, and the problem of consciousness is that other minds could never knows "what-it-is-like-to-be" an other mind, human or not, organic or computer. (consciousness maybe constituted as a quanta but not that quanta are constituted by consciousness)

the problem of consciousness is more speculative than empirical. it is a problem in cognitive scientists for now, while the problem of "as long as God thinks then we exists" is an assertion in Classical Metaphysics, that existence halts when God stops to "think."

yes the wave particle duality. if particles have wave function, it doesnt follow that consciousness should have one. consciousness is immaterial. cant be reduced to a mere mathematical formula like the wave function as expressed by the famous Schrodinger equation. consciousness is the area of metaphysics, philosophy and psychology rather than physics. remember the synergystic principle: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

there are mirror neurons discovered by scientists but can only give people limited idea of "what it is like to be in.." hence sympathize with another person. otherwise experiences wouldnt be private. only Einstein felt and know what it is to be an Einstein.

[vanschen]

^^ ahak nimo hell oiz!

bitaw, i'm not into the parallel universe concept. sounds completely impossible. unless i were to see it in an aspect of time travel where changes in our past could yield different realities. but then again, I also believe that it is not and will never be possible to change the past and that if we do indeed travel to the past, the changes we make could only mean that the change was meant to happen.

there is reason to believe.

the explanation of the Young double slit experiment would require parallel universes and so with Feynmans sum of all path.

even though parallel universes are hard to imagine, most physicists now believe it to be true. parallel universes exists only as "in potentia." not all are out there. yes, par univ is a solution to time travel.

checkout this video: YouTube - Michio Kaku: Time Travel, Parallel Universes, and Reality

[The_Child]

yes the wave particle duality. if particles have wave function, it doesnt follow that consciousness should have one. consciousness is immaterial. cant be reduced to a mere mathematical formula like the wave function as expressed by the famous Schrodinger equation. consciousness is the area of metaphysics, philosophy and psychology rather than physics. remember the synergystic principle: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

there are mirror neurons discovered by scientists but can only give people limited idea of "what it is like to be in.." hence sympathize with another person. otherwise experiences wouldnt be private. only Einstein felt and know what it is to be an Einstein.

agree. consciousness for now is not empirically demonstrable nor can me quantitatively formulated. but then again, Cognitive Science as a discipline is a very young science, but the optimistic view is that it can become a science like physics in the next 100 years. thus, although current literature consciousness could not be explained in reductive physicalism (pure materialist conception) exactly why the problem of consciousness is the very argument against the forefront of physicalist theories of the mind, i am stilll open to the idea, and even wager, that in the future consciousness can be explained in scientific terms. Such was why i said "perhaps" in my earlier statement with the condition that we could adequately define consciousness and demonstrate the certain shade of consciousness we consider.

cheers!