We are all gods

[phfreak]

In quantum mechanic's experiments, like the double slit experiment,t it can be shown that the act of observing an event effects the outcome of that event. So I was thinking maybe we all collectively create the reality in which we live and in essence we are all the architects of the universe. Without any conscious being the whole universe would exist in superposition without anything definite ever happening.

[bufbiker]

But then comes the question where did intelligence ultimately come from? Non-intelligence can not breed intelligence. My point being that there must be an ultimate intelligence from which all intelligence comes.

[Gopro]

And if in fact we were all collectively living and creating our own reality, then how can one live in unison, with one another and not affect the ultimate outcome of the persons next to us? But then again order is created from chaos!!

[exphys88]

But then comes the question where did intelligence ultimately come from? Non-intelligence can not breed intelligence. My point being that there must be an ultimate intelligence from which all intelligence comes.

Oh geez. There must be a super duper ultimate intelligence from which ultimate intelligence comes...

[phfreak]

But then comes the question where did intelligence ultimately come from? Non-intelligence can not breed intelligence. My point being that there must be an ultimate intelligence from which all intelligence comes.
Who is to say that the universe itself at its fundamental level is not the ultimate intelligence? I don't see the need to push the cause of intelligence to some sort of God, which you could ask the same question about, "who created God? Can you see the fallacy within the argument that intelligence must have come from other intelligence? Either intelligence was spawned out of non-intelligence or intelligence itself is woven into the fabric of space time. Trying to say that some intelligence outside of the universe created intelligence within the universe seems rather arbitrary since there is no evidence for this and no way to test it. A theoretical quantum physicist named Amit Goswami seems to believe that the universe itself at the fundamental level is simply consciousness and all the information that is held within the universe. He has written books on the subject that are quite fascinating. I agree with him on this idea. I think that we are the universe itself become conscious within itself in order to explore and understand itself. This awaking of the universe within itself is accomplished through evolution.

[exphys88]

Who is to say that the universe itself at its fundamental level is not the ultimate intelligence? I don't see the need to push the cause of intelligence to some sort of God, which you could ask the same question about, "who created God? Can you see the fallacy within the argument that intelligence must have come from other intelligence? Either intelligence was spawned out of non-intelligence or intelligence itself is woven into the fabric of space time. Trying to say that some intelligence outside of the universe created intelligence within the universe seems rather arbitrary since there is no evidence for this and no way to test it. A theoretical quantum physicist named Amit Goswami seems to believe that the universe itself at the fundamental level is simply consciousness and all the information that is held within the universe. He has written books on the subject that are quite fascinating. I agree with him on this idea. I think that we are the universe itself become conscious within itself in order to explore and understand itself. This awaking of the universe within itself is accomplished through evolution.

Exactly my point. I knew where he was going w that post too.

[jurgensplurgen]

of course non intelligence can breed intelligence, check out some peoples parents.

[bigdude]

I don't know what y'all been smoking but I want some please and thank u...lmao

[exphys88]

Lol at the last 2 posts.

[hanuri]

I don't know what y'all been smoking but I want some please and thank u...lmao


nicely put , lol

[Misterb]

But then comes the question where did intelligence ultimately come from? Non-intelligence can not breed intelligence. My point being that there must be an ultimate intelligence from which all intelligence comes.

this is the speculation that makes you believe it to be so, but why can't one cell become two and so forth until what you call intelligence is formed. self awareness makes us feel so important . We have a need to believe some greater purpose placed us here, infact we are simply animals. no more important in this planet than a fea

[Gopro]

this is the speculation that makes you believe it to be so, but why can't one cell become two and so forth until what you call intelligence is formed. self awareness makes us feel so important . We have a need to believe some greater purpose placed us here, infact we are simply animals. no more important in this planet than a fea

Nicely put Breh!!! Agreed.

[tbonexl]

This shit is way over my head!

[bufbiker]

this is the speculation that makes you believe it to be so, but why can't one cell become two and so forth until what you call intelligence is formed. self awareness makes us feel so important . We have a need to believe some greater purpose placed us here, infact we are simply animals. no more important in this planet than a fea

Show me the verified then duplicated science.

[phfreak]

Show me the verified then duplicated science.

Are you asking for the evidence for evolution? While it would be impossible to reproduce the single celled organism all the way up to mankind, the evidence for evolution is staggering fossil records, dna, predictions that evolution has made and then later were proven to be true ( an example of this is the hypothesis that humans have 23 chromosomes because our ancestorers who had 24 chromosomes fused 2 chromosome into one. This has since been proven, by the evaluation of DNA) . The fact that main stream religions teach against evolution and a 6,000 year old universe remind me of the trial of Galileo who had scientific evidence for the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but the church condemned him to live in house arrest the rest of his life because there doctrine claimed the earth was the center of the solar system. There have been experiments that have successfully shown that amino acids, the building blocks of DNA, could easily have been created during the formation of earth or possibly on another planet. Considering how vast the universe is it seems likely that somewhere in the universe these amino acids would form the first single celled organisms. After that it is simply survival of the fittest for these self replicating single celled organisms to evolve into multicelled organisms. This process of survival of the fittest has a wealth of evidence and evolutionary changes within a species have been document so we know that this happens in nature. Modern religion is doing what it always has done by denying scientific discoveries if they don't line up with their holy book that was written by men thousands of years ago. I believe there is a correlation between the high percentage of religious people in the US and the low scores in Science our country produces. Claiming religion is the authority over science is absurd, but it is a belief held by roughly half of all US citizens.

[exphys88]

Are you asking for the evidence for evolution? While it would be impossible to reproduce the single celled organism all the way up to mankind, the evidence for evolution is staggering fossil records, dna, predictions that evolution has made and then later were proven to be true ( an example of this is the hypothesis that humans have 23 chromosomes because our ancestorers who had 24 chromosomes fused 2 chromosome into one. This has since been proven, by the evaluation of DNA) . The fact that main stream religions teach against evolution and a 6,000 year old universe remind me of the trial of Galileo who had scientific evidence for the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but the church condemned him to live in house arrest the rest of his life because there doctrine claimed the earth was the center of the solar system. There have been experiments that have successfully shown that amino acids, the building blocks of DNA, could easily have been created during the formation of earth or possibly on another planet. Considering how vast the universe is it seems likely that somewhere in the universe these amino acids would form the first single celled organisms. After that it is simply survival of the fittest for these self replicating single celled organisms to evolve into multicelled organisms. This process of survival of the fittest has a wealth of evidence and evolutionary changes within a species have been document so we know that this happens in nature. Modern religion is doing what it always has done by denying scientific discoveries if they don't line up with their holy book that was written by men thousands of years ago. I believe there is a correlation between the high percentage of religious people in the US and the low scores in Science our country produces. Claiming religion is the authority over science is absurd, but it is a belief held by roughly half of all US citizens.

A man after my heart.

People don't understand that a scientific theory is not a theory like we all know the definition of. It's not a hypothesis, but a proven explanation for some phenomenon in the natural world.

Germ theory is a perfect example. We know that diseases are caused by germs, ie bacteria and viruses, yet we still call this a theory. Not because it hasn't been proven, but because in science, scientific theory has a whole different meaning.

The US is so far behind the rest of the world in terms of science. It's astounding that so many here believe that evolution is some conspiracy that encompasses nearly every scientist from all areas of science including biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, astronomy, anthropology, and genetics. All of these sciences are in Percy agreement that evolution has been proven. Hell, even the Vatican has admitted it to be fact.

[TexxGearsRep]

I hate getting into this subject so I won't! It is much too touchy and can alter ones perception of life! Makes it worth just leaving alone.

[Misterb]

remind me of the trial of Galileo who had scientific evidence for the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but the church condemned him to live in house arrest the rest of his life because there doctrine claimed the earth was the center of the solar system..

So no crystal spheres out there with rods holding them up..bummer ! :)

[bufbiker]

Are you asking for the evidence for evolution? While it would be impossible to reproduce the single celled organism all the way up to mankind, the evidence for evolution is staggering fossil records, dna, predictions that evolution has made and then later were proven to be true ( an example of this is the hypothesis that humans have 23 chromosomes because our ancestorers who had 24 chromosomes fused 2 chromosome into one. This has since been proven, by the evaluation of DNA) . The fact that main stream religions teach against evolution and a 6,000 year old universe remind me of the trial of Galileo who had scientific evidence for the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but the church condemned him to live in house arrest the rest of his life because there doctrine claimed the earth was the center of the solar system. There have been experiments that have successfully shown that amino acids, the building blocks of DNA, could easily have been created during the formation of earth or possibly on another planet. Considering how vast the universe is it seems likely that somewhere in the universe these amino acids would form the first single celled organisms. After that it is simply survival of the fittest for these self replicating single celled organisms to evolve into multicelled organisms. This process of survival of the fittest has a wealth of evidence and evolutionary changes within a species have been document so we know that this happens in nature. Modern religion is doing what it always has done by denying scientific discoveries if they don't line up with their holy book that was written by men thousands of years ago. I believe there is a correlation between the high percentage of religious people in the US and the low scores in Science our country produces. Claiming religion is the authority over science is absurd, but it is a belief held by roughly half of all US citizens.

And the fossil evidence for the "missing link" is where? Still missing. You'd think they would find at least one specimen since they seem to have found multiple specimen of every other kind of life all the way down to single celled organisms.
Monkeys are still monkeys. I've never seen one evolve into a human, nor has anyone else in the history of mankind. Maybe because monkeys were made like man but still made as monkeys.

[jurgensplurgen]

what missing link? the very statement reflects a lack of understanding of evolution and physical anthropology. its not a straight line leading from "most primitive" to "more better".

[Clearfocus]

In quantum mechanic's experiments, like the double slit experiment,t it can be shown that the act of observing an event effects the outcome of that event. So I was thinking maybe we all collectively create the reality in which we live and in essence we are all the architects of the universe. Without any conscious being the whole universe would exist in superposition without anything definite ever happening.

Having dabbled in physics, the idea which you are speaking of was warped by a movie called the Rabbits Hole. The reason viewing a particle like in the double slit experiment changes the particle is because these particles are very sensitive to viewing instruments. In order to view something of that size, you must use another particle to bounce off of it effectively changing the quantum state of the particle. The trick is to view the particle indirectly to avoid changing said properties. Some "educational" films have effectively sensationalized this in the wrong way.

[jurgensplurgen]

:yeahthis: what the bleep do we know probably lowered the average viewer's IQ while making them feel smarter

[phfreak]

And the fossil evidence for the "missing link" is where? Still missing. You'd think they would find at least one specimen since they seem to have found multiple specimen of every other kind of life all the way down to single celled organisms.
Monkeys are still monkeys. I've never seen one evolve into a human, nor has anyone else in the history of mankind. Maybe because monkeys were made like man but still made as monkeys.

It takes many generations for evolution to have a noticeable effect, you can't seriously expect to see it in front of your own eyes. And as for missing links look into Homo habilis it is a clear stepping stone between apes and humans and this is not the only example of your so called missing links. If you look into any field of science you will find that the evidence supports evolution. Do you think that all this science is some sort of conspiracy? Before you go around denying a scientific theory be you should look into the enormous amount of evidence that supports it. I think its pretty absurd to expect to see every step in the evolutionary process in the fossil records considering how rare the creation of a fossil is. The fact is the evidence we have and the fossil records we do see support evolution, and their is no scientific facts that deny it. I didn't start this thread to discuss evolution since really there is no debate in it. I would much rather discuss the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.

[exphys88]

:yeahthis: what the bleep do we know probably lowered the average viewer's IQ while making them feel smarter

Lol, I thought I was the only person annoyed by that movie. "The secret" was another. Their basic premise, if true suggests that the Jews somehow created the holocaust for themselves, or could of willed their way out of it.

[jurgensplurgen]

i wanted to walk out of the theatre it pissed me off so bad, but then I would miss deepak telling me how science is just magic with fancier words

[phfreak]

Having dabbled in physics, the idea which you are speaking of was warped by a movie called the Rabbits Hole. The reason viewing a particle like in the double slit experiment changes the particle is because these particles are very sensitive to viewing instruments. In order to view something of that size, you must use another particle to bounce off of it effectively changing the quantum state of the particle. The trick is to view the particle indirectly to avoid changing said properties. Some "educational" films have effectively sensationalized this in the wrong way.
So you are saying that it is not the act of conscious observation that effects the particle but the method used to observe the particle that causes the change in the quantum state from a wave to a particle? Would it be the photon used to observe the particle that causes the change? IS there any way to prove that the method of observation rather than the observer causes the particle to fall out of a state of superposition? Either way the fact that these particles can behave like waves or particles is rather fascinating. Do you have any good books you could recommend on this subject?

[exphys88]

And the fossil evidence for the "missing link" is where? Still missing. You'd think they would find at least one specimen since they seem to have found multiple specimen of every other kind of life all the way down to single celled organisms.
Monkeys are still monkeys. I've never seen one evolve into a human, nor has anyone else in the history of mankind. Maybe because monkeys were made like man but still made as monkeys.

Lol, at the monkey question.

Just a FYI:
We didnt evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

Another FYI:
There is no missing link. That's a term created by people who haven't taken the time to read a basic biology book.

[Clearfocus]

So you are saying that it is not the act of conscious observation that effects the particle but the method used to observe the particle that causes the change in the quantum state from a wave to a particle? I don't recall my professor mentioning anything about this, but if its true it would really change my own understanding of how quantum particles behave. Do you have any good books you could recommend on this subject?


Its possible you misunderstood your professor, or he has radically different different beliefs than most in the scientific community. Not saying he is wrong because science is continually improving and what we have today is a very limited understanding of the universe. I'll have to go through my old books to find a good source for you to refer to regarding experiments like these. Bottom line, conscious oberservation is NOT what effects the particle. It is the instruments used in viewing. How can you view a photon or similar particle without instrument? And if your professor really is teaching this, I would question his credentials, and go further and assume he teaches at a community college and not a university. To put it very accurately, the idea suggested by "what the bleep do we know" or the rabbits hole that another member helped remind me of, is preposterous.

[Clearfocus]

** with our current understanding that is.

[phfreak]

Out of curiosity is there any experiments that show that the effects on the particles is caused by the equipment rather than the fact of conscious observation? It seems to me this would be a difficult experiment to create, but scientists have created some amazing experiments in the past. The idea that the equipment used to measure the particle is the cause of the change from a wave to a particle seems to be a lot easier to grasp then having consciousness play a role, but considering many of the weird phenomena that occur on a quantum level I don't think it can be dismissed, even though the idea is extremely bizarre, unless we can prove that in fact it is the instruments that cause the change through experimentation how could we know? If there is this type of experiment I would love to read about it. I would still consider myself a novice in this area but I am extremely interested in learning more and would appreciate any guidance in finding sources to further my knowledge. This is not my main field of study, and I don't really intent to get any more formal education in this subject at my university. I am Computer Science major.

[Clearfocus]

It's called the observer effect. Google that and I'm sure you can find several studies or if your university has an academic journal catalog.

[Clearfocus]

Small quote "An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a single electron proved sufficient as an "observer" — there is no need for a conscious "observer".[7"

[Gopro]

oh my, this is getting in depth!!

[bigboithetank]

This conversation fucks with me head, I hate hate headfucking. What ya'll been smokin?

[bigboithetank]

If we were all Gods, we could command fire to come out of our hands and we could set the White House on fire and take over the Illuminati.

[bronco]

If we were all Gods, we could command fire to come out of our hands and we could set the White House on fire and take over the Illuminati.

Or we could find rhino and fuck him up

[bigboithetank]

Or we could find rhino and fuck him up

HAhahahaha! True.

[hanuri]

If we were all Gods, we could command fire to come out of our hands and we could set the White House on fire and take over the Illuminati.

and funerals would be nonexsistent

[jagger81]

Maybe it's just me, but I understand that we really don't know anything at all, our existence is unique. We have no frame of reference where knowledge is concerned because we have made it all up. Our knowledge is all based off observations made through the very limited means of our senses. We've only gotten better at measuring what we can already measure... I guess it all comes down to this , the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all. True friendships, having a baby, loving unconditionally, these are accomplishments by my own standards. Almost everything else just seems like social or environmental conditioning. We think we have achieved so much, but most are lacking such basic human needs. I am one of them, trying to find the right path.

I hope you all are living life to the fullest,
-JD-

[animal87]

I skimmed through this. Everyone has their own beliefs and that's fine. The thing that gets me is evolution is taught to be a absolute fact. For something to be a fact that mean its true, not half way true, or a truth full of holes. The thing is evolution and most scientific theories can never be proved to be 100% true there will always be another question or missing piece of info. What does that make evolution? A belief aka religion the only religion that can actually be proved 100% to be man made.

Just another little piece of info most fossil records do not show gradual changes from animal to animal. It is almost always a drastic change in a very short period of time to fairly different animal. So either its not true or evolution occurs fast enough it would happen quickly enough to be observed by humans.

Regardless of all that, my point it people should be respectful just bc you dont believe the same thing doesnt mean you are right or they are wrong, and evolutionists should accept they observe a religion not an all powerful disputable fact bc there is no way to prove it is.

[Dick]

Nothing with the word religion can be 100% proven brother.

[black-dragon]

In quantum mechanic's experiments, like the double slit experiment,t it can be shown that the act of observing an event effects the outcome of that event. So I was thinking maybe we all collectively create the reality in which we live and in essence we are all the architects of the universe. Without any conscious being the whole universe would exist in superposition without anything definite ever happening.

The double slit experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light and extremely small things like electrons. Whether or not the outcome of an experiment is determined by the act of conscious observation depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. Yours seems to be the Copenhagen interpretation. It's probably the most popular interpretation, but is by no means overwhelmingly popular nor the only interpretation. Until there's a scientific consensus, making any speculation based on it is kind of like wondering what you're going to do with the $10,000 you're going to win at the casino next month.


Having dabbled in physics, the idea which you are speaking of was warped by a movie called the Rabbits Hole. The reason viewing a particle like in the double slit experiment changes the particle is because these particles are very sensitive to viewing instruments. In order to view something of that size, you must use another particle to bounce off of it effectively changing the quantum state of the particle. The trick is to view the particle indirectly to avoid changing said properties. Some "educational" films have effectively sensationalized this in the wrong way.

The effect of measurement apparatus by itself isn't enough to explain away those kinds of oddities in QM. Again, it crucially depends on your interpretation of QM.


I am extremely interested in learning more and would appreciate any guidance in finding sources to further my knowledge.

What's your maths/physics background like? You could probably read any of the undergrad intros to QM with as little as single variable calculus, some linear algebra and high school level physics. Some of the exercises might get quite tough, though.


Just another little piece of info most fossil records do not show gradual changes from animal to animal. It is almost always a drastic change in a very short period of time to fairly different animal. So either its not true or evolution occurs fast enough it would happen quickly enough to be observed by humans.

You're probably referring to punctuated equilibrium, which is just an alternate take on the mechanism of evolution. So even if it's true, it's still evolution. And keep in mind that a 'very short period of time' to evolutionary biologists is something like thousands to millions of years.


I've never seen one evolve into a human, nor has anyone else in the history of mankind.

But we can use genetics to look back into our history. And there's very strong evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29) that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

[Swolenone]

The only issue I see is that something cannot come from nothing

[mattnc98]

Nothing with the word religion can be 100% proven brother.

Amen but relationship with Christ can amen

[mattnc98]

The def. For relgion and insanity are the same. I'm against relgiousness. And we are little gods lower case meaning co heirs with christ. Look at middle east were.about to see gog and magog unfold lol. It's nuts

[mattnc98]

Just as time is the curse and we can't phathom eternity how can we phathom how it all began. I don't believe we was the 1st intelgent beings. That's proved in genesis. Tell me.why did God say be fruitful and multiply and key word replenish the earth meaning to fill again. And in matt. 12 depicts a defderence between Angela and demons. I do believe in the gap theory.

[2stones]

Brothers!
Thank you for allowing me to be apart of this board.

I believe that men will deceive us, I always point to our Father in heaven. Please go to him for the truth,I can only share what he has shown me .

We can learn from one another yet it is your responsibility to know what he he wants you to do.