Thank you Abra.

The most astonishing thing is that there is compelling scientific evidence that the only time quanta ever actually manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.

This scientific discovery is relevant to my assertion that we (observ ers) create reality with our minds and our thoughts.

When an electron isn't being looked at, experimental findings suggest that it is always a wave. Physicists are able to draw this conclusion because they have devised clever strategies for deducing how an electron behaves when it is not being observed. (It should be noted that this is only one interpretation of the evidence and is not the conclusion of all physicists.) Bohm has a different interpretation.

This 'seems' more like magic than the kind of behavior we are accustomed to expect from the natural world. Imagine owning a bowling ball that was only a bowling ball when you looked at it.

Physicist Nick Herbert, a supporter of this interpretation, says this has sometimes caused him to imagine that behind his back the world is always "a radially ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup." But whenever he turns around and tries to see the soup, his glance instantly freezes it and turns it back into ordinary reality.

***

The aspect of quantum reality that Bohm found especially interesting was the strange state of interconnectedness that seemed to exist between apparently unrelated subatomic events. What was equally perplexing was that most physicists tended to attach little importance to the phenomenon.

In fact, so little was made of it that one of the most famous examples of interconnectedness lay hidden in one of quantum physic's basic assumptions for a number of years before anyone noticed it was there.

That assumption was made by one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, the Danish physicists Niels Bohr. Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed.

This was disturbing to many physicists, for much of science was based on discovering the properties of phenomena. But if the act of observation actually helped create such properties, what did that imply about the future of science?

Einstein was troubled by these assertions. He found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because when combined with another of quantum physic's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible.

In time, most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct.

***

So what does this have to do with the "God Hypothesis?" Everything. Since you refused to define and describe the term "God" the field is left way open for my own extrapolation of what God is, which leaves my theory that God is the thinking stuff of the universe which is all connected in some way. These connections share information just like TexasScroundrel suggested that cells all work together and share information to create a conscious being.

***BUT the most amazing part of this quantum discovery is that when a particle only comes into existence when it is observed.

That leads to the reason and manner in which we create this reality with our thoughts.

We don't have to know what dark matter is to know it's there and what it does. In fact, people noticed something in the universe that didn't make sense according to what we already know to be true. Things weren't doing as predicted. So, someone said "hey, there must be something we can't see out there causing this effect. Either that or we're very wrong about everything else. Now dark matter's effect on the universe is pretty well understood, but we still don't know what it is.

That is why we don't need to know what god is, but simply what god does. If we can define gods effect on the universe, we could measure it. Then we'd know god is real without needing to see or touch him/her. But, we'd have to find things that couldn't be effected by other forces. That's why prayer is a good place to start.

Now, about chi et al;

In order to study something you first must decide what it is as well as what it's not. If chi is everything it cannot be studied. Unless you want to say is the most basic, tiny stuff in the universe and everything else is made of it. That's all well and good, but there's nothing in to to suggest that chi is living or conscious.

This brings a question to mind. If chi is the stuff, what's between it's bits?

I suppose it could be something like water, but with some areas more dense than others. That would explain why we notice both solids and empty spaces, But, then you have to explain why some areas are more dense. Is there some other force acting on chi that causes this effect? Sort of like the way water is effected by the gravitational force of the moon.

But, wait... That would mean there's something besides chi in the universe and we can't have that because it means not everything is made of chi.

If there's a way out of this puzzle, I'd like to read it.

God is a thinking center.
This is a thought universe. (A realistic dream)

Each person is also a thinking center.
They create their own personal reality with their own minds.
Like God, they dream their own dreams.

What is a holographic 3-D image made of? Answer: Light.

What happens when the light is turned off? Answer: Its gone.

There already exist scientific "Theories" of how to get out of this puzzle.

One is called "Quantum Mechanics", and the other is called the "Inflationary Hot Big Bang".

Quantum Mechanics postulates that there is information contained in a "quantum field" which cannot be directly measured or detected by any physical means. Yet that information necessarily must be there in order to the "rules" of Quantum Mechanics to work.

So in a sense this scientific theory could be views as "Panentheistic" Notice the extra syllable in there, "Panentheistic" as a opposed to merely being "Pantheistic".

Pantheism - "All is God" or "All that exists is all that exists"

Penentheism - "All is God, but God is more than All"

In other words, there is more to 'reality' than can be directly detected within this world.

So think of it more in terms of "Panentheism".

Quantum Theory requires that "more exists" than we can possibly detect and know precisely from within the bounds of our physical reality, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle assures that we can never go beyond this. In fact, in order to go beyond it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fails, and basically "quantum" theory goes with it!

So currently our best scientific theory demands that there is something more to reality than we can ever possible determine. It's simply beyond our "reach" but clearly must be there because we are "affected" by it.

The "Inflationary Hot Big Bang" basically states a similar thing (but only because it ultimately rests upon Quantum Theory itself"

And that is that this entire universe sprang into being from a "quantum fluctuation" - a fluctuation in something that goes beyond what we consider to be "physical".

So science is already delving into the "mystical" in an effort to create meaningful postulates for it's theories.

Our science is already basically "Panentheistic", (i.e. based on an assumption that there is more to reality than our physical universe alone can account for.

You mentioned Dark Matter. That's an interesting thing right there. The current theory is that Dark Matter is the result of some sort of super-symmetric "particle" or quantum field, that does not interact with our physical universe in any way other than via gravity only.

That's pretty "ghostly" right there in and of itself isn't it?

Matter than can't be detected in any way other than by its gravitational affects on the fabric of space-time. That's about as "Ghostly" of a thing as we can imagine isn't it?

Maybe it's not caused by "matter" at all. Maybe it's just "shock-waves" in the fabric of space-time itself. That would also appear to be "disturbances in gravity". Why should the fabric of space-time be perfectly uniform anyway?

Ok, I'm running of in rambling theories now.

But back to the main point. Reality is probably panentheistic rather than merely pantheistic.

I often use the term pantheistic myself because I include things that are 'beyond' our apparent physical universe to actually be part of the "real" universe. So for me, the term panentheistic, is superfluous.

But I do see how other people need to make this distinction since they consider "our universe" to only be the "Physical". I see no reason to assume that limitation in the first place. Especially in light of theories like QM and the Inflationary Big Bang. May as well just realize that there's more to the universe than the physical to begin with and just leave it at that.

I don't know much about quantum mechanics. However, I do know there is nothing in the theory that suggests the universe is alive, thinking or conscious. The fact that the universe exists is self evident. But, the universe being alive is not and would require some other kind of proof.

It's like saying when you leave the house all your electronic gadgets turn themselves on and have a party. Maybe they do, but I don't think it's very likely.

Your cells probably don't think you are alive either.

Well, this goes back to your definition of a "God Hypothesis".

If you're going to insist that "God" has an individual personally, know it's "name" as Zeus, or Yahweh, etc, and has a master plan for every living "soul", then you're probably right. The idea that such a "God" like that exists, is probably unwarranted.

My only concern is that everyone seems to want to put things in two extremist categories.

1. There is a "God" and therefore it must be "Zeus-like"

Or

2. If there's no "Zeus-like" personified Godhead then all "God Hypotheses" are necessarily meaningless.

~~~~~~

From my perspective that's a bit extreme. In fact, I would even say that such a view of reality is a bit "narrow-minded". Not meant to be derogatory, but simply meant for what it is.

To demand that "God" is either "Zeus-like" or non-existent, is to basically say to the Eastern Mystics, "Hey we aren't even interested in your absurd ideas".

But seriously, their ideas are not so absurd at all.

You ask if the universe has consciousness?

I ask you, "Are you conscious?"

Are you made of anything other than from this universe?

If you are conscious, and you are made of this universe. Then doesn't it automatically follow that the universe is conscious through YOU?

Is you're head yours?

Well, if it is, then guess what? You're head is ALSO a head of the universe. So it's it's YOUR head, then it's also the universe's head.

But don't get too big of a head over that because the universe is a multi-headed beast.

The Eastern Mystics have a saying, "Tat T'vam Asi", meaning you are that.

What is that?

Well, this is that, that is that, you are that, and THAT is all there is!

We are the universe experience itself.

You're running around trying to renounce claims of Zeus-like Gods asking everyone, "Where is this consciousness you speak of?"

Well, the Eastern Mystics are chuckling and wondering if you you've ever tried looking in a mirror for the conscious entity that you seek?

Jeanniebean tries extremely hard to get people to see this.

At what point did atoms, molecules, cells, and lower lifeforms suddenly and magically "transform" into a conscious being?

There could not have been a "sudden" transformation. It all had to be 'thinking stuff' (as Jeannie puts it) all long. Sure, you might be able to point to some abstract concepts of "sentience" or self-awareness and say, "That must have been the LINE".

But what was it that suddenly became "aware" then?

The non-living atoms that evolved into a complex form?

How could non-living atoms suddenly realize that they exist in a complex form.

You say the following:



Well, if you believe in evolution then isn't this precisely what happened? Atoms slowly evolved to become gadgets that turned themselves on and are now having a party in a universe that would otherwise be totally DEAD and lifeless?

If you don't believe in a "God" of some sort then that's all we can be: Gadgets that turned ourselves on to have party!

But you just said that you don't think that's very likely.

~~~~~~

I personally don't blame you for wanting to reject the "God Hypothesis". Religious people have made the very notion of a "God" quite unattractive.

But that's only if you think in western terms of a "Zeus-like" type of God who is appeased by blood sacrifices and other such nonsense.

That's an egotistical God. That still leaves us as being nothing more than "Turned-on Appliances built to Serve God".

Eastern Mysticism is where it's at. Although I say that with "extreme abstraction" in mind. Some Eastern Religions can be as sickly and dogmatic as the western religions. They lose sight of the underlying concepts as well.

The bottom line for true "Mysticism" is "Tat T'vam Asi",

You are it!

But then don't forget, so is everyone else!

You can either view yourself as the head of a multi-headed "God".

Or you can think of yourself as a sentient toaster.

The choice is yours.

That's because you insist on your chosen definition of what "alive" or "life" means. I don't happen to agree with your definition.

Also if you know nothing about quantum mechanics, but you want to have a scientific discussion about God.

WOW that just seems strange.

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. How about this?

Why does the universe NEED to be alive?

What observable phenomenon does a living universe explain that isn't explained already?

Holographic 3d image is made of a pattern.

Light simply makes that pattern visible to us.

Without light the pattern still exists.

without the pattern no amount of light will bring forth the image.

The actual image is light projected from the pattern.
The photon is light
A particle is light.
This reality is light and sound.
Vibrations from a pattern.
These things are supported by science.


This is a thought universe.
A dream.
A universe of vibration.
That vibration is Chi, a vibration of Love.


Hence my poem below.

There has always been a war
raging where we could not see,
and someone is keeping score
in the branches of life's tree.
There has always been a peace
in the silence at the core,
as we wait for the release
of the burdens that we bore.

There has always been a hope
when the last of it seems gone;
and no one knows the scope
of the pattern that is drawn.

And the history of the game
written in the worlds above
will forever be the same;
for there has always been a Love.

~jeanniebean



L.O.V.E. Stands for Law of Vibrational Energy.
Hence the last line of the poem:

"There has always been a law of vibrational energy."

As for who creates this reality:(GOD)


You are the ONE


The truth is Darkness, there is no light;
But don’t despair in dark of night.
You are the ONE to make it right;
Bring forth creation; embrace the sight.

The Love is ONE and Light is Life.
You are the ONE in peace or strife.
Bring forth the light, let your heart shine.
For all is love, and love divine.

Bring forth the light; it comes from thee.
The truth of darkness cannot be.
You are the ONE, there is no night.
You are the ONE, bring forth the Light.

To dream is life, and not -- to die;
Bring forth the light and live the lie!
For Light is Life, and Love, the breath,
Tis at this door choose life or death...

For Light is Life, and Love, the breath,
Tis at this door choose life or death...

Now,you're just being obtuse.

You and Abracadabra Have only attempted to obfuscate the the discussion with rhetoric. If this forum had an ignore feature I'd put you both on my list.

There are no unexplained phenomenon that a living universe would explain.

Not only blind but

It doesn't NEED to be alive.

It's just the face that it IS alive!

And we're it!

"We're it" meaning that we are BOTH "alive" and we are "the universe" both in whole and in part.

We are the universe in "part" because we are each experiencing an individual perspective that physically appears to "separate" us from other perspectives of the universe.

We are the universe in "whole" because there is nothing else we can be? In other words, all of what we are is the universe. There is nothing that is "you" that is not also "the universe.

So if you are "alive" then so is the universe.

So the universe doesn't NEED to be alive.

It's just an experiential fact that it IS alive!



What has already been "explained"?

Has it been explained precisely what it is that is "experiencing" being alive?

Are you completely confident that you know precisely what "you are".

Please then explain it to me?

What are you?

An "emergent property" of a bunch of otherwise lifeless atoms and molecules?

Then what is it that is experiencing this life?

The non-living atoms and molecules that have created this "emergent property" to emerge?

That might be an answer for you, but it seems rather absurd to me.

So then I ask again, "What are you?"

Nothing more than an abstract notion of an "emergent property" created by a bunch of non-living atoms and molecules?

Sounds pretty strange to me. What sense does it make to say that an abstract idea like an "emergent property" can experience anything?

~~~~~~

On the other hand, if you allow that the entire universe (and perhaps even things beyond this universe) is some sort of "living entity", now you can imagine that this living entity is having some sort of "dream" which produces this physical universe, and it is this dreaming entity that is experiencing all of this.

That's the idea.


Let me ask your same question again and re-answer it a second time:



Why should an abstract concept of an "emergent property" be any more convincing than an abstract concept of an "eternal spiritual dreamer".

If you cannot give a conclusive argument why one should be more believable than the other, then how can you dismiss one so readily and refuse to dismiss the other?

~~~~~~~

So in the spirit of a true desire to better understand your views I would ask for your explanation or reasons why you feel that an abstract idea of an "emergent property" should be given more merit than an abstract idea of an "eternal spiritual dreamer".

Can you offer a rational argument why one should be given more merit than the other?

I'd be interesting in hearing such an argument.

And I would be extremely impressed, and find it quite interesting if you could actually produce such an argument that is truly compelling.

If you can't, then surely even you must conceded that these two ideas are indeed in stalemate with one another?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that I can trump one over the other either. However, based on everything I know that latter seems more plausible than the former. In other words, for me, I feel that it's more likely that we are some sort of "eternal spiritual dreamer" than merely an "emergent property" in an otherwise lifeless bunch of debris.

I have both intuitive and scientific reasons for favoring the position I choose. But I confess that I cannot prove it to be correct and true. However, I do hold that I can show where it is indeed a plausible idea in the face of all scientific knowledge that we currently have. That doesn't make it true, but it allows that it's plausible. And therefore it's wrong to suggest that such an idea is "unscientific".

And that's good enough for me.

TexasScoundrel,

I can certainly understand your disgust of spiritual (and religious) ideas. In the face of ugly proselytizing religions that demand that everyone must accept that some blood-thirsty God has his son butchered on a pole and you must CONDONE that act on your behalf in order to have these sick demented God forgive you.

Those kinds of religions are enough to turn a person against any notion of spirituality for the rest of eternity. They can actually create the most hardcore atheists around.

I sympathize with that situation.

But this still doesn't justify a stance that any and all ideas of a spiritual essence to reality is non-scientific. That simply isn't true.



Well, like I say, I disagree.

I don't care how complex atoms and molecules can evolved to become. There is no reason they they should suddenly "awaken" and be able to "experience" their situation just because it became extremely complex.

And if the atoms and molecules aren't what is experience this complex situation then what is experiencing it?

That phenomenon has not been explained and cannot be explained in a universe that made of nothing but "dead" inanimate matter.

But if the entire universe itself is already the MIND of a living entity, then this explains just what it is that is 'experiencing' life.

So I disagree with you that there are no unexplained phenomenon that a living universe would explain.

I believe that a living universe would indeed explain something that cannot otherwise be explained.

So clearly we differ on that point right there.

And I'm sorry to hear that you would "delete" my posts so that you don't need to be bothered with my views.

I certainly consider YOURS!

I wouldn't even bother to read and reply to your posts if I didn't.

I'm not saying that your views are necessarily wrong in general. Perhaps we are somehow and emergent property of inanimate stuff.

All I'm saying is the following:

1. It's NOT unscientific to consider other possibilities that have not yet been ruled out by science and are still within the realm of scientific possibility.

2. As far as I'm concerned, the idea that we are nothing more than an "emergent property" of totally inanimate matter, isn't any more convincing to me than the idea that we are a dream of some "eternal spiritual mind".

Both of these have at least as much merit as the other, and I personally feel that the eternal spiritual mind has more merit than the idea of an emergent property of inanimate atoms.

After all, you would still have the problem of explaining where those inanimate atoms came from to begin with. So how can you speak of your ideas as if they 'explain' something any better than these other ideas?

1. The universe came from nowhere.
2. The spiritual dreamer came from nowhere.

They both seem equally absurd to me, and therefore they both have equal merit because at least ONE of them must be TRUE.

So where do you get off thinking that one has more merit over the other?

By the way, you might want to stop and think about your statement here.

Is this really true in any absolute objective sense?

Do you honestly feel that everything has been explained to your satisfaction? If so then perhaps that is true for you. But maybe other people are not as easily satisfied?

Could merely be a subjective opinion on your part perhaps?

"The actual image is light projected from the pattern.
The photon is light
A particle is light.
This reality is light and sound.
Vibrations from a pattern.
These things are supported by science."

Please forgive my differing...

That actual image is light projected through the pattern...

The photon carries only a portion of the signal our vision sees.

The other portion is the pattern of dark between the photons...

With out both we see not.

to much light blinds as well as not enough.