NASA Scientist - Universe seems hardwired to produce life

[piezoe]

Not sure what you mean.

Do you object to the conclusions or do you just not like the video's pedigree?

The explanation for the experimental results is probably incorrect. The links I gave offer two more reasonable explanations for the experiments result. All we have are models for the photon. The experiment can lead to a better model. One that is consistent with all observation..

The best way to understand the difficulty of correctly interpreting the result of the Jacques, et al., experiment is to read the articles I gave links for. I do question the video's "pedigree". (Try to go to bottomlayer.com)

In reading the Norsen comments on the Jacques experiment you can substitute the word "probability" for psi-squared.

 

[Snarkhund]

The explanation for the experimental results is probably incorrect. The links I gave offer two more reasonable explanations for the experiments result. All we have are models for the photon. The experiment can lead to a better model. One that is consistent with all observation..

The best way to understand the difficulty of correctly interpreting the result of the Jacques, et al., experiment is to read the articles I gave links for. I do question the video's "pedigree". (Try to go to bottomlayer.com)

lol

Many who cannot comprehend or have difficulty accepting double-slit results grasp at pilot waves and even the behavior of bouncing oil droplets trying to explain away some very basic experimental results.

Citing a 3 page paper containing not one sound assertion or experimental result and then acting like a pompous jackass is hilarious. Double-slit results have been repeatable and consistent for nearly 100 years and the non-causality they display isn't really being debated anymore so far as its existence in the results..

Whether it is a pilot wave or a bouncing oil droplet or baby Jesus it doesn't change the experimental result where a photon anticipates the future. I like the youtube video because the cartoon helps me to understand the apparatus.

 

[Ricter]

If we've considered the idea that Time is a construct (making the question, "what came first" nonsense), it's fair to consider if Things are also constructs. The boundaries we impose, i.e. our creation of nouns, in a universe that appears to be entirely verb, may be merely expedients. So the question, "how can a thing come from a no-thing" may also be nonsense.

 

[CaptainObvious]

If we've considered the idea that Time is a construct (making the question, "what came first" nonsense), it's fair to consider if Things are also constructs. The boundaries we impose, i.e. our creation of nouns, in a universe that appears to be entirely verb, may be merely expedients. So the question, "how can a thing come from a no-thing" may also be nonsense.

So we're still at it. Okay. I'll say that if time is a construct of the human condition, then yes, everything not only is, it has to be a construct. We are nothing but thought in that case, and not even our own. Now we enter the world of collective consciousness and what that can create. If this collective consciousness can create a universe then it can create a God out of the same necessity. Not a fabricated God that the Atheist would argue, but a real God. In this world God did not create man, man creates a God, along with everything else, but now the God has been given the power of all this collective consciousness. Imagine the power of one being able to harness such a thing. All thoughts, ideas, every hope, wish, and dream all in one entity. Chew on that for awhile, and try to do so leaving ones bias at the door.

 

[Ricter]

So we're still at it. Okay. I'll say that if time is a construct of the human condition, then yes, everything not only is, it has to be a construct. We are nothing but thought in that case, and not even our own. Now we enter the world of collective consciousness and what that can create. If this collective consciousness can create a universe then it can create a God out of the same necessity. Not a fabricated God that the Atheist would argue, but a real God. In this world God did not create man, man creates a God, along with everything else, but now the God has been given the power of all this collective consciousness. Imagine the power of one being able to harness such a thing. All thoughts, ideas, every hope, wish, and dream all in one entity. Chew on that for awhile, and try to do so leaving ones bias at the door.

But "who" would do the harnessing? The Self is a construct.

 

[ETcallhome]

But "who" would do the harnessing? The Self is a construct.

the "who" is the people that post on this site. We are the only ones who give a shit. I doubt anything is going to change simply because we understand it more. A lot of this argument could simply be resolved by asking your neighbor (or fellow poster) how they like to spend their time (or on this site their money.) Some of us find comfort in the notion of God, because that is how we were raised and He has always done good by us (although at times He can be extremely unmerciful.) I doubt there is any right or wrong. It's just a simple way for us commoners to make sense of the the universe. The one that really cracks me up is the guys who got burned by their belief in God and have gone all atheist like some kind of ISIS or French Foreign Legion soldier trying to forget the Love of Their Life. But if you want to get all scientific on me, starting just from scratch with no knowledge, what makes more sense? It was always here, or It was created. And if it was always here, how do I find meaning? And why do I need meaning? And if it was created, what does that mean in the way I live my life? Which brings us back to democrats who think all prosperity was just somehow miraculously always here. They have no curiosity in how it got here. They are just like the Godless Atheists who think it just always existed and was never created. That's why they can't create anything. All they can do is divide up what was already created. And they have no idea how things are created because they don't believe in God. (and that's just for starters)

 

[stu]

They are just like the Godless Atheists who think it just always existed and was never created.

I think you'll find it is Godridden Theists who think some deity just always existed and was never created.

 

[stu]

Is this proof life (existence) isn't quite what we think?

A far more sensible description of the double slit experiment would be this.

 

[ETcallhome]

I think you'll find it is Godridden Theists who think some deity just always existed and was never created.

Yes, that's just the way we started out. The first thing we were taught was, "In the beginning was God, and the word was with God and the first thing he ever said was let there be light and it all started from there. So if you want to get really smart you have to ask us what was it like before God existed? Too much for our small little brains. It's hard enough to imagine him, let alone what life would be like without Him. Not sure why you take such offense with people who find simple day to day comfort in their superstition. Something doesn't smell right.

 

[CaptainObvious]

But "who" would do the harnessing? The Self is a construct.

That is the mystery, isn't it. I can come up with some things, nothing but conjecture on my part. I haven't a thing to sell, just thinking out loud, asking questions, making observations. I guess in the end, this construct of time is all we have to amuse ourselves with.