What is gravity?

[seeds]

But that’s just it, uwot, at the deepest level of reality there is no difference between the “stuff” of materialism and the “stuff” of idealism.

There are plenty of materialists and idealists who would disagree.

Who are these rabble-rousers you speak of? Bring them before me and I shall smite them.

And the irony is that from the perspective of pure materialism, the above statement is especially true.

And that’s because (according to materialism) literally everything (including our dreams) must surely be constructed from the same fundamental substance.

All materialism assumes is that there is some substance which itself is not 'mental', but certain configurations of which result in mental phenomena. An emergent property if you like.

I’m not sure if that contradicts what I stated, however, just to clarify the issue, if you Google “materialism,” the first thing that pops-up is this:

ma•te•ri•al•ism
noun
materialism
2. PHILOSOPHY the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
_______

In which case, if according to materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter, then that means that the stuff that forms our dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets.

And that leads me right back to my earlier assertion that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (just by “thinking It” into existence), then why not God?

And what that ultimately means is that as we stand on the earth and look out into the universe, we are witnessing the extent to which the “thinking it into existence” process can be taken.

Personally, I have no problem with accepting that there might be a god. It's not hard to believe...

There are plenty of materialists and idealists who would disagree.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

However...

(and this is an extremely important “however”)

...the informational fields depicted above do not necessarily represent (as in code for) the essence of life and consciousness.

Is there any reason to believe they couldn't?

Yes.

And I suggest that it has something to do with the fact that Schrödinger’s wave equation (an aspect of the “software”) does not seem to apply to the essence of consciousness, for there is no way to incorporate the unmeasurable phenomena of life and consciousness into the math...

...(which, of course, is one of the reasons for the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” issue).

In other words, the “stuff” (essence/energy) of consciousness may be a totally different beast that is founded upon completely different principles.

It may well be. Life and consciousness are bewildering phenomena and I have no idea how to explain them, but I have never seen a compelling argument that they must be separate from 'matter'....

...Do you have an explanation for how the 'structures of reality' and 'consciousness' interact?

Yes (but you’re probably not going to like it).

Speculatively speaking (as is this whole thread)...

...I suggest that whatever the process is that allows for the five senses of our consciousness to reach into the subjective context of our minds and transform (decode) the inner fields of information into the three-dimensional (multi-sensory) phenomena of our dreams...

...is, likewise, the same process that occurs as our consciousness reaches outward into the universe and transforms (decodes) the outer fields of information in a similar fashion.

All of which is loosely depicted in the image of the laser hologram I uploaded in the OP...



...wherein the laser (a metaphor for consciousness) and that of the patterns of information embedded in the photographic plate (a metaphor for the quantum) both work together in tandem to create what consciousness calls “reality” (3-D phenomena).

Now I am fully aware of your well warranted skepticism of anything other than methodological naturalism (science/physics) to explain the world.

However, keep in mind what you stated earlier:

Life and consciousness are bewildering phenomena and I have no idea how to explain them...

And neither does pure materialism know how to explain them (nor will it ever, in my opinion).

The only thing that pure materialism will ever explain (or reveal) is how the “stuff” of the universe seems to be capable of becoming anything “imaginable” (just like the “stuff” of our dreams).
_______

[uwot]

Now I am fully aware of your well warranted skepticism of anything other than methodological naturalism (science/physics) to explain the world.

However, keep in mind what you stated earlier:

Life and consciousness are bewildering phenomena and I have no idea how to explain them...

And neither does pure materialism know how to explain them (nor will it ever, in my opinion).

The only thing that pure materialism will ever explain (or reveal) is how the “stuff” of the universe seems to be capable of becoming anything “imaginable” (just like the “stuff” of our dreams).

I dunno seeds, I have looked at your website and a few of your YouTube presentations. The difference between you and I is that, far from being a 'pure materialist', the basic premise I start from is that the universe is made of some stuff that has 'material' properties. I concede that there could be a god, but in that case, all bets are off, because if, as you say: "The universe is a result of an incomprehensibly advanced mental order..." there's bugger all chance of anyone comprehending it. It brings this to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWhfrs0pbMg
You could be right, but what is your single most compelling reason to believe in your god?

[seeds]

I dunno seeds, I have looked at your website and a few of your YouTube presentations. The difference between you and I is that, far from being a 'pure materialist', the basic premise I start from is that the universe is made of some stuff that has 'material' properties.

Yes, a “material” that is mostly composed of empty space, which makes the phenomenal features of the universe seem as if they are nothing more than highly crafted manifestations of a dense form of “light” (metaphorically speaking),...

...wherein the illusion of their solidity and separation is the result of the push and pull of electromagnetic forces. All of which, at the deeper level of reality, is a product of the aforementioned “coding” in the quantum “software.”

It’s as if we are like unwitting characters functioning within the context of an extremely “real” appearing dream, for lack of a better term.

And that’s something that I tried to make clear in this short segment from one of my video lectures from the 90s, here - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

I concede that there could be a god, but in that case, all bets are off, because if, as you say: "The universe is a result of an incomprehensibly advanced mental order..." there's bugger all chance of anyone comprehending it.

In the same way that a human fetus, suspended within the warm living essence of its mother’s womb, is not expected to comprehend its present (and impending) situation, likewise, the same applies to our ultimate relationship with God...

...as is metaphorically depicted in another one of my fanciful illustrations...



(As always, for a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link - http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm)

In other words, the ultimate truth of reality...

(including the truth of what gravity is, so as to stay on topic )

...will eventually be revealed to each and every one of us.

You could be right, but what is your single most compelling reason to believe in your god?

I am not yet prepared to discuss on an internet forum, the details of the life-changing epiphany I had in 1970 that convinced me (make that “proved” to me) that God is real and truly exists.

However, in the meantime, before I can make others understand what I experienced, I think I have been in the process of carrying-out what is expressed in the following quote:

“Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built.”

It is something I heard Terence McKenna say in one of his recorded lectures (I’m not sure if he’s the original author), but it seems to describe my course of action over the last 48 years.

That being said, what prompted your search?
_______

[uwot]

Yes, a “material” that is mostly composed of empty space, which makes the phenomenal features of the universe seem as if they are nothing more than highly crafted manifestations of a dense form of “light” (metaphorically speaking)...

As Robert Laughlin says: "...studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." The mathematics needed to model this "stuff" is mind-boggling, but progress is being made. Here is an article titled 'It's confirmed: Matter is merely quantum fluctuations': https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ctuations/

...wherein the illusion of their solidity and separation is the result of the push and pull of electromagnetic forces. All of which, at the deeper level of reality, is a product of the aforementioned “coding” in the quantum “software.”

The thing is, although the behaviour of the quantum vacuum can be modelled using mathematical tools, to call it "coding", even in quotation marks, is to suggest that there is a "coder". In effect, it is a quantum argument to design. Such arguments are only compelling if you happen to believe in god in the first place, because they assume that 'nature' couldn't achieve the results by itself. Maybe it can't, but we haven't yet reached a point where the only explanation is that some god is twiddling the dials.

In the same way that a human fetus, suspended within the warm living essence of its mother’s womb, is not expected to comprehend its present (and impending) situation, likewise, the same applies to our ultimate relationship with God...
...the ultimate truth of reality...
(including the truth of what gravity is, so as to stay on topic )
...will eventually be revealed to each and every one of us.

Maybe. Again, as I say in the concluding frames of my book: "...if everything in the universe is made of Big Bang stuff, then so are you. And from the moment you were born, every atom of your being, every arrangement of atoms that gave rise to every thought you have ever had, has been generating waves and patterns in Big Bang stuff that will spread out across the universe forever.
Who knows what that might mean?"
But in the meantime, I'm going to find out what I can.

“Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built.”
It is something I heard Terence McKenna say in one of his recorded lectures (I’m not sure if he’s the original author), but it seems to describe my course of action over the last 48 years.

Here's a review of a book I read on that topic: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/ ... -deutscher

That being said, what prompted your search?

Well, you can call it spiritual awe at the beauty, majesty and mystery of life, the universe and everything. Other than that, I just like to know how things work.

[seeds]

Yes, a “material” that is mostly composed of empty space, which makes the phenomenal features of the universe seem as if they are nothing more than highly crafted manifestations of a dense form of “light” (metaphorically speaking)...

...The mathematics needed to model this "stuff" is mind-boggling, but progress is being made. Here is an article titled 'It's confirmed: Matter is merely quantum fluctuations':....

Uwot, in your constant referencing of the bewildering complexities of quantum physics, you are completely missing (or perhaps just ignoring) my very simplistic point.

And that point is that the ethereal (light-like) substance of the universe seems to be nothing more than an extremely advanced and ordered version of the same ethereal substance that forms our thoughts and dreams – a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything that consciousness “wills” it to become.

And what that means is that the more proficient humans become at modeling how the “stuff” of reality actually works (i.e., understanding the nature of the “software”), then the sooner we will achieve the creation of something akin to this...

“Tea, Earl Grey, hot”...



“...Mr. LaForge!!!!....you told me it was fixed!!!...”

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

The thing is, although the behaviour of the quantum vacuum can be modelled using mathematical tools, to call it "coding", even in quotation marks, is to suggest that there is a "coder".

That’s not necessarily so, uwot. And it is especially not what I mean when I use that particular word.

For example, in the creation of a laser hologram...



...the square in the center, which represents a form of “coding”...

(i.e., the highly correlated patterns of underlying information that determine the specific shapes of the three-dimensional objects)

...did not require a “coder” to write (or etch) the information into the photographic emulsion.

(For a clearer view of the illustration, click the following link and expand the image, here - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... e%2021.jpg)

Or another and more fitting example can be seen in the fact that when you close your eyes and create the image of an apple before the eye of your mind, you do not have to personally “write” any kind of underlying coding...

(again, I’m talking about the patterns of information that underpin and determine the shape and color of that mental apple – Granny Smith? Red Delicious?)

...and yet there it is, ready for you to bite into just by “thinking” it into existence.

Now just transpose the above scenario into the context of a vivid dream, and that subjectively created apple will appear to be utterly “real” to you.

Anyway, the point is that the phenomenal features of reality (be they subjective or objective) seem to be founded upon an underlying substrate of software-like “coding” that does not require a “coder” (at least not in the way that you have framed your rebuttal).

In effect, it is a quantum argument to design. Such arguments are only compelling if you happen to believe in god in the first place, because they assume that 'nature' couldn't achieve the results by itself.

That would be a good point, uwot, if it weren’t for the fact that the word “nature” is simply the dressing-up of the word “chance” in a way that makes it sound like it “knows” what it’s doing when, in fact, it doesn’t.

Maybe it can't, but we haven't yet reached a point where the only explanation is that some god is twiddling the dials.

So then, rather than leaning toward the notion that something conscious and intelligent is “twiddling the dials,” you instead prefer to believe that the mindless processes of chance are doing the twiddling?

Just out of curiosity, what images rise-up in your mind when you hear the word “God”?
_______

[gaffo]

_______

(Warning – extreme speculation ahead. )

When it comes to the question of what gravity is all about, is it possible that it has something to do with the superpositioning and entanglement of our quantum underpinning?

For instance, a planet’s gravitational status is based upon its overall mass which, logically (from the quantum perspective), is the sum-total of all of the waveforms of a planet’s contents and features - all blending together into one superpositioned wave.

And when a random asteroid, for example, crashes to a planet’s surface, the asteroid’s wavefunction...

(which up to that moment was basically autonomous in the vacuum of space)

...is now subject to becoming entangled (cohered?) with the planet’s greater wavefunction.

In other words, upon contact with a planet, the asteroid’s wavefunction seamlessly intertwines itself (becomes one) with the planet’s overall wavefunction, thus becoming superpositionally enmeshed with the planet’s phenomenal structures – as is loosely depicted in the right-hand side of my illustration of the laser hologram below...



In which case, the occurrence of what we refer to as being the asteroid’s newly acquired “weight” is something that is proportional to the degree of the entanglement of its own unique waveform constituents with those of the rest of the planet.

And the point is that because the asteroid has a greater array of quantum attributes than that of a feather, for example, it is thus “heavier” than the feather due to a greater complexity of its entanglement with the “whole.”

And all that means is that as we attempt to move or lift the asteroid (or a bowling ball, or a freight train), we are, in essence, “tugging” on a vastly greater web of superpositionally entangled waves than those that comprise the feather...

...hence we therefore encounter a greater resistance to our effort.

Furthermore (and with the help of a rocket), if we were to send the asteroid back into space, it would simply be a situation of detangling (decohering?) its wavefunction from the greater wavefunction of the planet...

(with the degree of detangling still having something to do with distance, as per Newton’s law)

...thus restoring the autonomy of its wavefunction (and its prior weightlessness) in the vacuum.

Now I realize that what I am proposing is highly speculative, however...

...is it possible that the greater the volume and complexity of the entangled morass of quantum waves that comprise a planet’s overall wavefunction is what determines the strength of that which we call a planet’s gravity?
_______

whats with the QM psychobable?

QM does not explain gravity inside of event horizions.

give up your QM Faith - it fails explaining gravity as much as Relitivety inside of EH's.

[uwot]

In effect, it is a quantum argument to design. Such arguments are only compelling if you happen to believe in god in the first place, because they assume that 'nature' couldn't achieve the results by itself.

That would be a good point, uwot, if it weren’t for the fact that the word “nature” is simply the dressing-up of the word “chance” in a way that makes it sound like it “knows” what it’s doing when, in fact, it doesn’t.

Well look, these are the premises you appear to be working from:

We observe complexity and order in nature.
Nature is equivalent to chance.
Therefore nature cannot be responsible for order.

The first one I'll grant you, but while the rest might be true, none of it follows.

Maybe it can't, but we haven't yet reached a point where the only explanation is that some god is twiddling the dials.

So then, rather than leaning toward the notion that something conscious and intelligent is “twiddling the dials,” you instead prefer to believe that the mindless processes of chance are doing the twiddling?

I prefer not to jump to conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what images rise-up in your mind when you hear the word “God”?

Beardy bloke in the clouds, Zeus, Thor, Shiva you name it. I can imagine any of those with the same clarity that I can imagine an apple, but when I open my eyes, they're not there.

[seeds]

..these are the premises you appear to be working from:

We observe complexity and order in nature.
Nature is equivalent to chance.
Therefore nature cannot be responsible for order.

The first one I'll grant you, but while the rest might be true, none of it follows.

Ah, but it does follow, but only if you realize that the first line in your syllogism...

We observe complexity and order in nature.

...is the mother of all understatements.

Just out of curiosity, what images rise-up in your mind when you hear the word “God”?

Beardy bloke in the clouds, Zeus, Thor, Shiva you name it.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s needless to say that you don’t have to accept any of my ideas, but come on now, uwot,...

...do I really appear to be suggesting that the source of the unimaginable level of intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe is a “beardy bloke in the clouds,” or any of that other antiquated nonsense?

I can imagine any of those with the same clarity that I can imagine an apple, but when I open my eyes, they're not there.

And in light of that statement, isn’t it a strange irony that according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, you can be looking at so-called “real” apples hanging on a tree, and yet when you close your eyes, they too are not there?
_______

[uwot]

Ah, but it does follow, but only if you realize that the first line in your syllogism...

We observe complexity and order in nature.

...is the mother of all understatements.

Well seeds, I'm sure you don't mean any offence, nor do I take any, but the implication is that you believe in god because you understand how complex and ordered nature is. And I don't, because I don't. I don't see why the degree makes any difference, but can you give an example of complexity or order in nature that demonstrates the scale of my understatement?

It’s needless to say that you don’t have to accept any of my ideas, but come on now, uwot,...

...do I really appear to be suggesting that the source of the unimaginable level of intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe is a “beardy bloke in the clouds,” or any of that other antiquated nonsense?

No. Nor do I think you would claim that the image of god in your splendid illustrations is an accurate likeness. But the basic premise has always been the same in that some god or other is unimaginably intelligent enough to create everything we are aware of. Gods have had to evolve with our understanding of the universe, or die.

...isn’t it a strange irony that according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, you can be looking at so-called “real” apples hanging on a tree, and yet when you close your eyes, they too are not there?

The problem is that to prove they're not there, you have to open your eyes and there they are. Who knows what goes on when no one is looking?

[seeds]

Well seeds, I'm sure you don't mean any offence, nor do I take any,...

Nor should you ever, uwot, for I have nothing but the greatest of respect for your logical and illustrative approach to science, and I would never purposely try to insult you.

...but the implication is that you believe in god because you understand how complex and ordered nature is. And I don't, because I don't.

No, I believe in God because as I told you in an earlier post, God’s existence was “proven” to me in an epiphany back in 1970.

I don't see why the degree makes any difference, but can you give an example of complexity or order in nature that demonstrates the scale of my understatement?

There are so many examples I barely know where to begin.

However, and to slightly paraphrase something I have posted elsewhere, I suggest that the scale of your understatement is demonstrated in how the mere posing of your syllogism seems to casually “take for granted” the unfathomable level of order implicit in just this one image alone....



I mean, if your mind isn’t blown from visualizing the unimaginable stability of the millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb we are standing on - gently moves around the perfect source of light and energy (unerringly for billions of years), then something is amiss.

We’re talking about the precise movement of a gargantuan sphere that not only spins vast oceans and bustling human metropolises around and around - “topsy-turvy” - in a 24 hour rotisserie cycle, but also whose position in space can be calculated with uncanny accuracy – thousands of years in either direction of time.

Yet it is presumed (by materialists) that such steadfast axial/orbital precision is simply the result of chance and serendipity.

So yes, in light of just that one simple example alone, your naked and unadorned assertion that “...we observe complexity and order in nature...” (which may as well be referring to an ant colony) seems like an extreme understatement to me.

Now to take this one step further, if you will consider the fact that it is also presumed that chance and serendipity (aka “nature”), was not only able to transform the chaotic “stuff” of the aftermath of the alleged Big Bang from something resembling this...



...into, again, this...



...but also to meticulously equip the earth with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken us into existence...

...then you will understand another one of the reasons for my intense rejection of materialism.

Now I don’t mean to over-dramatize the situation, but even that in itself is not the issue.

The real issue as far as I am concerned can be seen within the context of quantum theory - as is explained in my next post.

(Continued in the next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Apparently, uwot, we’ve had a similar conversation almost a year ago.

So let me just repeat what I said to you back then.

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, it requires the presence of something that is capable of making an observation (a measurement) in order to transform (collapse) the waving quantum noumena into positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena.

However, no such things existed until billions of years after the initial Bang, which means that until consciousness arrived on the scene, the universe basically existed in a context that is metaphorically represented by this...



In which case, I’ll ask the same question that I asked you almost a year ago....

How in the world did nebulous fields (waves) of random and chaotically dispersed energy and information (or “stuff,” if you prefer), again, how did it “know” how to self-adjust its waveform attributes in such a way that would cause the three-dimensional phenomena appearing up in the context of what physicists call “local reality” to be so essential and appealing to the five senses of consciousness?

In other words, how did unguided and unconscious (mindless) algorithmic processes...

(without any way of determining what the universe’s three-dimensional phenomena would actually look like, feel like, sound like, smell like, and taste like to consciousness)

...again, how did the primordial quantum processes “blindly predetermine” that in the presence of some future consciousness, a 3-D setting (the earth) consisting of fragrant vines of blooming honeysuckle, and beautiful mountain streams, and a vast cornucopia of delicious foods, etc., would suddenly emerge from the “noumenal-like” patterns of information once a so-called “measurement” (observation) is made?

I’m talking about measurements made by living beings in a three-dimensional context that this...



...(the unconscious post-Bang quantum) could not possibly have “known” it had created until, again, consciousness arrived on the scene to collapse the waves.

It is a totally circular dilemma that arises if one believes that consciousness is an “emergent” property of an already ordered 3-D state of matter when in fact there can be no 3-D state of matter without the presence of consciousness.
_______

[uwot]

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, it requires the presence of something that is capable of making an observation (a measurement) in order to transform (collapse) the waving quantum noumena into positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena.

That's certain interpretations. Really it comes down to the double slit experiment. What we know is that unless you create conditions that will allow you to determine which slit a particle goes through, it behaves as of it went through both. If you don't pin the particle down to one or other, the interference pattern is consistent with it interfering with itself. The really weird thing is that you can set up the experiment so that the conscious decision to determine which slit the particle goes through is made after it already has. You can infer that the particle is responding to our consciousness, or you can make up any number of alternative explanations. The truth is, we don't know.
If you take the view that consciousness is responsible, you can argue that god's consciousness is responsible. In effect, that's the view Berkeley took and it's impossible to refute. But it raises the question why do particles respond to our conscious decisions? One possibility is that god is providing evidence for his mysterious ways to the scientifically literate. Another is that the world really is strange and there's a bit of work to do. As I said before, I don't think we are yet at a point where we are compelled to accept the former.

[thedoc]

The Earth and this solar system were not created especially for humans, we just happen to exist in this one. If humans didn't exist in this solar system in this Universe, humans would exist in some other solar system and Universe, and someone would be amazed that the planet and system was so perfectly created for humans. It's all just one happy accident that humans evolved on this system and not some other system, but perhaps there is life on other planets that we haven't found yet.