.."provide substantial evidence that consciousness is eternal.."?

You were the one saying it was funny.

Anyway. When I said that, I implied that I wanted a comment on the issue, not a discussion on who thinks what counts as entertainment. I said defining nature was easy, you said it was not, I did it three times in a row, didn't break a sweat. Let's see how much faith you put into that concept of admitting when you're wrong and honesty.

Well, that's not helping me assess whether he's drawing the right conclusions. Mostly because you provide as little references as he does.

Again with the vagueness. Mass is associating by "them fields". Yes, mass interacts through electromagnetic fields. Is there any additional meaning to the words "associate" and "them fields" that I have missed? "Particles aint doing the bing bang to exchange energy". Got that right, did anyone say anything to make you think anyone believed they do? Is it the physical size of the spectrum I'm supposed to look at? For someone who tries to assist me in comprehending stuff, you're not being very comprehensible.

I've known that the electromagnetic force is what holds us together and governs chemical processes, like the ones in our bodies since my first physics course. I still see no reason to believe that it works with a purpose to sustain life.

It seems like you're making up what you think Einstein thought. If he really thought he had found a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics, he would have disregarded it. Instead, he, correctly, assumed that he didn't have all the answers about it and went on to investigate. I guess you can make fun of things you think are real too.

"You're can no bridge that light is"? What's that supposed to mean. Live forever would be nice.

You seriously thought that you taught me that we are lives within nature?

Hardly, bad grammar, inconsistency, inability to stay on topic. I find it hard to believe that anyone else (bar possibly those who had a few posts a few pages back) will read this.

Everyone else: If you read this, post a confirmation post.

So am I to me. So why are you being so obstructive with backing up your claims?

 

You know what. Now I finally got the answer to my initial question, after I suggested it myself and you confirmed it. Let's cut a lot of the useless discussion that's going on, I can't be asked to have several posts open all the time. I can't keep track of all that's being said and I can't keep track of which parts of posts you don't answer, I've lost many good points because you took something out of a post and I forgot to keep track of it.

Very well.

Electromagnetic fields do lots of important stuff.

Now, how does that tie into deja vu or consciousness? Explain exactly what you mean by deja vu (no, it's not because I don't know what it is, I just want to be sure your logic doesn't overstep its bounds) and consciousness and how they are related to electromagnetism.

 

. The prperty of em known as entanglement.

Do you remember what I posted about what a consciousness is?

Post what I said, then ask your question, right below it.

Ok?

 

I wouldn't call it "know as" entanglement, since no one else ever used that word for it, but ok, so how does this entanglement cause deja vu?

You've said two things about consciousness.

"coherance of energy as an entity of an 'i'", which I, in the light of this thread, interpret as "spatially contained object, held together by electromagnetic forces that is able to refer to itself as I".

Apart from that, you also said "I was talking about life". While it took you 15 pages to admit, this was apparently also a part of your definition.

My question is for you to back up some of the fundamental claims you have made.

The title of the thread is specifically vague, it's a quote, it's an order, and so on. Are you saying that you _are_ providing substantial evidence for consciousness being eternal? Or are you asking someone else to do that in order to challenge it?

And then we come back to the question I've already posted in this thread. How does entanglement cause deja vu?

 

is entanglement a property of light (em)? Yes or no.

And "since no one else else EVER used that word for it,"................. except perhaps 'Einstein'

cause?

Now you know, that light is what all mass is combined with so it aint too far to bridge that comment i made, with reality.

Can em become coherant, naturally?

Do you know how a 'coherance' of waves works?

perhaps that is why you have a tough time; you change what people say, to fit what you like.

nothing in the thread, that was about machines

Again, you apparently change the conversations in your mind, rather than stay focused on comprehending what you're reading.

Like how ENERGY UPON MASS, is natual and idiots take too long to comprehend, what they already know?

You dont know what a consciousness is, to the molecular level.


Perhaps it's best you take baby steps to re-establish your understanding.

I just shared how each can contribute their energy (light), to live longer.

cause?

Do you even know what an entanglment is?
ie.... energy shared between points, that can affect each other.

Heck, this thread finally educated you on EM, light, energy upon mass, and how life operates on the very stuff of nature, naturally.

I would rather you learn more on your own, than give you much of anything you ask for.

 

Now that you know what holds atoms together, have you ever wondered how it works?

Now share how the hydrophobic/philic properties work?

I want you to see where the disciplines crash!

 

yes

Them field are our environment.

WE are associated to it all.

See instinct

or even a rogue wave

life: purposed to continue

it doesnt talk about when it started. It is a statement of fact addressing the natural process, in action! I often like to point it out that anyone can bridge the concept like an ongoing potential (gravity) of all, within an environment.


Call it the First Law of Life-(dynamics)!

I aint.

I am very bold and direct. Postulates, claims, statements of fact, should be viewed as very direct, when coming from me.

For example: what is energy upon mass, now that you're edumacated? Are you light upon mass?

Are you capable of affecting mass, by choice,

Do you have a memory, in your mind of today and the previous days, and able to envision and outcome, for tomorrow and actually cause a system to action, by your very choice.

Are you entangled to nature (all of us/and god itself/existence itself)???????


boo

 

Entanglement can be created between particles decaying through any force. This includes, but is not limited to, the electromagnetic force.

He was using it in the quantum mechanical sense, which you so vividly reject.

Or whatever other relation you want to argue is between them.

This all depends on how you define coherence. What do you mean by coherence of waves?

It would be a lot easier if you just wrote it in understandable terms from the start. Is there any part of my interpretation you disagree with, then say what part and how.

Then why on earth didn't you say so? How many times did I not ask for a definition? Definitions are (by definition) "all necessary and sufficient properties" that are needed to label something with the definition we discussed. I asked I don't know how many times, and you still failed to provide the supposedly necessary property of being alive.

This is why I ask for definitions, because if you leave things out, your logic will be faulty.

There are more than one way to interpret what you say many times. Therefore, I ask for clarification.

Yes. The problem with that entire discussion was your inability to make yourself clear. If you had written it like I ended up doing, I'd have understood it on the first page.

No, because you've failed to define it. My guess is that it's complex.

That's what I'm doing, whenever there is something I don't understand, I ask you to clarify. Now I asked you to clarify the title of the thread, but somehow, you ended up not doing that.

Since without electromagnetism, all our atoms would fall apart and we'd die in an instant, the only thing you've really told us is that we'll live longer if use electromagnetism, which is like saying "if you fall apart too much, you die". Hate to break it to you, but we've known that for a long time.

You've been very vague on the subject. This explanation gives me nothing in terms of understanding. Write down your definition of entanglement.

Nope. The only thing I learned here is what you mean when you say "energy upon mass", the concept (as well as the other concepts) is stuff I knew from before.

So would I, that's why I go and actually learn things from people who have the intellectual honesty to back up their claims. So far, all you've done is shout claims at me.

 

didnt we just discuss the stupidity of the particles doing the 'bing bang'?

Fields.................. lose the particle CRAP

again, Entanglement was Einsteins concept to prove QM was wrong (EPR)


you crack me up, with some of the stupid comments you make.

Are you still not reading nor believing that your knowledge is disfunct.



Einstein was relentlessly consistent in his principal complaint concerning quantum theory: it could not be a complete theory. And he was correspondingly single-minded in the principal argument he used in his efforts to establish this incompleteness. The argument depended essentially on a highly non-classical element of quantum theory that Schroedinger in the 1930s called "entanglement." (He called it "Verschränkung", in the same paper in which he presented his cat paradox.)

When two states become entangled, a complete account of the properties of one of the systems is not possible if it does not include the other system; and this will be true no matter how far apart the two systems may be spatially.

Entanglement can be illustrated if we consider the property of position in space of a quantum particle. If there is just one particle, we have already seen how the position property is discerned. The particle will in general be represented by a wave spread in space.




http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_completeness/index.html

You're so out of date, not to mention, that you apparently NEVER read Einsteins work.

here is one on particles.


Here is a sketch of a general theory of coherence that is developed in more detail elsewhere (Thagard and Verbeurgt, forthcoming):

1. Elements are representations such as concepts, propositions, parts of images, goals, actions, and so on.

2. Elements can cohere (fit together) or incohere (resist fitting together). Coherence relations include explanation, deduction, facilitation, association, and so on. Incoherence relations include inconsistency, incompatibility, and negative association.

3. If two elements cohere, there is a positive constraint between them. If two elements incohere, there is a negative constraint between them.

4. Elements are to be divided into ones that are accepted and ones that are rejected.

5. A positive constraint between two elements can be satisfied either by accepting both of the elements or by rejecting both of the elements.

6. A negative constraint between two elements can be satisfied only by accepting one element and rejecting the other.

7. The coherence problem consists of dividing a set of elements into accepted and rejected sets in a way that satisfies the most constraints.

Many kinds of cognition, including hypothesis evaluation, concept application, analogy, and decision making, are coherence problems.





This characterization is an abstraction of coherentist accounts of explanatory inference (Thagard, 1992b) , practical reasoning (Thagard and Millgram, 1995; Millgram and Thagard, forthcoming) , analogy (Holyoak and Thagard, 1995) , and impression formation (Kunda and Thagard, in press) .


perhaps watch the ocean to see waves too

I do. what i wrote is what you already knew but chose to fight versus think.


I have a condescending manner that apparently can offend.

always been a matter of fact kind of guy

unless making a funny.

the spacial part was great

4pir2

is a consciousness based on a coherance of energy (upon mass)? Yes or no?

Are you a 'light' (upon mass), technically speaking? Yes or no

And why do i have to ask such basic questions after i spend a week teaching you the simple concepts, that you already know.

I speak in the first and frankly.

then write what you've learned and teach the next generations.

For example: imagine if a child, that you assisted, could one day be a doctor, because he understood what life is and how to help other lives, to live longer.

what thread?

what is the p680?

How important is that structure-wavelength to mankind?

why?

Look at what you are capable of, and then ask, "what would entanglement be, to me?" Meaning: how does it apply to you?

then why did it take so long to have you just say, "yep, we're all 'energy upon mass'"?

Then when you read the thread title, it might make sense.

 

Yes. However, as always, you didn't define what you meant by the "bing bang" and consequentially, confusion ensued. There was a big bang at one point in time. It wasn't caused by particles and they aren't doing it any more.

Give me a good reason to.

He was pointing out what he thought was a flaw in the current understanding of quantum mechanics which have since been fixed. As opposed to you, scientists are very clear when they mean things. If he thought he had found a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics, he would have written that in plain words, just as he and others did with Galilean transformations.

This is all true. Quantum mechanics may well be an incomplete theory, I have stated nothing to the opposite. However, since Einstein wrote this, it has been found that the collapse of a wave function does not convey any information, meaning that it does not violate relativity.

I have read Einstein's work and the work proving him wrong. He doesn't get a free ride just because he's called Einstein. Everybody has to go through peer review.

You're in deep water here. Coherence as presented here is a decision making process, one that relies on a well functioning brain. A well functioning brain may be held together by electromagnetism, and its processes may be carried out by the electromagnetic force, but the functioning of the brain relies much more directly on the specific structure of the brain. For instance, bacteria is also held together by electromagnetic forces, but they don't go through this process when making decisions.

Are you saying the waves of the ocean go through a decision making process?

Then can you repeat it? You've been writing many things about it, but I want to hear the definition. List *all* *necessary* and *sufficient* properties a concept must have to be called conscious. If you think being alive is necessary to be conscious, then it should be in the definition.

You call me moron, and indicate me to be "MORON, PUNK, PIG, PUKE" and then you say "apparently", like you couldn't figure out that being offensive yourself. Anyway, I can take a lot of verbal abuse, but trying to deal with someone's inability to understand basic logic is extremely enervating.

Cool, then what about the rest?

Should 4pir2 mean anything to me? Or is this another of your countless examples of using weird words for the sake of nothing?

I guess we are, electromagnetic forces hold us together and perform many, if not all, of the tasks in our bodies.

You're really going on two different levels here, which don't correspond. You seem to miss the entire point of simplification. Electromagnetism hold things together, but a doctor doesn't care about what it is that is holding things together (other than for interest), it is much simpler for a doctor to keep track of simpler concepts which explain the situation just as well, such as "people should not be falling apart". It's the same concept, but it's been simplified to be more useful. The same goes for physics. It's first year stuff to identify normal forces as electromagnetic, but that is completely useless when you're trying to put an engine together, it is much simpler to just deal with the forces as mechanical.

I agree that the identification of mechanical forces as electromagnetic is important for understanding, but once that has been established (which, as I said, it first year stuff), there really isn't that much interesting to get out of it. It's like saying the secret to building a battleship is to use metal. Yes, without metal, there would be no ship, but using metal is fairly basic, and it's the finer workings that make a battleship useful.

What kind of a question is that? This thread, of course.

Quite. Why?

Entanglement is a word. Words are part of a language. Language is what helps people communicate. In order to be communicating the right things, we must make sure that we use the same words for the same thing, otherwise we will get people saying "bananas are yellow", "no bananas are blue" when they can't agree on which colour the words blue and yellow symbolises. If I use an incorrect definition of entanglement, I will come to incorrect conclusions. That is why I want you to post the full definition of entanglement as used by you.

I told you, because you didn't make it clear that that's what you meant by energy upon mass.

Still no. There is no "energy upon mass" in the title. I asked you for the meaning of the title, even the title's grammatical structure, but you refused to answer. Is the title an order, a promise of substantial evidence being provided, or something else?

 

particle model is for monkeys

they make claims like There was a big bang at one point in time., and reeally have no idea what the f'ck they are saying.

Einstein was clear, qm is wrong and not 'fixed'

that is what the EPR was, but you dont read

sure you have. Many time over

What did einstein write, except that qm is wrong and you dont comprehend that.

i could care less if i am violating YOU.

Qm and Relativity are both incomplete and incorrect models to mathematically define nature.

and you just cant get over that

it's your particle.................... (surface area of a sphere)


wow

go lay by your dish

 

is this all some dam your made out of energy and energy cant be destroyed so your immortal nonsense bishadi?

 

what?

Are you one of swennsons students?

 

so no?

 

the thread is about life


and the position of swen and why this thread is like it is, is because he has no idea what life is................... mathematically, scientifically, and naturally


light (em) is the life of you.

"WE" can live beyond the grave in what we do

and no 'god' is telling anyone, anything.

It's just nature!

 

so it is your just switching energy for lite in either case what if life and consciousness are made out of patterns or shapes of the stuff and not just light itself there goes your eternal consciousness because shapes can be destroyed even if what their made of ultimately cant

 

from Thoth to jesus, bacon, newton and einstein............................. the light, good!

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

But she's my aunt.

does conservation apply?

 

Shapes are destroyed all the time if you aunts form changed so she had balls and became a man with the y chromosome of her father ya she would be your uncle
The skin that flakes off of her and rots way is no longer your aunt when her body’s decays and the shape changes enough that will no longer be your aunt

is there a conservation of shape?

 

the energy is what makes the shapes possible. Ie.... it is the energy that enables the combining of any shapes (all mass).

and you cant measure, see or know a shape, without energy (exchange)

big word that 'if'

but the children, grandchildren are her light, upon mass, still alive

The taste of sweet rolls, still.

And by Love, i can enable life, for her, to live even longer.

She lives throughout the ages, by the hand!

shapes are by elements, combining with a wavelength of energy sustaining its shape. Break the shape, the elements and energy (light) still exists (conserved).

Look up nano growth and see for yourself. They even have them on youtube clips now-a-days.

ie.... shapes enabling you to see shapes and even though the shape may not exist that you witnessed, the memory is still affixed within you

 

So far, you've shown no sign of having the understanding to make that distinction correctly. Your question did not reflect what you wanted to know. Yet again, your failure to properly define what you're talking about has brought confusion.

Einstein produced a piece of criticism against quantum mechanics but it has since been shown that that piece of criticism does not disprove quantum mechanics. You may argue that Einstein thought that that was the case, and I would argue against it, but that is beside the point. Quantum mechanics does not hinge on Einstein's understanding of it, so what he thought is completely irrelevant.

I read it. All it says is that quantum mechanics is not a complete description of the world, to which I would agree. It does not say anything about quantum mechanics being wrong, though.

Really, then can you quote me anywhere claiming that quantum mechanics is a complete theory? I don't think that, why would I have said so?

Easy boy, you're not my type.

I'm happy to consider any criticism you have, but so far, you've only directed me to ideas which have already been dealt with.

It would be written 4 pi r^2. There is a well formulated standard for writing mathematics on the internet, to keep people from reading it wrongly.

 

the BB is of Virial theorm, combining all mass, energy and tim, then reversing time, based on how energy/mass/time is currently defined.

How the galaxies rotate was all predicted? But with hubble, the measurements, did not jive. Dark matter/energy was now added and BB was never readdressed.

Entanglement, is the simple fact of nature that discredits QM and put in such logic (EPR, S-Cat) that only an idiot would deny it.

That is what is so funny about this debate. You cant admit that QM is wrong, nor comprehend why.

it always has been.

It's a description not the bottom line to define nature.

QM is the incorrect model to comprehend living process.

(DId you read that statement, clearly? I want to keep people from reading it 'wrongly')

 

Another example of your lack of definitions leading to misunderstandings, I thought you meant black body radiation when you said "BB". I tell you over and over, you keep failing to do it and it is the central problem which I have been addressing all along.

Dark matter is one of the big questions in our time, and you think that the whole physicist community simply never bothered to see if it lined up with the rest of results?

That's not a definition. A definition is the necessary and sufficient properties a concept must have to be labelled with a certain word. The description you provide above is not necessary, nor sufficient to define entanglement.

Why do you think I keep asking you for definitions? Do you think I just enjoy wasting your time? It is simply true that without proper definitions, I can't tell what you're talking about, and consequentially, I would reach untrue conclusions.

I haven't heard a good reason to think quantum mechanics is wrong. You've presented reasons, but none that survive scrutiny. I'd hate to burst your bubble, but Einstein is not God, just because Einstein didn't understand the concept doesn't mean it is wrong.

I've been telling you that several times in this thread.

This one I read quite clearly. You can go ahead and write some of your other stuff this clearly, that would be nice. Start with the title of the thread. Didn't I already ask you to clarify the title? Why didn't you do that?

Quantum mechanics explains chemistry (and certain other effects in living bodies) and chemistry is a simplification of quantum mechanics for stable molecules and atoms. Chemistry can be simplified to biology for living bodies. Biology explains life.

In practice, you'd have a very hard time doing everything in terms of quantum mechanics, mostly because you'd have to take so many cases into account that wouldn't change the actual outcome, but technically, you would be able to do it.

Notice now that just screaming "QM is wrong" at the top of your voice again isn't getting your point across, you need to pick out exactly where you think that chain breaks.

 

it was not to define

the claim was for logic to have a benchmark

qm aint right and entanglement is proof (you can experience, yourself)

first off, i aint posting math

second, you dont need the math to understand

last, quit being so obtuse

read the EPR. Then its basic.

it is you, not understanding much of any concepts, that require simply honesty, before belief.

I've been telling you that several times in this thread.

it was another posters quote, that was cool to string the concepts together

I then applied the comprehension of scientific discipline to the philosophical inquiry.

The inquiry has theological implications, scientific, as well philosophical bridges to comprehend.

(biological fact is) life = a progression

which is opposite of 'S'

THE PROOF IS: cell division/procreation (the life, can live)

again, quite the opposite.

I share evidence that you can experience (Read the EPR) to share why the math (QM) cant be correct.

I told you and posted that too.

Walking the Planck.

I posted plancks paper and the reason but you dont comprehend to the level of physics, either.

 

That’s great but was still shapes made out of something and even if that something is indestructible at some fundamental level that doesn’t mean are consciences and memories are to

That if has some big evidence backing it we can see shapes being destroyed all the time all it takes is a little rearranging prick your skin on a pin you will have rearranged your shape a little no actual destruction of matter or energy needed
Watch a wave form and dissipate after hitting land the water may still be their but the waves come and go
Melt a snow flake watch a puddle evaporate the shapes and forms change are made then lost
i don’t remember my parents experience or any of the lives of the matter im made out of had when it was a part of other living things even copied dna doesn’t seem to transfer much in the way of memory’s for us

We are not simply the elements were made out of either even if are shapes are built out of them just because the elements that we are mad out of contuse to exist after us doesn’t extend the lives of our minds

 

Then why not define? It's what I've been asking you to do. Definitions is the benchmark of logic.

Entanglement does not disprove quantum mechanics (whatever Einstein might think) and you still haven't been able to justify your claim that entanglement can be experienced, at least not like deja vu.

Not that I'd mind some math, but I'm asking for definitions, not maths. In order to prove that your ideas are real, maths need to be provided. I accept that you won't write them down yourself, but your links, or googling the terms you use, should link to the maths being gone through.

If you have such an understanding, how is it that you can't even put into words what it is you are discussing?

What is it that makes you think that the EPR paper is the be all end all for science? The question has been addressed many times and even the wikipage on the EPR paradox provides you with the information of how the "paradox" is resolved.

Your idea seems based on the EPR paradox and the EPR paradox only. Since it's been shown that the EPR paradox doesn't exclude all interpretations of quantum mechanics, it's not a valid reason to exclude quantum mechanics. It gives us an idea of which interpretations of quantum mechanics can't be true, but the interpretations that are not invalidated are still more credible than a non-quantum universe.

Do you expect me to believe you just because you're telling me? In bold font?

So what implications are there? Do you believe consciousness is eternal? Do you have substantial evidence of that? As far as I understand it, the concept of providing evidence has no implications whatsoever unless you actually provide some evidence. You say that a person can live on in relatives or fame (you could elaborate on that), yet, you define a conscious being as coherent, which by both your definition and mine require a person to be physically alive.

What did I tell you about defining your terms? I assume you mean entropy by "S", but you should say so, otherwise I can't tell it from you talking about action, Sulphur or the Swedish Social Democrats.

That lowering of the entropy uses energy which comes from a more powerful increasing of entropy in the food you eat, thus making you and your food a closed system which does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. There are many processes that do this, many of which I don't think you'd call "life".

Your explanation does not even address the chain of logic I presented. As usual, your lacking language skills makes it quite hard to read. You say it's the "opposite of 'S'", if by that you mean it violates entropy, then that is not true. If you just decided to call it the opposite, then it has no impact on the logic I presented.

EPR paper does not include a discussion on the scalability of quantum mechanics.

You've pointed out a hole in the theory which has been amply fixed. I agree, we don't know everything when it comes to the situation around the EPR paradox, but throwing quantum mechanics out the window isn't dealing with the problem, it would just be hiding it under the carpet.