Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by badmedia

 

Wait did you just read what I said about animals being self aware? Lets talk about that. Please what are your thoughts on animals being self aware?

Here is some more good stuff.

FOR example.

The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10 to the 11th power (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10 to the 15th power synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 10 to the 14th power to 5 x 10 to the 14th power synapses (100 to 500 trillion).

en.wikipedia.org...

So we are talking about 500 trillion to a quadrillion different possible places for small bits of information to be transferred stored analyzed.

Again, I am not talking about the information. I am talking about that which experiences and observes the information.

WAT?

And you want me to explain to you exactly where and what part of that massive amount of computing hardware is the part that controls self awareness? Bro I am barely smart enough to type in a Google search.

Well, I create programs and such and work with google among other tech companies for a living. These are things I have studied and thought about for years. I went into it believing things like you do. I came out of it with an entirely different understanding.

I'm not even asking for specific things. Action and reaction, the laws of physics and so forth are logic. I am merely asking you for the logic behind it. You aren't giving me anything like that.

Here are some more good facts about the brain compared to information computation.

The number of neurons in the brain varies dramatically from species to species. One estimate puts the human brain at about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. Another estimate is 86 billion neurons of which 16.3 are in the cerebral cortex and 69 in the cerebellum.

By contrast, the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans has just 302 neurons making it an ideal experimental subject as scientists have been able to map all of the organism's neurons.

By contrast, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has around 100,000 neurons and exhibits many complex behaviors.

The more neurons a living creature has the more processing power it has.

Combine processing power with hardware like hands and feet and eyes and tongues and vocal systems that allow complex sounds

WALLAGH! Consciousness!

No, that is not consciousness. I don't really know what to tell you. It's like saying if you make a car or machine complicated enough, it's suddenly going to gain consciousness. It doesn't work that way.

All you are doing is using that the things are complicated as an excuse to justify your beliefs. It's along the same lines of when people say "god did it" when pressed for their beliefs they can't explain.

Using all those things you mention, it is possible for me to simulate and give the illusion of intelligence. But it is not actual intelligence.

Those things can not create logic. They can not understand, they only follow the logic given to it, and they do so 100% of the time because they have no free will.

It's like I'm asking you for the logic and understanding behind how a combustion engine works, and you are posting engine specs you copied and pasted off some website. I'm not asking for data about the brain, I am asking you about what it is that is using those things.

Example, the principle behind a combustion engine is the mixture of fuel and oxygen explodes, pushes a piston down which turns the crankshaft and produces power. I'm not asking how many spark plugs it has, I'm not asking for the correct ignition timing. I'm asking for the logic behind it. You know, the scientific thing you challenged me for?

I asked you a simple question multiple times now. Why do you refuse to answer it? What are YOU?

Science is great for describing the ride, but it says absolutely nothing of the rider.




[edit on 7/10/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Ok BadMedia I will try again. I understand what you are saying I am just having trouble explaining how I view it.

I GET that you are saying that you consider the mind mechanics separate from a higher observer.

To me it is NOT separate. It IS the complexity that is the observer. The driver IS the car.

Like when I talked about the worm only having a few Hundred Neurons it is only capable of performing a few actions or thoughts.

NOM NOM NOM this dirt is good, poop, NOM NOM NOM this dirt is good POOP

You are not going to get consciousness from a processor with so little capability. (Well maybe you compter guys could hack the Neuron and change its coding but IDK)

Throw in a new mobo and chipset and bios, new video card, add some optics and a microphone and a speaker and it becomes more possible.

We HAVE consciousness BECAUSE of the hardcore amount of processing power.

Let me try harder. Ok We are able to consider ourselves to have a consciousness because we have so many processes going on all at the same time VERY fast.

Like I said thinking about something is not simply thinking about it.

Think of your keyboard in front of you. It is not as simple as "I am thinking about my keyboard".

It is a combination of the billions of neurons forming and storing a HUGE amount of data on everything about keyboards coming together to create that though.

The alphabet.
The plastic it is made of.
The electricity that powers the keyboard.
The paint used to color it.
The amount of force that it requires to push down on each key.

So MANY MANY MANY different things come together to make something as simple as this.

THAT is who I am my, consciousness is complexity.

We are able to look at a mirror and understand that light is coming from the sun or a light switch that is powered by electricity and reflecting off of the surface and WHY it is reflective and WHAT that image is in the mirror. We are able to grasp that the image in the mirror is US.

We understand that shadows are caused by the light.

Our consciousness is our ability to process the information of the world and everything in it including ourselves at a very high rate of speed.

No separate driver.

YOU are the ghost in the machine. YOU are the combination of millions upon millions of different pieces of data either inherited through instinct or learned through exploration or taught through writing speech art and music.

A human child that is raised feral in the woods is NOT going to attack a mirror and think that it is something other than itself.

It will RECOGNIZE it because it is born with the brain processing power in order to make this leap.

Consciousness is not a grand separate entity. We are are hardware. We ARE how much information and processing power we posses.

Not enough information storage and processing to grasp the knowledge of the sun reflecting light onto a surface and recognizing yourself? Not enough to have consciousness.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
I agree with your position on consciousness. It's a biological outcome of natural selection...

The science is coming ever closer to identifying the imperatives and precursors that gave rise to what we call consciousness. Look at fMRI scans, split-brain studies and tool making.

Badmedia makes some good points. The idea that we are part of something much greater appeals to anyone with an imagination. However, relying on objective, evidence-based explanations of consciousness is the logical position.

Anything more adds unnecessary questions...just ifs, buts and maybes.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


The only think the extra complexity can do is give the illusion of intelligence and so forth.

If it's just a matter of if that can be done, then the answer is yes. I could program things which appeared to be intelligent, or what you would call "AI". In fact, I write "AI" all day long for work. I can even give them random personalities and all kinds of things.

Where as in the past people just said "God did it" when they couldn't explain something, you are just using "it's really complex" in it's place.

So I do not doubt that such things can be used to give the appearance of intelligence, to the point where we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But it will never learn, never understand and never be able to create logic. It runs off the logic given to it.

I guess this just proves you either get it, or you don't get it. But I know that my intelligence and so forth is not just an illusion and so forth.

But oddly enough, this is exactly the kind of things Jesus talked about.

John 3

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So it just comes down to the fact that you see yourself as only flesh. And as long as that is the case, you will never understand the things I say.

Show me how free will and choice can come from action and reaction. It is just not logically possible. If such is the case that we are just flesh, then we literally do not have any free will, and we do not have any choice.

Show me how from action and reaction you are able to get a feeling. Sure we can see and show where and how those feelings are triggered, but the feeling itself is just so much different.

All that you mention defines the experience, not that which experiences it. It's one thing to be aware of yourself when you look in the mirror. It's another when one starts to realize they are aware they are aware and what that means.

Anyway, the above about flesh and spirit is the reason you don't believe/understand. I'm not sure what else I can say to you as long as that exists. I can show you bible verses that talk about this, I can show you philosophers from ancient times who talk about this, and even movies like the matrix are talking about this. But if you can't see the difference between flesh and spirit, there is nothing I can say to you. Once day you will start to understand.

But truly, I am not talking about the things that define our experiences, just that which experiences it. The man behind the curtain, the ghost in the machine and so forth.





Good luck, one day it will come to you. That I can promise.

Well what do you consider Intelligence? If you do not consider the human mind as a computer that runs on Neurons and Electricity I think we need to find a better middle ground.

If you could explain to me what you consider the human mind and body to be?

I consider the body to be an organic machine. And the mind to be an organic computer.

I do not think there is a difference between the appearance of intelligence and actual intelligence. The programs you write are intelligence. Not organic intelligence but they are intelligence. Imagine what you could do with a computer that had 500 billion transistors in it?

What I am trying to point out is that Consciousness is REALLY complex. The ability to have thoughts that are considered to be self awareness or consciousness takes many variables into account.

Self awareness takes things like recognition of self, recognition of environment, making guesses and estimations, imagination and many factors and puts them into one thought. It takes a good rigg setup and amazing programming to do that.

When you mention free will and choice I have to argue that choice is our ability to use our awesome VERY powerful mind computer to weigh MANY factors all at the same time to arrive at a conclusion.

We make a free choice of free will based on variables. All of the knowledge we have about a choice all stored and processed in our mind.

We decide what is more beneficial. What is more risky. What will give us more pleasure. What would be best for the family. Etc Etc.

Feeling and emotion are chemicals combined with thought. No one is going to argue that heartache does not physically hurt. It can be painful. But it can be explainable.

I BELIEVE in consciousness. I BELIEVE in self awareness.

I also believe that if you wrote AI programs in your office that became self aware we would not be having this discussion

Well, I had a big long reply written out, and then my PC decided it wanted to fry itself so I lost it. Had to break out an older PC for now. But I'm just going to give a shorter reply this time.

Intelligence = the ability to create and understand logic.

AI = "Artificial" intelligence. It is called Artificial for a reason, because it is unable to the above. It appears and gives the illusion of intelligence, but it is only following the logic given to it by the programmer(actual intelligence).

You do not realize it, but all that you say about the brain and such could only ever produce artifical intelligence. Because it is all based on action and reaction, it has no free will to do anything beyond those actions and reactions.

I can create AI no problem. That is pretty much what all programs are, a form of AI. I could recreate, using logic, the universe, the bodies and everything you can see. But there is an element that will be missing, and that is the observer/consciousness.

These things are well known to those who work on AI. It's the reason it's called "Artificial" in the first place. The most advanced and progressive "AI" things don't even try to simulate such things, instead they work on trying to find ways to put peoples consciousness into it, as a way of living forever. Where they basically create all those neurons and such like the brain. And such is ultimately the conclusion I also gave to. At some point, in order to give it actual intelligence, I or someone has to put their consciousness into it. They try to recreate a machine that does all the things you mention, but still they realize they need actual consciousness for it to work and be intelligent/alive.

I personally stopped there, as I realized I was recreating that which was already created.

The bible straight up tells you that the universe is just a program. They didn't have computers back then, so it's in a different context, but today it should be easy for people to understand.

In the beginning there was the "word", that created the universe. The "word" is logic just like programs are created with words of logic. And then the "spirit", or "consciousness" of god, fills the creation and brings it to life.

Go ahead, create a program that is a simulation of the universe. It won't come to "life" until there is a consciousness there to observe it and be aware of it. Same thing.

[edit on 7/10/2009 by badmedia]

So what is Consciousness?

If you give consciousness a definition would it not be reasonable to say your definition will be a set of laws or rules that the human mind follows that could be applied to computer programming?

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
So what is Consciousness?

If you give consciousness a definition would it not be reasonable to say your definition will be a set of laws or rules that the human mind follows that could be applied to computer programming?

There honestly isn't even a definition of Consciousness that science agrees on. In the end, "consciousness" itself is somewhat of a misnomer, as it is also something which is a possession, and what we are really talking about is that which posesses, not a possesion. Of course, we have to have a way of communicating it, and so we just say "consciousness".

But it goes well beyond logic. It is that which creates logic, logic can not create it. Laws and rules are just logic. Therefore, there are no laws and such that could be followed and applied.

Such is exactly what I tried soo hard to do. I can simulate it. I can give the illusion of it, but in truth it would not be that.

How do you logically program a feeling? Now, we can program something that triggers that feeling, just a sensor there that says "hey, something here". But a "feeling" in itself is much more than that. It's not just an indicator of something, it's actual pain or pleasure etc.

And so like with pain and pleasure I figured well that's just a range of variables. But again it would still only be telling something which feeling to apply, and is not the actual feeling itself.

In the bible it is said we will be hated by this world because we are not of this world. And the above is the reason why. Rockets, robots and such are all based on this world/creation/universe. They work in action and reaction, and they have no free will. Because of that, they give power to those who control those things.

As "you" are not of this world, you have free will, understanding and so forth. You are not so easily controllable. If a rocket had choice, who knows where it would end up. It would just choose to go somewhere else, and no power/control for those who made it.

And so we live in a world of manipulation where every effort is made to turn you into a machine/AI. To take the choice factor away from you. To narrow your choices and such down as a means of control. Then, they can introduce certain actions, like an attack or whatever, in order to get the reactions wanted out of the people. At which point, choice becomes merely an illusion.

9/11 is a prime example of this. Nevermind who actually did it or whatever, in the end it was an action that was used and portrayed in a certain way as a means of getting people to react in the way wanted, which was to support 2 wars and a loss of freedom/rights.

Why do they need to do this? Because you have choice and free will. If you didn't, then it wouldn't matter and there would be no such thing as manipulation.

But you can not get choice from action and reaction, no matter how complicated those actions and reactions are. There is no way to program free will or choice. It is impossible. We can only create the illusion of it, or "artificial intelligence", with pseudo random numbers, which aren't really random at all because it's impossible to generate a random number with logic.

What does it mean to "sell your soul". Well, it means you give away your free will and choice in exchange for material possessions. You become a puppet under the control of others. Because that is what enables these things.

The war on god is the war on consciousness.

Madame Blavatsky wrote in 1877 in her book: Isis Unveiled, an interesting take on Darwin:

Darwin begins his evolution of species at the lowest point and traces upward. His only mistake may be that he applies his system at the wrong end. Could he remove his quest from the visible universe into the invisible, he might find himself on the right path.

reply to post by badmedia


A better question we can ask; what gave consciousness its start? Just like Einstein wanted to find the theory of everything and wanted to know the mind of God, so Hawking is attempting or wishing to do (perhaps without the God part).

The ultimate universal question would be; what was the start of everything?

We can add memory to the consciousness question, along with imagination. An interesting quote from Madame Blavatsky:

"Memory" - the despair of the materialist, the enigma of the psychologist, the sphinx of science.

Originally posted by bwinwright

The breakthrough research of Tim Harwood, David Wilcock, and others has now established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Darwin was wrong.

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Using the example of a Dolphin's Sonar, Tim Harwood demonstrates, undeniably, that
this complex organ could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. DARWIN WAS WRONG.

Darwin also said, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth MUST be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? This is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Harwood establishes the fact that these intermediate varieties, that form the very basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, are virtually non-existent. The fossil record is a highly accurate and detailed account of the development of life on Earth. It proves, without a doubt, that DARWIN WAS WRONG.

So, if Darwin was clearly wrong, making Dawkins clearly wrong, why hasn't this bogus theory been exposed to the world? Because it has never been about science. It has always been about religion. Darwinism is a twisted form of religion used to justify racism, genocide, imperialism, the Holocaust, and other forms of racial injustice.

Simply look at the original title of Charles Darwin's most famous work, "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, OR the Preservation of FAVOURED Races in the Struggle for Life." The title was later changed to Origin of Species for obvious reasons.

Darwin's Theory was applied to humans and called Social Darwinism, classifying some races to be inferior to others, making some races superior to others. This philosophy had a very strong influence over Adolf Hitler, a Vatican Puppet.

This Social Darwinism has been used to justify a lot of ugliness in our world. Darwin's Theory of Evolution stated that the formation of highly complex systems and processes DID NOT require the assistance of any form of intelligence, thereby making the existence of any form of God or Profound creative intelligence unnecessary.

Darwin and now Dawkins make the denial of any form of God or profoundly capable creative intelligence OK, Scientific, and fashionable for the most intelligent and well educated people. Darwinism has become the scientific evidence most atheists use to justify their atheism.

Darwinism has been proved to be FALSE, scientifically, so it is now just another destructive religion promoting false and destructive dogma, exactly like so many of the organized religions before them.

The truth is ORDER, like a Dolphin's Sonar, requires intelligent direction. Atheists falsely believe such order DOES NOT require intelligent direction.

Personally, I believe men like Dawkins are way too intelligent to actually believe in either Darwin or Atheism. I believe he is an integral part of the Tavistock Institute's agenda to create greater division within the mass consciousness, making it easier for
the ruling elite to enslave and control the useless eaters.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4 Jul 09 by Gools]

Darwin was not wrong, his conclusions were just incomplete. I can prove evolution is real to any one. Get an infection,and don't take the full course of antibiotics. Or take antibiotics for the hell of it and see what happens. You have a chance, more if your in the hospital, of developing a "super infection". Where do you think flesh eating bacteria came from? The bacteria was not killed, it adapt, and thats called evolution. The one area Darwin did miss and I don't blame him for it, is what we call punctuated equlibrium(Forgive spelling). This is when a dramatic, and abrupt change happens to an organism in just one generation. Most of the time we call this a mutation.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
So what is Consciousness?

If you give consciousness a definition would it not be reasonable to say your definition will be a set of laws or rules that the human mind follows that could be applied to computer programming?

Btw, I'm watching a show called "brink" on the science channel, and the topic is AI and robots. The expert on the show was talking about how computers will eventually be implanted in us, and a way of putting our consciousness into a computer to live forever. He also talked about being able to back up the data in our brains like a computer does, and talking about bring things to life.

The host was very good and brought up the "philosophical question" of consciousness. He asked if he was actually all that data and such in the brain. His reply was basically no, and that consciousness and philosophy is the base of our moral foundations and that there are things beyond science.

People who work in this field generally get an understand what I am talking about. It's a problem anyone who thinks seriously about intelligence and recreating come across. It's known and so now the focus is on putting peoples consciousness into the computer for immortality.

It comes on the next 2 days, same episode if you want to catch it. I didn't see all of it, just that part. But I didn't see and doubt he went into much detail as I did above.

science.discovery.com...

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by badmedia

 

A better question we can ask; what gave consciousness its start? Just like Einstein wanted to find the theory of everything and wanted to know the mind of God, so Hawking is attempting or wishing to do (perhaps without the God part).

The ultimate universal question would be; what was the start of everything?

We can add memory to the consciousness question, along with imagination. An interesting quote from Madame Blavatsky:

"Memory" - the despair of the materialist, the enigma of the psychologist, the sphinx of science.

It didn't start. It's eternal, always has been and always will be. Any "time" before it is nonexistent as there was no consciousness there to perceive it. As there was nothing to observe, then nothing existed.

These are very deep questions that is beyond logic, so it's really something people have to find out for themselves. But when they do that, then they will realize/understand why death is not real.

But in a nutshell, it is impossible for it to not exist, as what is there to know it doesn't exist and observe it? "Time" is a part of our limited perception. No perception, no time etc. It is eternal. Of course, as always don't take my word for it, it's a personal journey. Meditate or think deeply on it.

If consciousness did not exist, then what would there be to perceive it?

reply to post by bwinwright


If dolphins were created by god and didn't evolve why did god give them pelvic bones which they don't use.Evolution covers this since they used to be land animals.But it really wouldn't make any sense if they were created would it?

reply to post by dragonridr


I don't think most of us are challenging evolution except the more staunch of the orthodox religions. Many of us here are not even religious! The point to be addressed is; who or what jump started life? Even when we are speaking of abiogenesis. The molecules and crystals got a start or were created at some point.

Evolution needed a jump start, along with the big bang. So, who or what created the singularity in the cosmos? According to the M Theory it was 2 membrane parallel universes bumping into each other in waves which created matter where they hit. As a result of them hitting it would create the big bang. Or, this variation; super symmetry where the universe was like one whole ball, 13.7 billion years ago. One coherent with one super force glued together by super symmetry, which led to spontaneous symmetry breaking which = the big bang.

So possibly parallel universes hitting each other explains a big bang potential but then we are back again to the question of; where did these universes come from and where did they get their start?

Consciousness with a power behind it would be a very big clue in answering these questions and no doubt is where Einstein was headed. Here is a good quote (I'm loving quotes lately!):

When you start thinking about the tensions between science and the religion, where this tensions comes from I think is at times when religion or science forgets a little bit what it's good at and loses a little bit of it's humility and becomes a bit arrogant. Not every question has an answer that can be answered experimentally with a measurement or a test. And those really aren't questions for science to explore. Those are for other areas of human knowledge and human enquiry. - Michael Dennin, Ph. D, Prof. of Physics UC Irvine

reply to post by badmedia

It didn't start. It's eternal, always has been and always will be. Any "time" before it is nonexistent as there was no consciousness there to perceive it. As there was nothing to observe, then nothing existed.

Exactly. As Einstein said once to the effect; "If I turn away from the moon will it still be there if I cannot see it?"

Using our puny minds to attempt to reason on this is really ludicrous.

These are very deep questions that is beyond logic, so it's really something people have to find out for themselves. But when they do that, then they will realize/understand why death is not real.

If one considers that you cannot destroy matter, it just reshapes itself. Energy is in everything.

If consciousness did not exist, then what would there be to perceive it?

And think on "light" and how if it operated any other way, we would not have the sight that we have! It would be completely distorted, so we would not even be able to perceive what we can now. When we look into the cosmos, we see very little randomness. Prof. Machio Kaku describes it as a beautiful symphony taking place within our universe.

When asked what conciousness is... badmeadia says "its really complex". After roasting you for hours over that same thing. Soon machines will be making decisions and joining in conversation and badmedia will eat his words and quickly change his veiwpoint forgeting his ignorance ever existed.

Alot of people want their fluffy after life.. they want a world full of a loving creator and life meaningfully placed. Its the only thing keeping some alive. So there really is nothing you can do.

"your the rider not the ride"

lol makes me laugh every time that ignorant circular logic rears its head.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by Wertdagf


Here's the part that really just kills me! They can't see that they can "have their cake and eat it too!" Not one single scientific discovery has disproved the existance of a Divine Being. You can accept science and still believe in a Higher Power.

It just requires the acceptance that at least some of the stories in the Bible are the efforts of a simple nomadic tribe trying to grasp, understand and explain the begining of things. So much energy wasted to disprove something just because it's in conflict with a story that was created before recorded history.

It was a orally passed down story that was passed down through countless generations before written down by Moses. I would remind you that Moses was not raised a Jew, so he himself had to be told these stories by those whom he was leading. Not until Exodus, does it become a first person account.

In the case of Christians (which most anti-evolutionists seem to be, in fact I don't ever think I've debated a non-Christian on this issue), they are clinging to the words of a religion that is not their own. This is a story from the Tenakh, the Holy Book of the Jewish People. Contextually, the Bible is a beautiful peice of literature, but when taken literally, absolutely literally, it is a very dangerous tome. Full of genocide, suppresion, and injustice.

Hey Badmedia I am going to try and catch that show on Brink that you are talking about. It sounds like something I will really like. Thanks.

To MatrixProphet I have to completely disagree with the quote that you posted saying "Not every question has an answer that can be answered experimentally with a measurement or a test."

I believe that EVERY question has an answer that can be found through the use testing.

To say that something cannot be explained is to say that Science has not found a way...YET.

Yet.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by badmedia

 

Exactly. As Einstein said once to the effect; "If I turn away from the moon will it still be there if I cannot see it?"

Using our puny minds to attempt to reason on this is really ludicrous.

I am pretty sure Einstein knew and got more things that he is given credit for. He is given credit only for things he could prove, not so much things he actually understood.

The good ole "God doesn't throw dice" argument. Well, in honesty he is correct. What he is saying is - there is no random, and there isn't. That doesn't mean quantum physics is wrong however, just that it can't be "random" as some people think about it. I would say, not random, but based on choice/will. I think in his theory of special relativity he comes to grasp many things about perception and it's place in the universe.

If one considers that you cannot destroy matter, it just reshapes itself. Energy is in everything.

People call them laws of physics, and I generally don't put up much fuss because in the end, kind of the same thing. However I would say in truth, they are the laws of perception.

The universe has 0 energy. It does not actually move or change at all. It is static and like a picture. What we see and experience in the universe is simply a matter of perception. We have a limited perception of the universe, and the only change in things is when our perception changes.

The universe is a like a movie film stretched out. No time, no change, all is known at once, it is static. Break that same film into little pieces, show it to an observer frame by frame, and then suddenly it has time, change and appears to move. All that really changes is your perception however.

Only in quantum physics and such, we know that it's not just a single film, but film after film stacked on top of each other. All that is possible is there. And this enables choice and free will. Where as although our perception/experience is linear, the universe itself actually isn't. We change from "film" to film every choice we make. The smaller the choice, the closer the film is to us, and the more immediate we see the results etc.

We can visualize this with a timeline, as a timeline is exactly that. Jump back 2 seconds ago, film is almost exactly the same. Go back 5000 years ago, and the changes are huge. But if you were to actually do that, it would actually be an entirely different place/film because there is 1 film where you didn't(original) and there is one where you did(current).

So within all this that is static, our experience and such is defined by our limited perception of it.

But as all is possible within it, that says very little of our particular place. Within that is the possibility I am just a brain in a vat, with some mad scientist sending electrical signals through it in order to produce the reality I see.

And think on "light" and how if it operated any other way, we would not have the sight that we have! It would be completely distorted, so we would not even be able to perceive what we can now. When we look into the cosmos, we see very little randomness. Prof. Machio Kaku describes it as a beautiful symphony taking place within our universe.

I like that guy a good bit, I usually watch all the shows he has on TV. There is 0 randomness in the universe, that which appears random is merely an illusion based on not understanding all the factors. Same as with computers and the "random" numbers they generate. They are random enough for use and such only because we do not know all the factors involved in generating it. But when you do know all the factors, then it is no longer random.

I see the universe as being just 1 giant static blob of everything which is possible. If you look at how the eyes work, then you will see that "light" is merely a perception itself. You have never actually seen light in your life. They are converted into electrical signals and then printed to "you" in the back of the brain.

If light comes from external sources, then how do we see dreams?



[edit on 7/14/2009 by badmedia]