Biocentric Universe

[Martin Harran]

I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
idea that consciousness develops from the universe. With a certain
amount of hyperbole, he claims that this is as revolutionary (no pun
intended) as the realisation that the earth orbits the sun rather than
the other way around.

His conclusion seems plausible to me but I'd like to hear any
counterarguments. All that the Wiki article about him offers is rather
feeble moaning like Daniel Dennett, claiming that "It looks like an
opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness]
happens at all" which ignores the fact that the exact same criticism
can be made of current theories on consciousness. particularly in
regard to qualia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

Anyone got any alternative counterarguments?

[broger...@gmail.com]

His is certainly an emotionally appealing suggestion. My main problem with it is that when quantum mechanics says, in popularized form, that knowing something about a system changes the system (and thus suggests consciousness is key) what it really means is that the physical things you have to do to the system in order to know something about it change the system.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 2 May 2022 03:23:47 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:56:04 AM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
>> his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
>> only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
>> function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
>> argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
>> the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
>> idea that consciousness develops from the universe. With a certain
>> amount of hyperbole, he claims that this is as revolutionary (no pun
>> intended) as the realisation that the earth orbits the sun rather than
>> the other way around.
>>
>> His conclusion seems plausible to me but I'd like to hear any
>> counterarguments. All that the Wiki article about him offers is rather
>> feeble moaning like Daniel Dennett, claiming that "It looks like an
>> opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness]
>> happens at all" which ignores the fact that the exact same criticism
>> can be made of current theories on consciousness. particularly in
>> regard to qualia.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
>>
>> Anyone got any alternative counterarguments?
>His is certainly an emotionally appealing suggestion.

I'm not particularly interested in *emotionally* appealing aspects,
just the rationality behind what he says.

>My main problem with it is that when quantum mechanics says, in popularized form, that knowing something about a system changes the system (and thus suggests consciousness is key) what it really means is that the physical things you have to do to the system in order to know something about it change the system.

Are you saying that the system exists before the wave function
collapses?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yes. I don't think that's particularly controversial. The idea is that various states (spin up and spin down, for example) exist in a superposition until the measurement is made and then the wave function, which had previously consisted of a superposition of two distinct wave functions (eg 50% spin up and 50% spin down) collapses to a single wave function, either 100% spin up or 100% spin down. It is not the case that the system was at one point a wave and then collapses into a particle. It is simply that it was once a superposition of two waves and measurement forces it to be completely one or the other of the two waves. The wave function "collapse" in the Copenhagen interpretation is not about wave particle duality, but about changes in the wave function(s) upon measurement.

Superposition is nothing mystical, it simply means adding the two wave functions together to get a composite wave (just as the motion of a violin string is made up of a "superposition" of vibrations at the fundamental frequency, the first overtone frequency, the second overtone frequency, etc.

[Bill]

People will dispute the hypothesis because a conscious universe implies God.
That's enough to dismiss it without further consideration. However, it's
also impossible to imagine the universe as that's dead and inert, an empty
expanse unaware of its existence.

Conscious beings are conscious of something outside of themselves. They can
know what they're doing, they have motives and purpose. Because conscious
entities exist, their consciousness makes the universe consciousness. If
there can be conscious entities they are an integral part of the universe, a
constituent element just like electrons and planets.

The objection is what all this implies rather than any physical counter
evidence, philosophy rather than science.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

What do you mean? The implication that there is a God and that we conscious beings are central to the universe could hardly be more desirable or flattering. Such an implication is as likely to prejudice people in favor of the hypothesis as against it.

[Mark Isaak]

As I understand quantum mechanics, it is not so much the case that waves
collapse into particles (and, in other circumstances, particles act like
waves), but that particles *are* waves and waves *are* particles. Which
way you see them depends on how you measure them (or otherwise interact
with them), and that depends on the physical apparatus. Consciousness
enters only when the physicist chooses one apparatus over another.

Anyway, for Lanza's idea to go anywhere, he will need to define
"consciousness". I wish him luck with that.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Glenn]

And how about you? "Consciousness enters only when the physicist chooses one apparatus over another. "

[Glenn]

Are you not aware that some people would not wish a God to exist that would disapprove of their behavior and judge them? Of course you are. Your claim of a single implication is dishonorable. And you believe there is no God. Who'd a thunk!

[Glenn]

The two go hand in hand, inseparable.

But not all atheists are nutheads like those here.

"One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/coming-to-grips-with-the-implications-of-quantum-mechanics/

[Bill]

How one reacts to the implication matters less than the possibility that the
implication is unavoidable because it's true. The God hypothesis makes as at
least as much sense as the hypothesis that the universe has no
consciousness.

As I've pointed out before, the obvious fact that humans are both conscious
and intelligent, makes the universe conscious and intelligent. We are, after
all, part of the universe so we really can't ignore the contribution our
existence makes to the whole.

The origin of consciousness is the universe itself, something intrinsic and
fundamental. The problem for some will be that more thought is required than
mere disbelief or casual dismissal.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

"the implication is unavoidable because it is true"

versus

"The God hypothesis makes as least as much sense as the hypothesis that the universe has no consciousness"

Don't exhaust yourself by thinking too hard, but do you notice that "A is unavoidably true" is not equivalent to "The hypothesis that A is true makes at least as much sense as the hypothesis that A is false."?

[Bill]

It seems that most people are functional atheists who accept the popular
science version of reality with little thought. Atheism is a kind of default
because it's so easy requiring no intellectual effort; just accept the
common practice of indifference.

It's also true that many theists are settled in their certainty and feel no
need to think about what they claim to know. Claiming the imprimatur of
science as a justification for a belief merely postpones examining the
bigger picture. At some point one reaches a dead end where no current
explanations work, where genuine thought is required and flippant quips
expose only ignorance.

Bill

[Bill]

Two different statements. One is about an implication being unavoidable the
other is that the logic of different propositions can be equally valid.

Bill

[jillery]

You say above that the universe is conscious and intelligent because
humans are conscious and intelligent, and humans are part of the
universe. From that, it also follows that before there were humans,
the universe was *not* conscious and intelligent. Which means humans
could not have been the consciousness that produced the universe.
Which means that even if the universe is conscious and intelligent,
it's not humans that make it so.

I suppose you could stretch your meaning of "conscious and
intelligent" to include any living organism, to the first primitive
cell on Earth. But that merely moves the same problem back 4 billion
years or so.

I suppose you could presume life existed on other planets before it
did on Earth. But that merely moves the same problem back to the
formation of the first stellar systems capable of supporting life.
Whenever and whereever that happened, it did not happen before the
universe began.

The above shows that in order for any "conscious and intelligent"
entity to have produced the universe, it had to have existed *before*
the universe, and outside of the universe. This is a variation of the
Kalam Cosmological Argument. And the problem with that argument is,
it presumes without any basis that "conscience and intelligent" is the
only possible first cause, and it doesn't even try to explain what
caused said "conscious and intelligent" agent.

Clearly you need to put more thought into this.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

Clearly you do. Or not. "The origin of consciousness is the universe itself, something intrinsic and fundamental. "

[Bill]

My remarks are meant to apply to the time of the emergence of consciousness
- which may be limited to biological entities. There may be a non-biological
species of consciousness but there seems to be no way to know. We can know
that we (humans) contribute our attributes to the universe. Our
consciousness has become part of the universe.

We have no way of knowing what happened before the existence of the universe
and certainly not why; we have to infer the origins of consciousness from
what we presently observe. My comments did not mention a first cause.

Bill

[Martin Harran]

rrOn Mon, 02 May 2022 09:29:48 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
>> his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
>> only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
>> function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
>> argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
>> the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
>> idea that consciousness develops from the universe. With a certain
>> amount of hyperbole, he claims that this is as revolutionary (no pun
>> intended) as the realisation that the earth orbits the sun rather than
>> the other way around.
>>
>> His conclusion seems plausible to me but I'd like to hear any
>> counterarguments. All that the Wiki article about him offers is rather
>> feeble moaning like Daniel Dennett, claiming that "It looks like an
>> opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness]
>> happens at all" which ignores the fact that the exact same criticism
>> can be made of current theories on consciousness. particularly in
>> regard to qualia.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
>>
>> Anyone got any alternative counterarguments?
>
>People will dispute the hypothesis because a conscious universe implies God.

It does no such thing - consciousness preceding the universe may be
*compatible* with God but does not *imply* it. You claiming that it
does is the mirror image of the behaviour you attribute to other
people below.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 2 May 2022 03:51:19 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"

According to Lanza:

"In addition to the above, three separate major areas of quantum
theory make sense biocentrically but are bewildering otherwise. We'll
discuss much of this at greater length in a moment, but let's begin
simply by listing them. The first is the entanglement just cited,
which is a connectedness between two objects so intimate that they
behave as one, instantaneously and forever, even if they are separated
by the width of galaxies. Its spookiness becomes clearer in the
classical two-slit experiment.

The second is complementarity. This means that small objects can
display themselves in one way or another but not both, depending on
what the observer does; indeed, the object doesn't have an existence
in a specific location and with a particular motion. Only the
observer's knowledge and actions cause it to come into existence in
some place or with some particular animation. Many pairs of such
complementary attributes exist. An object can be a wave or a particle
but not both, it can inhabit a specific position or display motion but
not both, and so on. Its reality depends solely on the observer and
his experiment.

The third quantum theory attribute that supports biocentrism is
wave-function collapse, that is, the idea that a physical particle or
bit of light only exists in a blurry state of possibility until its
wave-function collapses at the time of observation, and only then
actually assumes a definite existence. This is the standard
understanding of what goes on in quantum theory experiments according
to the Copenhagen interpretation, although competing ideas still
exist, as we'll see shortly." [1]

Is he misrepresenting the standard understanding of what goes on in
quantum theory experiments in that last sentence?


[1] Lanza, Robert, and Bob Berman. Biocentrism: How life and
consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the
universe. BenBella Books, Inc., 2010.

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
>> his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
>> only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
>> function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
>> argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
>> the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
>> idea that consciousness develops from the universe. With a certain
>> amount of hyperbole, he claims that this is as revolutionary (no pun
>> intended) as the realisation that the earth orbits the sun rather than
>> the other way around.
>>
>> His conclusion seems plausible to me but I'd like to hear any
>> counterarguments. All that the Wiki article about him offers is rather
>> feeble moaning like Daniel Dennett, claiming that "It looks like an
>> opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness]
>> happens at all" which ignores the fact that the exact same criticism
>> can be made of current theories on consciousness. particularly in
>> regard to qualia.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
>>
>> Anyone got any alternative counterarguments?
>
> People will dispute the hypothesis because a conscious universe implies God.

No, why would it do that? For a suitably permissive definition of "god",
you could say that a conscious universe is a deity, which might make
some pantheists happy, but then the relation of the deity to us would be
similar to the relation between me and a microbe in my gut, so form a
theological perspective not particularly appealing.

[Burkhard]

and as was explained to you by lots of counterexamples at the time, this
is a logical fallacy. I'm a bi-ped, I'm part of the universe, therefore
the universe is a biped. Or: Stones are not conscious, stones are part
of the universe, the universe therefore is non-conscious, in direct
contradiction to your inference.

The axiom that you need for your inference, that a whole has all the
properties of each of its parts, is simply bonkers and clearly false.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yes, he is misrepresenting the Copenhagen interpretation, in the last sentence, and in the second paragraph.

If you are interested in QM there are several options

Leonard Susskind has a good book on QM in his "Bare Minimum" series. There's a certain amount of math to work through and it takes some time.

Alternatively Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video series that does not require you to do a bunch of math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJSfgE9LUJw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Mw3_tOcNI

I've linked the first two videos in the series (they are quite short). The second covers superposition.

There are many poor popularizations of QM which tend to feed into Quantum Woo, but Sussking and Hossenfelder are both very good, as is, Feynman in the third volume of "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" . That's a tough read, but if you really want to get it you can work through it slowly.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"The origin of consciousness is the universe itself, something intrinsic and fundamental. "

What is intrinsic and fundamental is, statements aren't true just
because someone says they're true.

[jillery]

The OP to which you replied *did* mention a first cause.
And your comments *did* include:

"People will dispute the hypothesis because a conscious universe
implies God."

A problem with your comment above is, a universe which evolves
"conscious and intelligent" entities does not imply God any more than
does a universe which evolves stars and planets.

Either way, your comments are self-contradictory and incoherent.

[Bill]

A first cause is a completely separate question to the origin and
development of consciousness. My point has been that the God hypothesis is a
valid and compelling solution to the question of origins.

Since so many attempt to explain their ignorance with elaborate conjectures
and believe that the more convoluted and complex the conjecture the more
believable it must be, the God hypothesis must be false. This is an
entrenched prejudice that answers no useful questions.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

The "God hypothesis" is not a hypothesis. It is not falsifiable. Every possible piece of evidence is compatible with it. Believing in God is something anyone can do whenever they want to and completely independent of any evidence. Physical evidence says nothing one way or the other about a generic "God hypothesis."

[Bill]

Laplace introduced this quip, claiming no need for it and I agree that it
applies in scientific investigations. Disregarding an hypothesis does not
render it false however. In this case falsifiability, it's just irrelevant
since it really can't be applied to an ignored hypothesis.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm not ignoring the "God hypothesis." I'm telling you that it is not a hypothesis at all. It is a claim which one can decide to accept or reject independent of any physical evidence at all. The fact that a claim about God is independent of evidence says nothing one way or the other about whether the claim is true or false.

[Kalkidas]

On 5/2/2022 1:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
> his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
> only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
> function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
> argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
> the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
> idea that consciousness develops from the universe. With a certain
> amount of hyperbole, he claims that this is as revolutionary (no pun
> intended) as the realisation that the earth orbits the sun rather than
> the other way around.
>
> His conclusion seems plausible to me but I'd like to hear any
> counterarguments. All that the Wiki article about him offers is rather
> feeble moaning like Daniel Dennett, claiming that "It looks like an
> opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how [consciousness]
> happens at all" which ignores the fact that the exact same criticism
> can be made of current theories on consciousness. particularly in
> regard to qualia.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
>
> Anyone got any alternative counterarguments?
>

Not me. I only comment that in his scheme, not only the universe, but
also quantum theory (and all theories of physics) must be a product of
consciousness.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"The origin of consciousness is the universe itself, something intrinsic
>>and fundamental. "
>
>
> What is intrinsic and fundamental is, statements aren't true just
> because someone says they're true.
>

Think of Plato's theory of forms, whereby there are templates for
everything. These templates are filled with physical stuff but it's the
template that determines the ultimate physical properties not the physical
stuff. Maybe, no one knows nor can anyone know, but it introduces another
level of possibility.

I imagine the universe as designed by what it can be rather than just an
infinite chaos of random accidents. I don't mind if no one agrees since it's
just one of the ways I envision the universe. The important fact is that no
one knows and, just as important, no one can know.

Bill

[Bill]

There's abundant evidence for God but it's mostly hearsay, the accounts of
long dead people. There were, for instance, up to 600000 Israelites who
witnessed the events of the Exodus and probably that many Egyptians so
copious evidence. Alas, none of them are alive today so we can easily ignore
their testimony.

The fact that the Jews existing today owe their existence to their belief in
the ancient accounts of their ancestors is evidence that the God that
established their culture is still believed to exist.

Not scientific of course but, so what? History is the long and rambling and
often irrational catalog of people and events that may be entirely fictional
but is generally accepted. The evidence for the existence of God exists but
can't be tested with the scientific method, just like, say, a cosmic
singularity prior to a cosmic Big Bang.

Bill

[jillery]

I agree, which means your God hypothesis is not the same as the OP's
God Hypothesis, which means your posts don't inform the topic or
anything anybody said in it.

>My point has been that the God hypothesis is a
>valid and compelling solution to the question of origins.
>
>Since so many attempt to explain their ignorance with elaborate conjectures
>and believe that the more convoluted and complex the conjecture the more
>believable it must be, the God hypothesis must be false. This is an
>entrenched prejudice that answers no useful questions.
>
>Bill

God hypotheses are easy ways to conveniently hide complex questions,
the least of which is the cause of God.

[jillery]

On Tue, 03 May 2022 18:45:28 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I imagine the universe as designed by what it can be rather than just an
>infinite chaos of random accidents. I don't mind if no one agrees since it's
>just one of the ways I envision the universe. The important fact is that no
>one knows and, just as important, no one can know.
>
>Bill

The consequences of what can be, and of random accidents, are not
mutually exclusive, as even random accidents are constrained by what
can be. So I have no dispute with that.

Perhaps your distinction above is based on "design" meaning
purposefully created by an intelligent agent. I acknowledge a
supernatural intelligent agent could have created everything to appear
as if they were consequences of what can be and random accident, and
there would be no way to prove or disprove it.

However, such a presumption makes no predictions distinguishable from
presuming what can be and random accident, by definition. And that
makes said presumption sterile and unnecessary.

[Bill]

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. A God hypothesis was,
no doubt, the first hypothesis contrived by man so it becomes the first to
invite the first controversy. Following that momentous discovery, people
tacked on all manner of novel interpretations and have argued ever since.

Even in this present age of supreme certainty, some very basic questions
remain. You seem to assume that this generation can disregard all earlier
generations and all their hypotheses. As an example, I've been wondering
about Plato's theory of forms and why it's wrong and why alternate theories
were accepted instead.


Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 May 2022 14:11:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Even in this present age of supreme certainty...
>
Are you certain of that?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[J. J. Lodder]

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been looking at Robert Lanza's ideas on biocentrism. The core of
> his argument is based on quantum theory telling us that a particle can
> only come into existence as a result of the collapse of the wave
> function which in turn only happens when there is observation. He
> argues that such observation can only come from consciousness and that
> the universe is therefore a product of consciousness rather than the
> idea that consciousness develops from the universe.

Yes, it is complete nonsense.
He doesn't understand the first things about quantum mechanics.

Not worth wasting time on,

Jan

[IDentity]

Don't get fooled by mainstream science into thinking that reality is
complex. Information - effect - is complex, but the cause of all
effect is simple to understand.

If you don't understand the simple truth behind all creation, all your
theories must necessarily be obscure and complex half-truths. There
are many ways to misinterprete reality, but only one correct
interpretation or truth. This is why there are over a hundred
interpretations of quantum physics, none of which are correct.

MIND/GOD is the primary cause of all effect, of all that which we call
physical reality and its processes. Start seeing things from that
perspective and everything will fall simply and elegantly into place.
Like the old greeks said: "Know thyself (you are MIND), and you shall
know God (and his MIND and work)".

Understanding this is also the key to understanding design and why
anything complex that looks designed implicitly must be.

Complex mathematical formula may be necessary when working practically
in physics and chemistry, but they are not necessary to understand the
simple fundamental laws and framework of reality. In fact there is
only one law, all other "laws" are derivations of that law in
different contexts. Likewise there is also only one force, which is
the power generated by thinking MIND.



From "THE UNIVERSAL ONE", BY WALTER RUSSELL

CHAPTER III - MIND, THE ONE UNIVERSAL SUBSTANCE

Mind is the universe. It is all that is, ever was or ever will be.

Mind is a substance, a material substance. The substance of Mind is
the foundation of creation.

It is the seed of the universe. In the seed of the universe is the
whole of the universe.

The substance of universal Mind has no beginning, no ending and no
bounds.

It is all intelligent, all-powerful and all-present.

The One substance is absolutely frictionless, temperatureless,
non-compressable, non-expandable, non-absorbent, non-reflectant,
nonresistant and non-refractive; but, potentially, it contains the
appearance of all these qualities through the dynamic action of those
opposing forces within it which cause it to be a thinking substance in
motion.

These qualities belong to motion and appear only through
motion-in-opposition.

They are not qualities which belong to the One substance. They are
appearances which disappear in the inertial plane of pressure
equilibrium which lies between any two masses; hence they have no
existence other than as an appearance of existence.

The cause of the appearance of change of the One substance is through
change of state, but change of state is not change of substance.
Change of state is not an attribute of substance. It belongs to
motion.

It is an illusion of motion which creates the illusion of dimension.

The substance of Mind is the one pre-chemical substance which is the
source of all the elements and the compounds of the elements, all of
which are but appearances. These appearances register the action of
the process of thinking, and disappear back into their source of an
absolute temperatureless state of motion-in-inertia.

The material substance of Mind is an all pervading ether which is
indivisible, inseparable, indestructible, unalterable and
unchangeable; but potentially it contains the appearance of all these
dimensions of separability in the states of motion which register the
dynamic process of thinking.

The words "spirit" and "ether" are used to express the tenuity of the
dimensionless universe, as "solidity" is used to express the
compactness of the apparently measurable universe.

States of motion-in-opposition cause the appearance of change from the
state of motion-in-non-opposition or inertia, into the appearance of
separability into parts. This results in such effects of motion as
heat, cold, color, form, sex [polarity, +/-], growth, valence,
ionization, mass, gravity, radiation and many others.

These effects are not a change of substance nor do they divide, alter
or separate the One substance of Mind. They are but dimensions. All
effects have the appearance of dimension; they are in themselves but
dimensions of that which they appear to be. The cause of all effects
is dimensionless. Cause is existent.

Effect is an illusion of existence. It but appears to exist.

Change of state appears to change the character of the One substance,
but appearances have no existence.

Man is accustomed to appearances. Two objects exactly similar appear
dissimilar in perspective.

This is a universe of appearances all of which are relative, and not
one of which would have even the appearance of existence without the
relation of others.

Without the illusion of separability, space could not be.

Without events, time could not be.

Without motion-in-opposition neither heat, cold, color, sex, mass or
any of the effects of thinking could be or appear to be.

Without the variability of motion-in-opposition there could be no
appearance of variability in the chemistry of the One substance. Man's
many elements are but variances in states of motion-in-opposition of
the One unchanging substance.

They all appear to have separate and distinct characteristics of their
own in varying degrees, such as melting points, specific gravity,
atomic weight, volume, ionization, stability, valence, electromagnetic
charge, axial rotation, orbital revolution and many other
characteristics, which give them the appearance of being separate and
different substances.

They are neither separately created individual things nor are they
different substances.

Their appearance of separability and difference of substance is due
solely to the periodicity of states of motion-in-opposition.

The universal substance of light is a material substance of variable
motion which is due to the variability of opposition set up by the two
apparently opposing forces of action and reaction which constitute the
thinking process.

It is apparently shorn or torn into apparent particles of itself
during the process of creative thinking, but actually is unseparated
and undivided in the process of that shearing or tearing.

It is without form but potentially it contains all that man calls
form.

Form is but an appearance, an effect of motion-in-opposition.

The greater the opposition of the two opposing forces the greater the
rigidity of form and mass, and the more distinctive is its appearance
of existence.

All of those elements between the third gravitational and third
radiational tones, the atomic structures of which are very much
contracted in volume, and represent motion in maximum opposition, are
the hard, dense, heavy solids of great rigidity.

Such metals for example as iron, copper, gold, silver, manganese,
nickel and tungsten; the elements which form such compounds as
granite, quartz and flint; and those elements which form such precious
stones as the diamond, ruby and emerald; all these elements are made
up of light units in maximum motion-in-opposition.

They are very densely packed together in atomic construction, and very
closely integrated.

Their electric and magnetic orbits are in spirals of one plane and are
very much extended. Their melting points are very high. A study of the
charts will show this clearly.

The less the opposition of the two opposing forces the less the
rigidity of form and mass, and the more indistinct is its appearance
of existence.

All of those elements which, born near the inertial planes of their
octaves, indicate by their tonal position on their octave waves a
close relation to motion-in-inertia and a lessening degree of
opposition, are the softer, less distinct substances.

Such elements and compounds as lithium, bromine, sodium, chlorine,
salt, sulphur, potassium, iodine, tellurium, magnesium, strontium and
rubidium are formed of light units of less potential energy.

The atomic structure of these elements is not closely integrated, but
is open, nebulous and very much expanded. Their electric and magnetic
orbits are in spirals of many planes, approaching nebulosity in
appearance as their position nears their inertial planes. Their
melting points are very low. A study of the charts will show this
clearly.

Form, therefore, is not an attribute of the One substance and has no
existence other than as an appearance.

Form, like time, space, mass, color, weight, temperature and other
effects of motion is an attribute of motion only, and in no way an
attribute of substance.

Bubbles whirling in the substance of water have form. Their form is
but an attribute of their whirling motion and is not of the substance
of water. When the motion ceases form disappears, but the substance
remains.

Creation is merely a swing of the cosmic pendulum from inertia,
through energy, and back again to inertia, forever and forever. It is
but a series of opposing pulsations of action and reaction,
integration and disintegration, gravitation and radiation, appearance
and disappearance.

The One universal Mind is a formless, thinking substance.

If the One substance were not a thinking substance, that which man
calls creation would not have been.

That which man calls God is an ecstatic thinking substance, thinking
in continuity, thinking rhythmically, thinking with orderly variation
of intensity in measurable impulses throughout endless ages, in
endless space.

Thinking is an action which is the cause of all motion. It is a
process, a purely mechanical process, periodic in its evolution
through one cycle after another without end.

The process of thinking leaves the evidence of that process behind it,
registering the effect of its passage through the Ocean of the
universal Mind.

In its wake are myriads of rotating particles of the One substance
which register the thinking of Mind, just as in the wake of an ocean
steamer are myriads of tiny rotating bubbles which register the
passage of that steamer.

The many bubbles in the wake of the steamer produce an effect of foam
in the ocean's substance which appears to be different from the
surrounding substance.

It is the same substance but of less stability. The whirling bubbles
of foam owe their appearance of stability to motion. When the motion
ceases the bubbles will disappear.

The wake of the steamer is an appearance which we know will disappear.
It has no stability. It has only an appearance of stability.

The bubbles are apparently separate individuals possessing form and
motion which are apparently their own, but which we know are not their
own.

Their appearance of separateness we know is but an illusion due to
force and motion.

When the churning effect of the propeller has been dissipated, foam,
bubbles, wake and all will disappear into the mighty ocean of which
they are a part, and from which they have never been separated.

The passage of all thought through the tranquil ocean of universal
Mind may well be likened unto the passage of big boats and little
boats and all the winds of heaven upon the tranquil ocean of waters.

The passage of all these forces leave their effects in appearance upon
the ocean of waters, registering thereon in foam the idea of those
forces.

Without the exertion of these forces upon the tranquil waters, an
absolute uniformity of appearance would prevail throughout the ocean
of waters.

Without the force of thinking throughout the tranquil substance of
Mind, there would be no appearance of variability whatsoever in the
universe of Mind.

There would be no form.

The distinct spiral nebula of Perseus or the trail of the Milky Way
looming against the Ocean of Mind is exactly analogous to the foamy
wake of a steamer as viewed from a great height.

Both the wake of the steamer and the nebula of Perseus are appearances
due to the passage of ponderous ideas, and both will disappear back
into the substance of which they are a part.

The myriad whirling spheres of the nebula, its integrating suns and
solar system, its planets and moons, its asteroids and meteorites are
all whirling forms born of the churning propeller of the One Mind
thinking out this universe of ours.

Similarly the whirling spheres of the steamer's wake, with its big
bubbles, its lesser bubbles and its milky foam, are a line of white
against the deep blue sea, but not separate from the sea in substance.

The temperature in the wake of the steamer is higher than that of the
surrounding water. Similarly the temperature of the spiral nebula is
higher than that of the surrounding "ether" matter, because of the
heat energy generated by thinking and transferred to the whirling
spheres.

The law governing both bubbles and nebula is the same. The difference
between them is only relative in point of time.

Both disappear when they cease to whirl, for their appearance of
existence is due solely to the heat energy of motion.

A bubble may whirl for a few moments and a sun for a hundred billion
years before their generated heat becomes radiated into their
father-mother substance which gave them birth.

The difference in time is but relative, for time is nothing in
eternity.

When the bubbles have radiated their heat to the temperature of the
surrounding water, they cease all appearance of individual existence.
Their forms have disappeared with cessation of motion, but their
substance is as existent as the ocean is existent.

When giant suns have radiated their heat to the absolute zero of the
surrounding ether substance of Mind, they cease all appearance of
individual existence. Their forms have disappeared with the cessation
of motion, but their substance is as eternal as Mind is eternal.


CREATION

All form is generated from the One source of thinking Mind by a
preponderance of the concentrative, contractive pressures of the
centripetal force of thinking.

DECREATION
All form is radiated back into the One source of thinking Mind by a
preponderance of the decentrative, expansive pressures of the
centrifugal force of thinking.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-05-05 17:59:59 +0000, IDentity said:

441 lines of handwaving with no argument. Just "God did it; that's all
you need to know".

Wow!


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 09:53:32 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-05-05 17:59:59 +0000, IDentity said:
>
>441 lines of handwaving with no argument. Just "God did it; that's all
>you need to know".
>
>Wow!

My word!

[Martin Harran]

Dismissing something as nonsense is easy; explaining why it is
nonsense is often a lot tougher.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 03:17:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"

Just to note that I haven't abandoned this topic. I have watched the
Hossenfelder videos you linked to plus others; I have seen several of
these videos before as I have been a long-time fan of her exceptional
gift for explaining things in an understandable way. I must add,
however, that I find Sabine a bit arrogant at times. Not everyone
agrees with her conclusions - Sean Carroll for example, another
scientist whom I regard very highly, seems to differ with her in some
areas. I was also a bit taken aback by her assertion in Understanding
Quantum Mechanics #5: Decoherence
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igsuIuI_HAQ)
that almost one of two physicists believes
that the problem does not exist to begin with and her extravagant
claim "that if you watch this video to the end, you will understand
what half of physicists do not understand."

When I check the poll that she bases this on, it turns out that it
consisted of responses from only 149 physicists to a poll by a Masters
student and the author explicitly warns that "Of course one should be
very cautious in extrapolating the answers from the participants of
the survey, to represent the whole of the physics community. Even
though the sample size in this survey is significantly larger than
other surveys conducted in relation to the same topic, the sample size
is still too small." Over-hyping a limited piece of research like that
weakens rather than enhances her credibility.

Overall, I get the feeling that Hossenfelder is essentially trying to
dismiss a lot of stuff as just being mathematics (which seems to tie
in with what you said above) but that comes across as a bit of a
cop-out - at some point, those mathematics have to represent reality.
I accept that my reactions are based on a very weak grasp of QM and I
will need to do a lot more reading to come anyway near really
understanding the issues here. I'm interested enough to put in that
work so it's a topic I will come back to in the future, probably quite
a bit in the future!

[broger...@gmail.com]

Well if Sabine gets on your nerves (I know you didn't say anything remotely like that) you could always try Leonard Susskind's "Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum." It does assume you know some math, complex numbers, maybe a little bit of calculus, but it's not densely technical. It also comes with some exercises, which are helpful.

If you are up for it you could try volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. It is available free on-line

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html

The Feynman Lectures are unique. He designed them as lectures for undergraduates beginning physics, but I don't think they work all that well as an intro physics text. Sometimes his explanations are beautiful and very clear, and I think would be clear even if you don't love the mathematics; sometimes they are quite difficult. The first few chapters of volume 3 on quantum mechanics are pretty accessible.

There's also a good, free course from MIT on quantum mechanics. It's meant for physics majors so it rapidly gets pretty technical, but the first few lectures are good and won't drown you in math.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/video_galleries/lecture-videos/

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"

I've added the above to my reading list but it is getting longer by
the day! Quite high up on the list at the moment is "Something Deeply
Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime" by Sean
Carroll; if you're at all familiar with it, which would you recommend
first, that or Susskind?

>
>If you are up for it you could try volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. It is available free on-line
>
>https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html
>
>The Feynman Lectures are unique. He designed them as lectures for undergraduates beginning physics, but I don't think they work all that well as an intro physics text. Sometimes his explanations are beautiful and very clear, and I think would be clear even if you don't love the mathematics; sometimes they are quite difficult. The first few chapters of volume 3 on quantum mechanics are pretty accessible.
>
>There's also a good, free course from MIT on quantum mechanics. It's meant for physics majors so it rapidly gets pretty technical, but the first few lectures are good and won't drown you in math.
>
>https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/video_galleries/lecture-videos/

Physics and maths were two of my best subjects back in college days
but thats almost 60 years ago so I might struggle :(

[broger...@gmail.com]

Not familiar with it. Susskind is very clear, though, and does not particularly take a lot of time with which interpretation of QM he likes best (which, I gather is more what Sean Carroll does, in favor of many worlds). I personally think it's better to get the bare bones phenomenology and a bit of the math formalism well understood first before thinking a lot about the different interpretations.

[J. J. Lodder]

No doubt. In particular so when people
have developed a complete subculture about it.
(and make a living from producing more of it)

The self-cleansing ability of science stops
when a subculture has grown to such a size
that people in it start refereeing each other.
It will go on and on until the bureaucrats with the money bags
start to see that there is no progress coming out of the field.
(which may take decades)

So no, not arguing, just a hint not to waste time on it,

Jan