The Universe out of Nothing, and, HIV out of the Laboratory

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Friday night, on Larry King (CNN), there appeared, a Jesuit priest, Deepak Chopra, and Leonard Mlodinow. Mlodinow is from Cal Tech, and is the co-author of Stephen Hawking's new book. I didn't see the whole show, but, from what I saw, Hawking and Mlodinow have determined that it is possible for something to appear from nothing. Apparently, "nothing", is an unstable state (I think, he meant, an unstable "quantum" state). So, according to physics, it is possible, that the universe, just happened. The two are saying that God is not required as a first cause. Mlodinow, seems like a friendly average guy, who you would meet on the street. You would never guess that he is anyone special.

Mlodinow, will be on Coast-To-Coast (radio), http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ , this Wednesday night. He appeared on the show before, although I didn't know it. I think he probably will be fun to listen to. For those of you living on the faraway and exotic continents, I'm not exactly sure how you can hear the show. But, I think you can do it somehow, using the Internet (I know approximately nothing in this area).

When Mlodinow said that, "nothing", is an unstable state, I think I would have asked him how "the state of 'nothing'", can have the attribute of being, "unstable". I guess I would say, that it seems to me that, "nothing", should have no attributes at all, otherwise, it ("nothing"), must instead be, "something". But, I could be wrong, maybe my idea is only a word game. However, when Larry King was asking him questions (and Larry King knows nothing about physics), you could see that it was very easy for him to ask Mlodinow simple questions, which Mlodinow could not answer simply. You could see that Mlodinow saw the humor in the fact that Larry King could cause him to not know how to respond. He took it good. It was sort of like when a 5 year old asks an adult a question, and, after the adults answers it, the child keeps saying, "Why?". Soon, the adult finds it impossible to make his explanation any clearer.

Another thing which Mlodinow mentioned, is that as far as he is aware, no physicist has the vaguest notion, of what, "consciousness", is. (It's much easier to study a phenomenon from the outside looking in, than, from the inside looking out, yes?)

Last night, on Coast-To-Coast, Ed Haslam was on the show (the show was a rerun). He connected the development of the polio vaccine (which was done in New Orleans), to a linear particle accelerator, and to the assassination of JFK. The vaccine was developed using monkeys. Millions of doses were given to Americans (including me), I think, in the early 1960s. Apparently, in some batches of the vaccine, along with, came a cancer causing virus, SV40. The events Haslam talked about were all interconnected in a complicated way. My impression is that he believes the HIV virus, originated in the United States (the official story is that it originated in monkeys, yes?). It was very interesting. As is so often the case, his story is approximately the opposite of the government's story. (I think I've said this before, but, let me know, if you believe the official government story about any major event. If you do, you might be interested in buying London Bridge, which, I happen to own.)

(I think, interestingly, now, major governments don't even care if the citizens know that all of the government pronouncements, are lies. That's how contemptuous the governments have become of the people, how "neutered", they believe the citizenry, to be.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40

(They found "Dr. Mary" (link below), dumped on her bed, with one arm totally burned away, including the bones. She had been, "finished off", with a surgical incision, into the heart. (You've got to be careful, what and who you get involved with, yes or no?))

http://doctormarysmonkey.com/


:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

[kryton9]

Dan, scary stuff(virus story) for sure.

The Universe out of nothing, sounds just as silly as the big bang to me. Our greatest minds and they come up with these? The universe and nature are so beautifully elegant, I am sure the answer will be just as elegant some day.

[LanceGary]

Dan, scary stuff(virus story) for sure.

The Universe out of nothing, sounds just as silly as the big bang to me. Our greatest minds and they come up with these? The universe and nature are so beautifully elegant, I am sure the answer will be just as elegant some day.



Interesting. I know the story has been announced as though it were something new, but I don't think it is. See for example:

The Book of Nothing

by John D Barrow

Paperback: 400 pages
Publisher: Vintage; New edition edition (5 July 2001)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0099288451
ISBN-13: 978-0099288459

The blurb states:




From our modern perspective, it is easy to deride the wranglings of medieval scholars over the numbers of angels that could dance on the head of a pin and whether Nature abhorred a vacuum. But as John Barrow reveals in this timely and important book, new discoveries in science have shown that these scholars were right to suspect that Nothing has hidden depths. It is a concept shot through with paradoxes: even innocent-looking phrases like "Nothing is real" flip their meanings as we ponder them, like those illusions that look like a vase one moment, and opposing faces the next. Nothing is fertile too, as Barrow shows with a stunning trick that allows every number one can think of to be built out of nothing at all. But his book is about far more than mind games. Arguably the most important discovery of 20th century physics is that there is no such thing as nothing: even the tightest vacuum is teeming with sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence according to the dictates of quantum theory. Now many astronomers suspect that such "vacuum effects" may have triggered the Big Bang itself, filling our universe with matter. Indeed, the very latest observations suggest that vacuum effects will dictate the ultimate fate of the universe. As an internationally respected cosmologist, Barrow does a fine job of explaining these new discoveries. The result is a book that is required reading for anyone wanting to understand why there will be much ado about Nothing among scientists in the years ahead --Robert Matthews --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.



Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Lately, I've been more anxious about my own concerns, so, I have been listening more to Coast-To-Coast. To me, it is a form of escape. Too big a dose of reality at one time can be dangerous for mind and body, yes? We all need to escape from our ruminations and convictions of doom sometimes, correct? I know that in isolation I can convince myself that the future is black, but, I guess I am always wrong, since I still am here.

And, doesn't it make you angry, Kent, that there is a good chance that our own government is responsible for HIV? And, to make it worse, like always, it will never admit to what it has done. If it developed HIV, then it is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and, many people should go to jail for life. But, the responsible ones who are still living, continue to go about their lives, free as birds, and probably, without a care in the world. People like these make me think seriously about the Christian concept of Hell. To me, the biggest laugh would be, if people of this type get a big surprise after they die.

I agree that the Universe out of Nothing, intuitively seems like nonsense. The scary part to me is that, physics has shown that other phenomena which intuitively seem like nonsense, are true, for instance, the various consequences of quantum mechanics.

I agree, Lance, it isn't brand new. But, of course, the difference is, that now, Stephen Hawking is proclaiming it. To the mainstream media, his endorsement is almost as validating, as Lady Gaga's would be, am I right?

I have one problem with the synopsis of Barrow's book. I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference between, a "vacuum", and, "nothing". To me, in order for there to be a vacuum, there must be space. But, if I am correct, "nothing", means no space, no particles, and, no time. (And, to me, it would also mean, no physical laws, and therefore, one would be unable to say that the state of nothing, is unstable, as Mlodinow did.)

Concerning Ed Haslam's story, if I understood him correctly, he said they were using a linear particle accelerator in a New Orleans laboratory, to alter the DNA of a monkey virus. The accelerator requires a huge voltage. Dr. Mary Sherman was working on the project. I think this was around, 1962. Haslam believes she was intentionally shocked by the accelerator, which made her arm, "disappear". I guess she was still barely alive, so, whoever did it, then made a "surgical incision" into her heart. They then took her body back to her apartment, and dumped it on her bed. She was found naked on her bed, and, on fire. She had been stabbed many times, but, none of the stab wounds bled (except for the one to her heart), so, she was already dead. Additionally, there were holes in her underwear, corresponding to the locations of some of the stab wounds. So, after she was dead, she was stabbed, and then she was undressed. Haslam said it was a huge story in the New Orlean's papers for two weeks, and then, it disappeared forever. None of the the newspaper accounts mentioned a word about her missing arm. That's as far as Haslam got with the story, on the radio. I guess to find out more, for instance, the motivation, one would have to read his book. (So, however bad things are, at least we're not Dr. Mary Sherman, right?)

Dan

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I listened to Mlodinow on the radio, last night. From what he said, and from recent remarks by Hawking, I think what they are saying is that the law of gravity, "exists". It exists, independently of everything else. Whether or not there is space, time, or matter; gravity, "is". Therefore, somehow, the state of, "nothing", is unstable. The result is that something (the universe - space, time, matter), can simply appear, resulting in a state, which is stable.

He also said that according to their calculations, there is not just one universe, but, approximately, 10^500 (How they got 10^500, perplexes me. Intuitively, I would think that an infinity of other universes would be more likely.). The physical constants are different for each universe. We live in a universe, in which the constants have values which permit life like us to evolve.

Apparently, their calculations come from, "M-theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

They played a remark by Hawking, in which I think he said that it is impossible for us to ever have any contact with any of the other universes.

George Noory, the host, asked Mlodinow, what caused gravity. He replied that the question is beyond the realm of physics. Mlodinow said that concerning this, Hawking says only, that without gravity, there would be nothing, instead of something.

(Do you think that now the Pope will quit and look for a job, and, everyone else will stop going to church?)

:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

[kryton9]

I don't think people who go to church will worry or leave their beliefs behind on these theories. Don't forget that what (Hawkings) is saying is counter to what he believed in the 1970's.

I too like you think that we either have infinite universes or ours is the only one. Setting a fixed amount of dimensions seems silly. Remember about 10 years ago, it was 11 dimensions they believed and now this huge number, but not infinite?

We should never have all the answers, we should always search and expand our minds, but without something else unknown out there, why exist at all? We need new frontiers for eternity.

I keep an open mind about whether there is or is not a God, but a God as in the Bible, I don't believe in as I don't believe in any one religion. But I do believe in spirituality, good and evil. I do think that we are spiritual beings, that there are good and evil forces out there. I think all of the major religions are based on things real or perceived real at the time, but over time got corrupted.

Look at 911. We had world wide coverage all day from many angles, many reporters on the ground. All video taped, presented in real time and look at all the unanswered questions, the inconsistencies in what happened. It is easier to believe the lies than the truth, because the truth leads to such terrible areas, that accepting the terror of that day is easier to swallow then to think of what could have happened.

Now imagine such an event back in biblical times. The few survivors of such an event, first they have to deal with the shock, do you believe what you just saw. Could it happen? Then those with powerful minds or who did the event come out and feed you what you need to hear. They restore normalcy as soon as possible. There version becomes the truth. No video tape, just word of mouth story passed on from generation to generation, how much truth can remain? Some, but not what really happened and why.

[zak]

science itself depends on unprovable basic propositions, so we can say that science depends on unscientific bases. so if religion depends on unscientific dialog also science depends on unprovable (default, natural, very basic) bases.
so at the end everyone are believer, do not forget that the atheists themselves taking themselves as granted , they are eating like the cat, smelling roses, experiencing vision, hearing music, while all those fantastic things are refering directly to a very deep and big reality, and the scientists from them are reducing those keys to biochemistry .
for me the universe can exist or deleted by the act of be or not to be
it can be edited by an unknown editor created here and deleted there ; montage and mixage, i have a proof 100% but alas a personal proof only, and like all the miracles it is always witnessed by a one person else the miracles will be a subject in advanced physics curriculum
indeed i have hesitated too much to publish the following story, but since the members of this forum are all friends and have good souls i decided to publish it.
i have a close encounter with the bizzare in the past it is just one strange phenomena i witnessed in all my life and i am now 56 years old. i have'nt witnessed before that or after that any clear physics (miracle).
between 1982 and 1996 i worked as a lab keeper in a secondary school, in 1982 while receiving the tools and supplies of the lab the previous lab keeper have cheated me by more than 1000 dollar of fake lab tools, one of them the apparatus called seismograph, the previous keeper refer to a box with a label seismograph so i checked okay on that item without looking inside the box ( i was so ill and tired and the lab was very big with many many items. indeed it is not so expensive relative of the other tools.
after a month i discovered that i was cheated and inside the box there was another materials and not a seismograph.
ok every week i was checking the records for the new items and the consumed, and always i come across that seismograph page ( every item have its own page) and even i remember that it is written in the seismograph page that this item copied from an older record no... page ... and also i checked that older record and it was there "seismograph"
remember that this memory lapsed about 13 years and every week.
now in 1996 i want to change my job, so before giving the lab supplies to other keeper i begin to check the records pages comparing it with the reality on the lab, but i can't find the seismograph page, okay everything is okay may be a two pages stuck together, and rechecked again, i can't find it, okay may be its page torn somehow, so i rechecked by looking at the pages numbers, the pages are in a correct sequence. also i checked the older record, there is no a seismograph there. i said to my self may be your brain are upside down now so i took the 5 big records with me to the home, to check it slowly .
no way, there is no seismograph in the records,
the situation are very hard on my brain, if i was dreaming, how it could be that it is one dream only and spanned over 13 years, if i have a hoax, then why i hav'nt other hoaxes. impossible for me that this story can be false, and i told you i never saw a ufo nor an angel or a demon, and never hallucinating, it is the only unexplained phemomena i ever encountered.
so dan if you ever think that science have all the answers just remeber "zak unexplained phenomena", now i wonder if that page returned (from the sky) to the record, and the new keeper find a new item in his records from nowhere without a corresponding apparatus, i hope not.
also what if i took a picture for that page , and what happened to the item written on the backside of the seismograph page !! still a mystery.
i think the pop can continue his work.
i agree with kent that the universe (multiuniverses) ceased to exist if there are no mysterries in it, and the number of mysterres that must be for the universes to be are unlimited; this is a law.

[efgee]

With the following in mind:



[font=courier new][size=8pt]...they are saying is that the law of gravity, "exists". It exists, independently of everything else. Whether or not there is space, time, or matter; gravity, "is".


The following quote:



[font=courier new][size=8pt]
Therefore, somehow, the state of, "nothing", is unstable. The result is that something (the universe - space, time, matter), can simply appear, resulting in a state, which is stable.


does not make any sense at all ;--)

:read:

If gravity IS (independently of everything else) the space where gravity acts is NOT unstable; because there is gravity.

Together with gravity comes the law of GRAVITY and with that THERE IS ORDER.

It seems to me that humans are not intelligent enough to comprehend what KIND OF ORDER, that's why they call it UNSTABLE.


In the universe we find all kinds of energy transformations (energy to mass, mass to energy etc) but you will always have SOMETHING and not NOTHING.

:shock:

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]"If gravity IS (independently of everything else) the space where gravity acts is NOT unstable; because there is gravity."

efgee, I think they are saying that gravity exists, even if there is no space for it to act in. (Now that I think about it, if I am correct, according to physics, then, if there is no space, there automatically must also be no time or matter. Time and space are connected in "space-time". And, without space, where could matter be?)

It seems to me that Hawking and Mlodinow do not explain "where" gravity (the law of gravity) resides, if nothing besides it exists. In other words, how can there be a law which governs universes, when there are no universes for it to govern? If there are no universes, then, all that remains, is, "nothing", yes? So, then, I guess, gravity would be classified as part of nothing. Does that make sense? I think they have substituted gravity for God, as, a "first cause". They are saying that gravity exists outside of space-time. The same thing is said about God. And, their theory is not self-contained, they admit there is something which is eternal, gravity, which started everything else. And they admit that they cannot explain the existence of it (gravity).

My view of Hawking is that he likes to make pronouncements, which are partly designed to be provocative, he likes to elicit strong reactions, whether positive or negative. If I remember, a long time ago, he predicted that within 20 years, physics would find the theory which explained everything. That didn't happen. And now, by saying that gravity, "is", it seems to me that he is implicitly admitting that physics cannot say why it "is", or where, it "is", especially in the case when, nothing else, "is".

More later, but only my speculations.

Dan

[kryton9]

@Zak, thanks for your story. It is a real mystery what happened? I do believe miraculous things happen, how they happen I have no idea. There are exponentially more unkowns for everything known, and that is a great thing.

@Dan and efgee, One thing I don't understand is that Hawkings and Associates make these announcements after working for years on mathematical equations. They are not just philosophical announcements. How is that? Is the math wrong? Can math lie? How did the math lead to 11 dimensions a decade ago and now such a vastly different amount now?
Perhaps math at the physical level is different than math at the quantum level and that there can be no unifying theory? And math in one universe is different in another?

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Kent, if you look at the link for M-theory (above), you'll see that it says that our universe has 11 dimensions. We know about 4 of them, right? Space has 3, and time is another one. According to M-theory, there are 7 other dimensions, which are invisible to you and me. M-theory also says that besides our universe, there are approximately 10^500 others. Somehow, M-theory unites 5 previous versions of superstring theory. There is nothing wrong with the math. The question is whether the theory corresponds to reality. I think that for any theory concerning the universe, you have to begin with some assumptions about the nature of the universe. The math then proceeds from those assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, then what the equations predict should be correct. Apparently, one criticism of M-theory, is that it appears to be untestable. So, in that case, a person might ask, what good is a theory which can neither be proved nor disproved? Here are two more theories, which I think cannot be proved or disproved. 1) God exists. 2) God does not exist. So, a person might also ask, what good are these two theories?

Similarly, Hawking and Mlodinow are positing 10^500 other universes, while simultaneously saying that it is impossible for us to ever have contact with any of them. I could do something similar. I could say there are a thousand ghosts living in my bedroom. No one could either prove or disprove it. I wonder if Hawking, and other physicists, begin by wanting science to be the answer for everything, thereby eliminating God. Then, they look for a theory which supports what they want. The problem they have is that this universe seems like it was designed precisely for life like us to evolve. And, people associate that design, with the concept of God. The physicists can eliminate this problem if this universe is only one of many, each of which has different conditions. In that case, most of the universes, would have no life at all, but, if there are enough, then, some of them would have conditions similar to ours. It's the same idea about planets, just extended to universes. Most physicists believe that life exists on other planets besides our own. They believe this primarily because, there are so many other planets, and, they don't see any reason to believe that our planet is special. So, they can do the same thing with universes, if there are also many others besides ours. The difference is, that we can observe other planets, but, the physicists are saying that the other universes are there, but we can never have any experiential knowledge of them. In that case, should we accept their existences by faith?

zak is saying that he never received the seismograph from the previous lab keeper. The box labeled "seismograph", did not contain one. The previous lab keeper had cheated him. But, he saw the record of the receipt of the seismograph in the record book, again and again over the years. Then, when he was finally going to quit his job, he found that the record had disappeared. The pages in the record book were numbered, and none were missing. The only way I can think of that someone could do it, is if he had the technology to exactly replicate the book, while deleting the seismograph page, and renumbering the pages after it. (Of course, it would be quite difficult to exactly replicate an old hand-written book, yes?) In that case, he replaced the real book, with the replication. If the guy was advanced enough to know when zak was quitting the job, and to replicate the book, then, he probably could also know about, and substitute a different page image on a photograph. The next question becomes, who (or what) was, the previous lab keeper? I've heard many similar stories over the years on the Coast-To-Coast radio show.

[kryton9]

That was really well written Dan. Again you bring up some things that open up the discussion even wider.

11 Dimensions, 10^500 universes and impossible to have contact with any of them. Does contact mean in our 3 or 4 dimensions, or that in none of the 11 dimensions can there be contact?
How can they say that we can't contact the other universes? If they exist and we exist, then there must be a connection somehow. Without that connection, how can they know they exist?
Lots of food for thought.

About Zak's strange experience, those were good questions and ideas you came up with. The length of time that this went for would indicate it wasn't a hoax. And a $1,000 dollars worth of equipment is not that much money, not even by 1982 standards. Perhaps the old keeper needed the equipment for his own purposes or he was covering up for some students? But none of this explains the changes in the book and how that could be.

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]
To locate you or me on the surface of the Earth, it requires 2 numbers (coordinates), for instance, latitude, and longitude. If the latitude and longitude are
measured precisely enough, then, we can be exactly located, wherever we are. So, we say that the Earth's surface is two-dimensional. (We could use another
coordinate system instead of latitude and longitude, but the dimensionality doesn't change, it will always require two coordinates to locate a point on the
Earth's surface. Dimensionality does not depend on the coordinate system that you use.)

If we are standing somewhere on a line (not necessarily straight, but let's say that it doesn't cross itself, to make it simpler), painted on the floor, then,
we can be located with 1 number, so we say the line is one-dimensional. How would we do it? We choose any point on the line, and call it 0, and we choose a
direction on the line, and call it the positive direction. The other direction is then the negative direction. To find our coordinate, we measure from the 0
point, along the line (we have to decide on some unit of length - feet, meters, etc.), following the exact curvature of the line. So, our coordinate could be,
57.23475, or -1694765.8362547, etc.

If we are flying in a jet, then it requires 3 coordinates to locate our position. We could use latitude, longitude, and height above the Earth's surface. If we
draw a straight line from the jet to the center of the Earth, then we can find the latitude and longitude, from where the line intersects the Earth's surface.
The third coordinate would be the jet's height. So the spaces and volumes we are familiar with, are three dimensional. (They must be at least three dimensional,
because, our bodies are three dimensional.)

The 4th dimension that we are familiar with, is time. In order to find a jet in flight, besides three spatial coordinates, we also need to know when it is at
those coordinates. The same applies for us on the Earth's surface, or standing on a line, we need to know both the location, and the time.

According to M-theory, besides these four dimensions that we know, any universe also contains 7 other dimensions, for a total of 11. If it wasn't for the
physicists, we wouldn't know these other 7 dimensions exist. I have no idea what causes the coordinates of these 7 other dimensions to change.

Anyway, if I am correct, the extent of each of the 11 dimensions of a universe, is confined to the universe.

Say, we have a red line and a blue line painted on a gymnasium floor, and the lines don't cross each other. I am on the red line, and you are on the blue line.
The red line is my one dimensional universe, and, the blue line is your one dimensional universe. Then, both of us are confined to moving back and forth on our
lines. According to physics, we cannot move off of our respective lines. So, it is impossible for either of us to get from our universe to the other.

The same thing applies to real 11 dimensional universes. It is impossible to travel from one universe to another, because there is no dimension which connects
one universe to another. In order for there to be a "path" from one universe to another, there would have to be at least one dimension that is common to both
universes. And, according to M-theory, if I am not mistaken, that cannot be. So, there is no possible path which connects one universe to another. And,
questions such as this, have no meaning, -->

"Which way, and how far, is the nearest universe to ours"?
(There is no "way", there is no distance, and there is no "nearest", since there is no connecting dimension, and therefore, there is no path.)

Even light cannot escape from the universe in which it originates.

(Concerning your last question, part of the criticism of M-theory, is that while it claims 10^500 other universes, it also claims that it is impossible for us
to ever verify, even 1.)

(It's confusing, I don't think I can explain it any better.)

:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Here is a quote from a book, "The Dimensional Structure of Consciousness", by Samuel Avery, 1995, Compari, Lexington Kentucky, p. 13-14.

"Science cannot give us a complete picture of life because it can do nothing with the part of experience beyond its own realm of study. Most scientists admit
there is no way to understand 'subjective' phenomena in any scientific manner. What we actually experience within our own consciousness will never be
experienced by others in any objective manner, remaining permanently beyond the bounds of science. Scientists try very hard, in fact, to keep the scope of their
inquiry clear of subjective phenomena in order to avoid the taint of opinion or prejudice.

What do we do, then, with the very real yet untestable part of reality to which we cannot point? Must we admit that there is one reality for what 'we' see, and
another for what 'I' see? Are we forced to conclude that there are separate and distinct realities that meet only at the surface between brain and mind? From a
philosophical, theological, or psychological standpoint, this is entirely unsatisfactory. But it is just what we have been doing for the last three and a half
centuries.

Within the last century it has become unsatisfactory from the scientific point of view as well. In physics, there is no longer a strict separation between
subjective and objective. In each of the enigmas mentioned in the introduction and discussed later in this book, the 'role of the observer' must be taken into
account in order to understand the physics involved. In relativity theory for instance, an observer sees a rapidly moving object become shorter, gain in mass,
and move through time more slowly only because his 'frame of reference' is moving relative to the object. An observer moving with the object (in the same frame
of reference) does not experience these dilations in space, time, and mass. In quantum mechanics, it is the act of observation itself that determines the
outcome of an experiment. Extremely small particles pop into existence at indeterminate locations in space and time only when they are observed, where they are
(or if they are) in between observations cannot be determined. In modern physics things do not just happen in an empty, dead universe - there has to be
somebody, or something, observing an event for it to have physical meaning. This comes as a big surprise to physicists, who, until these effects were
discovered, assumed that consciousness was an unnecessary appendage to the material world.

A clue to the relationship between consciousness and physics is that the enigmas mentioned above are not noticed in everyday life. They occur only at
dimensional extremes: at extreme velocities, with extremely small particles, or in extremely strong gravitational fields. They happen where a space dimension is
extremely large in relation to time (near light velocity), where space and time are extremely small (quantum mechanics), or, interestingly, where mass is
extremely large (general relativity) or extremely small (quantum mechanics). Also, each of these effects involves distortions, discontinuities, or
interconnections of space, time, or mass. (It is impossible, for instance, to know at the same time a subatomic particle's location in space and its momentum.)
There is something fundamental, therefore, about the relationship between consciousness and the dimensions, something that we miss in the middle latitudes of
space and time.

I will make a suggestion now as to what it is that we have missed. We assume that consciousness is inside space and time. We think of it as a complexity of
neural processes somewhere in our heads. If we turn this around and think instead of dimensions within consciousness, a continuity develops between what we call
subjective and objective phenomena. Dimensions of space and time contain what we call 'objective' phenomena: objective experience is dimensional, subjective
experience is not.

There are problems with this, of course, not the least of which is that it does not make sense after a lifetime of assuming the opposite. But I will try to
prove in this book that this is a better and simpler way to understand what we experience in modern physics, and in everyday life."

I think the basic idea of his book is that, instead of consciousness being something within the universe, the universe is something within consciousness.
He also says that instead of consciousness being something within life, life is something within consciousness.
All of our seemingly separate consciousnesses, are actually parts of the same thing, maybe, "The Universal Mind", that Jim Morrison sang about.

:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

[kryton9]

I think many people intuitively sensed or imagined the existence of other dimensions long before the current theories. The last 5 years, I am hearing about and it seems more and more areas of the physical and metaphysical are converging to point to the conscious mind. I always had a hard time with those concepts. Just as I do with small balls of light doing incredible controlled moves and also time travel and all the paradoxes it creates.

On another note, I listened to a rebroadcast of a Hugh Hewitt show from earlier this week. He had the Jesuit(Father Robert Spritzer) that you talked about in the first post on. It was very interesting to listen too.
Here is a short description of the broadcast. But it was funny how he had so many well known physicists (Cambridge, Harvard) that countered with Hawkings.
http://hughhewitt.com/blog/g/eca711b1-6270-468c-bbe5-286e3d44711a

Father Robert Spritzer's site.
http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]Two good refutations of Hawking, from Father Spitzer's site.

(That's what I said earlier. Hawking likes to make pronouncements which elicit extreme reactions. Now, I've seen Mlodinow once on TV, and heard him once on
radio. Both times I got the impression that he realized by releasing the book, Hawking and he had metaphorically, "stepped in the sh*t". Any time someone said
that they were eliminating God, Mlodinow, "backpedaled". He wanted to do all he could to avoid being caught in the, "meat grinder". So, I think, in a certain
sense, Hawking and Mlodinow could be said to be trying to, "have one's cake and eat it too". They plainly made the provocation, but when confronted, insist,
that's not what they meant.)

Both of these articles point out that when Hawking says, "The universe came from nothing.", he is implying, "nothing", not in the sense of, "nothing", but
rather, "nothing", in the sense of, "something". I think some people would accuse him of intellectual dishonesty, like the guy who hides the pea beneath one of
three shells.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/blog/?p=39