I already saw it. I didn't really get what you meant by it as whips, leather and grovelling men aren't so much my thing. Equality rules! But I do acknowledge the sentiment of your edit!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.
Missed the boat on this one a little, but I have finally had the chance to read up a little on quantum consciousness. Just in case anybody is still interested...
First of all I will say that this theory is not widely supported in scientific/medical circles at this stage- and it also features in the film 'what the bleep do we know?'
The basic idea of the theory goes like this:
Basically consciousness is attributed to proteins called microtubes, that are found in the brains neurons.(*1) These microtubes behave like a quantum computer, and contain 'subunits' that are affected by quantum processes.
One such quantum process is known as superposition. Superposition occurs when an object has two alternate states simultaneously (this is related to wave functions and probability). These states are only detectable in the quantum world.
So microtubule superpositions evolve during subconscious processing (ie- automatic processes of the brain). The superpositions are seperated causing them to become instable and they collapse. (*2) Their collapse is influenced by hidden propensities embedded in space time. It is this non random, yet non determined process that is being proposed to result in our 'free will' actions. To quote the author:
"our 'free will'actions could be the net results of deterministic processes acted on by hidden quantum logic"
There is no doubt that quantum consciousness is a very speculative theory, but certainly something to be further researched, especially as it makes testable predictions.
*1- An interesting note is that these microtubules may explain how a unicellular protozoa appears to do things like find food and avoid predators without a single synapse, as the microtubules are found in the cells cytoskeleton.
*2- One of the reasons this theory is not widely accepted is because this wave collapse is related to quantum gravity an entirely theoretical concept and entirely unproven.
Well that is as best as I can summarise. For a better understanding you can find a lot here:
Missed the boat on this one a little, but I have finally had the chance to read up a little on quantum consciousness. Just in case anybody is still interested...
First of all I will say that this theory is not widely supported in scientific/medical circles at this stage- and it also features in the film 'what the bleep do we know?'
The basic idea of the theory goes like this:
Basically consciousness is attributed to proteins called microtubes, that are found in the brains neurons.(*1) These microtubes behave like a quantum computer, and contain 'subunits' that are affected by quantum processes.
One such quantum process is known as superposition. Superposition occurs when an object has two alternate states simultaneously (this is related to wave functions and probability). These states are only detectable in the quantum world.
So microtubule superpositions evolve during subconscious processing (ie- automatic processes of the brain). The superpositions are seperated causing them to become instable and they collapse. (*2) Their collapse is influenced by hidden propensities embedded in space time. It is this non random, yet non determined process that is being proposed to result in our 'free will' actions. To quote the author:
"our 'free will'actions could be the net results of deterministic processes acted on by hidden quantum logic"
There is no doubt that quantum consciousness is a very speculative theory, but certainly something to be further researched, especially as it makes testable predictions.
*1- An interesting note is that these microtubules may explain how a unicellular protozoa appears to do things like find food and avoid predators without a single synapse, as the microtubules are found in the cells cytoskeleton.
*2- One of the reasons this theory is not widely accepted is because this wave collapse is related to quantum gravity an entirely theoretical concept and entirely unproven.
Well that is as best as I can summarise. For a better understanding you can find a lot here:
Just realised that I also never replied to the original question:
For me, the abundance of evidence supporting some form of expanding universe makes it more likely then a steady state universe.
Evidence for the Big Bang (or some form of expanding universe):
Red shift of galaxies and the hubble constant.
Prediction, detection and mapping of cosmic microwave background radiation and variations detected by the WMAP satalite.
The fact that general relativity implies an expanding or contracting universe.
Relative abundances of light elements are explained by the big bang theory (and currently no other theory).
There have traditionally been some problems with the big bang theory, and it has been refined on a number of occasions- inflationary theory (a version of the big bang), seems to address many of the problems, although current research in a new particle accelerator may shed further light.
There are also problems with a steady state theory:
If a universe is infinite and not expanding then we could not survive as light would fill every gap in the sky and we would fry.
So to avoid this unfortunate fate, the current steady state theory has the universe expanding, but adds a continuous creation of new matter so that the universe continues to look the same in all directions. The problem is that the continuous creation of new matter would be required to produce precise ratios of the lighter elements such as hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium. This is because we know of no current mechanism that can create the correct amounts of these particular elements. Steady state also directly contradicts Einstein's general relativity.
Whilst the big bang theory is by no means complete, it is still the leading candidate to explain the history of the universe. As a theory it provides specific testable predictions that have so far matched our observed evidence.
Ahnimus.
I must admit that I have skipped much of this thread. But I have to ask you why you are a rock-solid believer in science when it comes to determinism, consciousness and everything psychology (none of which are uncontroversial or undebatable) and why you refuse the big bang? The same method is applied in both cases, and they are both based on observations done in a systematical way. Instead you offer a theory without much backing as a better alternative, based on your belief.
I dont really mind. It just shows that you too, like most/all people base much of your understanding on your own beliefs. But, seeing as you have consistently denounced belief and anything looking like it, well, it is odd for you to reject the big bang. And maybe you really dont believe in god, and want to fill in a possible opening, but that's not very scientific.
And if you refuse the science of the big bang, and point to a belief of your own, well is that much different than the religious people on here do? We're not talking god, we're talking belief. Just because your belief doesn't contain god, doesn't make it automatically more objective and true.
Anyway, you seem to prefer the world to be static, pre-determined and un-changable. If that gives you peace of mind, fine. But evidence isn't as firmly stacked that way as you would want, and sometimes present it as.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Whatever you say, Will Smith.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
May want to take your own advice once in a while. The irony.
Missed the boat on this one a little, but I have finally had the chance to read up a little on quantum consciousness. Just in case anybody is still interested...
First of all I will say that this theory is not widely supported in scientific/medical circles at this stage- and it also features in the film 'what the bleep do we know?'
The basic idea of the theory goes like this:
Basically consciousness is attributed to proteins called microtubes, that are found in the brains neurons.(*1) These microtubes behave like a quantum computer, and contain 'subunits' that are affected by quantum processes.
One such quantum process is known as superposition. Superposition occurs when an object has two alternate states simultaneously (this is related to wave functions and probability). These states are only detectable in the quantum world.
So microtubule superpositions evolve during subconscious processing (ie- automatic processes of the brain). The superpositions are seperated causing them to become instable and they collapse. (*2) Their collapse is influenced by hidden propensities embedded in space time. It is this non random, yet non determined process that is being proposed to result in our 'free will' actions. To quote the author:
"our 'free will'actions could be the net results of deterministic processes acted on by hidden quantum logic"
There is no doubt that quantum consciousness is a very speculative theory, but certainly something to be further researched, especially as it makes testable predictions.
*1- An interesting note is that these microtubules may explain how a unicellular protozoa appears to do things like find food and avoid predators without a single synapse, as the microtubules are found in the cells cytoskeleton.
*2- One of the reasons this theory is not widely accepted is because this wave collapse is related to quantum gravity an entirely theoretical concept and entirely unproven.
Well that is as best as I can summarise. For a better understanding you can find a lot here:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/index.html
The clearest arguments for and against it can be found by clicking on the publications section, and scrolling down to the debates.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
....steady state.
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
For me, the abundance of evidence supporting some form of expanding universe makes it more likely then a steady state universe.
Evidence for the Big Bang (or some form of expanding universe):
Red shift of galaxies and the hubble constant.
Prediction, detection and mapping of cosmic microwave background radiation and variations detected by the WMAP satalite.
The fact that general relativity implies an expanding or contracting universe.
Relative abundances of light elements are explained by the big bang theory (and currently no other theory).
There have traditionally been some problems with the big bang theory, and it has been refined on a number of occasions- inflationary theory (a version of the big bang), seems to address many of the problems, although current research in a new particle accelerator may shed further light.
There are also problems with a steady state theory:
If a universe is infinite and not expanding then we could not survive as light would fill every gap in the sky and we would fry.
So to avoid this unfortunate fate, the current steady state theory has the universe expanding, but adds a continuous creation of new matter so that the universe continues to look the same in all directions. The problem is that the continuous creation of new matter would be required to produce precise ratios of the lighter elements such as hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium. This is because we know of no current mechanism that can create the correct amounts of these particular elements. Steady state also directly contradicts Einstein's general relativity.
Whilst the big bang theory is by no means complete, it is still the leading candidate to explain the history of the universe. As a theory it provides specific testable predictions that have so far matched our observed evidence.
I must admit that I have skipped much of this thread. But I have to ask you why you are a rock-solid believer in science when it comes to determinism, consciousness and everything psychology (none of which are uncontroversial or undebatable) and why you refuse the big bang? The same method is applied in both cases, and they are both based on observations done in a systematical way. Instead you offer a theory without much backing as a better alternative, based on your belief.
I dont really mind. It just shows that you too, like most/all people base much of your understanding on your own beliefs. But, seeing as you have consistently denounced belief and anything looking like it, well, it is odd for you to reject the big bang. And maybe you really dont believe in god, and want to fill in a possible opening, but that's not very scientific.
And if you refuse the science of the big bang, and point to a belief of your own, well is that much different than the religious people on here do? We're not talking god, we're talking belief. Just because your belief doesn't contain god, doesn't make it automatically more objective and true.
Anyway, you seem to prefer the world to be static, pre-determined and un-changable. If that gives you peace of mind, fine. But evidence isn't as firmly stacked that way as you would want, and sometimes present it as.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965