I'm always watching quantum physics documentaries, and reading about it. Just watched this youtube vid:




They're saying about how matter doesn't exist(matter is mostly made of nothing) and that the real substance is consciousness. They also started talking about fractals which led me to think about dmt.

Anyhow, i'd just like to hear any views on this - life the universe and everything. Popular theories suggest there's more than the 3 spatial dimensions that we're used to seeing, i think we can all associate with that idea after trying dmt!

There's also a more modern theory that we're in a holographic universe, this is due to the maths of black holes that show things becoming 2d as they enter one. Very strange.

Just interested to hear peoples thought?

I've been reading a book titled "The Holographic Universe" as of late, and it's quite fascinating. It mentions a lot of topics that I have come across in other readings on reality/consciousness/etc. Definitely worth looking into, in my opinion.

There is a lot of loose claims here, claims that don't really hold up, pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiratory claims, all mixed together with correct ones to give them fake legitimacy. This is yet another example of misinterpreted and misused Quantum Mechanics and science in general to paint over our understanding of the Universe with the brush of mystical mumbo jumbo. I will once again quote and agree with theoretical physicist Victor J. Stenger on this one, as I couldn't have put it better myself;

"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

Peow!

Excellent point Citta. I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt. I enjoy reading this kind of material, and although I find it fascinating I don't necessarily view it as a definite explanation for the way things are. I agree that it is not necessarily the best idea "to paint over our understanding of the Universe with mystical mumbo jumbo", but I also feel that it is important not to entirely discredit this line of thinking. The bottom line is that there is a lot about the Universe that we do not know, and I try to gather as much information from as many possible sources/dimensions as possible before updating my opinion. Personally, I feel that finding a nice balance between science and mysticism (as well as finding balance in everything else!) is what works best for me in regards to living as positive and productive a life as possible.

Fritjof Capra once said that science doesn't need mysticism, and mysticism doesn't need science - but men and women need both. Even though I am not a particular fan of this man, I tend to agree to a certain extent. I can certainly value mysticism on its own accord, i.e the pure mysticism, but what I don't like is metaphysical belief systems constructed on the basis of mystical experiences. What people way too often do is to make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences or on the basis of something else. This is what is being done in this video.

While there certainly is a hell of a lot we don't know about the universe, we skeptical and scientific folks tend to admit this all the time, while religious people, many spiritual people, pseudoscientists and mystical people on the other hand claim to know things they can't possibly know, and that no scientist knows. This is not unproblematic. For example, contrary to what is being said in this video, we don't know whether or not consciousness creates matter, but we do know that there is nothing in science to suggest it does. We have to be strict, careful and rational when drawing conclusions about the nature of reality, or else anybody could simply claim anything and we'd all be equally justified in doing so. We'd be getting nowhere. You see, what thousands of years of civilization and scientific discourse has taught us, is that there are facts about this universe to be discovered. There are right and wrong claims about the nature of reality. The scientific method has proven itself to be the most honest, strict and best method to pull these needles out of the haystack - when used properly.

Well first of Citta I want to say that you sound far more educated than me. Also I would never claim to know everytying about existence, in fact a fundamental part of my beliefs and ideas is that we will never know everything about existence because it is infinite. I would just like your opinion on a couple things.

What about plants responding to positive vibes and meditation? Isnt it proven that plants react to our moods and energy? I guess that doenst nesacarily mean that we are controling or creating physical existence with our conciousness, It could also mean that the plants have some kind of awareness or conciousness, I think both those possibilities are fascinating.

And what about the water molocules responding to thoughts and even spoken words as well? I just read this on the internet but ive heard it from many different sources and have seen pictures.

"Dr. Masuru Emoto has photographed frozen water molecules and has shown that they have a different structure depending on their source and can change their molecular structure depending upon the words being spoken or written in their presence, music being played, prayers intended, etc.! Most of us naturally think of water as an inanimate object—unresponsive to such factors, when in fact it actually responds dramatically both positively and negatively to the energy of our thoughts and intentions. A water molecule from a polluted water body whose form was weak and unstructured can reorder itself to a crystal “snowflake” type configuration when in the presence of kind words spoken or written on labels on the water receptacle. By the same token a beautiful water crystal collected from a pristine spring will collapse into a “formless blob-like” appearance when subjected to words of hate or negativity.. Imagine our bodies are about 80% water and how all those water molecules may respond in the presence of our own euphoric or stressful thoughts or of those around us."

Like I said, you seem to know way more about quantum physics than me. Basically I know what I have read in the first few chapters of "The Holographic Universe", and some things ive picked up from the discovery channel lol. But even with my very limited knowledge of physichs I know there are still very many holes in their nice neat organized scientific theories.
The personal experiences Ive had and the observations that I have made throughout my life (while in altered states and while totally sober), along with reading things like I have referenced above, cause me to beleive that while our conciousness probably isnt solely creating the physical world around us, we are at least co-authors.

Tokapelli;

Plants are living things with cellulose walls, but they are lacking nervous or sensory organs. Animals, on the other hand, do not have cellulose walls, but they do have nervous or sensory organs. Thus animals are able to feel pain, pleasure and various emotions. The more sophisticated their nervous and/or sensory organs are, the more they will be able to feel. Everything suggests that a nervous system and a brain is necessary for sentience, and since plants lack these they are not able to feel anything. There is no justification to claim that plants have sentience, but that they simply react to physical and chemical stimuli governed by very well defined, well known laws of nature. I maintain, with all justification, that plants cannot feel, that they are not aware of their reactions to stimuli, that they are not self-conscious or that they are not conscious beings. They are, however, wonderful biological machines, and in the eyes of evolution actually the most succesful.

And no, it has not been scientifically verified that plants respond specifically to human intent, emotions or thought. The perhaps most notable claim of this comes from a guy named Cleve Backster, who runned some experiments in the late 60's and early 70's he claimed demonstrated that plants respond to these things. His claims have been refuted by several scientists since, and the replication of his experiments have not yielded sufficiently positive results to be considered statistically significant. Backster and his followers clearly don't understand the importance of controls in their studies. Despite the lack of proper scientific support for the notion of plant perception, the idea is nevertheless accepted amongst many as a matter-of-fact. It clearly isn't, and can safely be disputed.

As for Dr. Masuro Emoto's claims, they suffer from much of the same. His experiments doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, and is thus very very suspect. It is simply not proper scientific work. Furthermore, and this is a huge ring in the alarm bell, he sells products based on his claims. Yet he provides no real scientific reference for the allegedly incredible qualities of his "magic" water, so he fits right into the long line of quacks doing just the same. Here is a few points in which Emoto fails, by the way;

1) He doesn't eliminate the possibility of personal bias affecting the experimental results by performing controls, or double blind procedures.
2) He delibirately tells his photographers to keep the most pleasant photos of the crystals. In science, we don't just choose the results that supports our claims, we publish all of them.
3) He doesn't minimize the sources of errors in his experimental procedures.
4) He doesn't pay attention to, or care, about well tested procedures of the scientific method that yields reliable results.

On top of this, he readily admits he is no scientist. I think we can safely ask him to shove his claims back up his ass, and focus on more important matters, such as why we humans tend to tell stories about things that are not based in reality, and more importantly believing in them =)

What about plants responding to positive vibes and meditation? Isnt it proven that plants react to our moods and energy? I guess that doenst nesacarily mean that we are controling or creating physical existence with our conciousness, It could also mean that the plants have some kind of awareness or conciousness, I think both those possibilities are fascinating.

And what about the water molocules responding to thoughts and even spoken words as well? I just read this on the internet but ive heard it from many different sources and have seen pictures.

"Dr. Masuru Emoto has photographed frozen water molecules and has shown that they have a different structure depending on their source and can change their molecular structure depending upon the words being spoken or written in their presence, music being played, prayers intended, etc.! Most of us naturally think of water as an inanimate object—unresponsive to such factors, when in fact it actually responds dramatically both positively and negatively to the energy of our thoughts and intentions. A water molecule from a polluted water body whose form was weak and unstructured can reorder itself to a crystal “snowflake” type configuration when in the presence of kind words spoken or written on labels on the water receptacle. By the same token a beautiful water crystal collected from a pristine spring will collapse into a “formless blob-like” appearance when subjected to words of hate or negativity.. Imagine our bodies are about 80% water and how all those water molecules may respond in the presence of our own euphoric or stressful thoughts or of those around us.

[/quote
I love both of these theories, I find these to be such fascinating research topics. I've always wanted to grow a bonsai tree, and keep it in my meditation area, observing how it grows and possibly even interacts with the energy present from my meditation.

"In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study." I dont believe he ever responded to the offer. That pretty much sums up how reliable his study was.

He never did, and this is quite ironic because he is obviously interested in earning some cash when selling his magic water. What a quack!

Sorry to just jump in and go off on a bit of a tangent but after reading the above I felt the need to ask something myself.

I have recently been reading a book about ORME's and done a little research online about themm and to be honest they seem so amazing that if they were real it would be more mainstream knowledge, so I guess my question is: Citta wha is your take on ORME's?

Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements? Like I read it here? I think it's complete bunk. It's basically just vodoo chemistry from crackpots, it's pretty obvious really. So it's not weird you haven't heard about this more =)

Oh and ken5ie, no offence or anything. It's good you ask questions because it shows you are thinking critically.

Peace

That is one of the places I looked, thanks for clearing that up for me

Wow this threads been busy! Citta - its good to see someone who knows about science. I know what you're saying about pseudo science and people making their own conclusions through lack of understanding. I posted the video as something thought provoking and interesting, but not as something that should be taken as fact. When they started talking about fractals i thought about dmt.

My theory about humanity is that we're stood on the very tip of a massive iceberg. We have theories for the very small and very large, and as yet cannot unite them. Our most powerful telescopes can't see far enough to tell us where we came from as the light shifts out of our range of vision. We can't manipulate gravity, we don't know how life started, its fair to say there is a lot we don't know. And if history is anything to go by(flat earth?), we're probably wrong about a few things too.

The holographic universe is a recent theory in quantum physics, although i find it hard to understand. I believe someone is running an experiment at the moment using lasers to see if the universe is 'pixelated'. Anyhow, i'll be reading everything i can about this theory as it interests me.

Yes i'd agree, we need both science and mysticism, as science cannot explain our consciousness. Science is derived from us measuring and experimenting on the world around us and building on this knowledge, but it cannot begin to answer some of the biggest questions on the human soul. Maybe in the future we'll unite both, and have a better understanding.

just to let you people know, some leading peoples in the "ormes" community do NOT believe these molecules are mono-atomic..but possibly di-atomic.

Ever heard of a magnetic vortex water trap? I would really like to know what people are seperating out in this "trap" water..because just saying all the ormus people are crackpots is kind of ignorant. I bet you have never even investigated this yourself.

This is a HeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLll of a lot more that science can not explain out there than what it can explain atm..it is good to keep that in mind, otherwise we just become egotistical scientifico-relious nuts.

jamie:

So what if they say it to be di-atomic instead of mono-atomic? Or both? It doesn't save their asses from the incredible claims they are making and the fact that they wish to sell products on the basis of this! Just like Masuru Emoto they don't have any scientific references to show to, just these shabby internet sites where they talk about their bullshit. These people are either quacks and scammers, or they are simply deluded.

Now, just because there is so much we don't know about the universe this doesn't constitute an argument at all in your favor. You bring this up alot. It is a classical mistake to claim that since we don't know everything, we therefore can't be sure of anything at all; and not be able to say whether or not something is likely. This is obviously wrong and is a thought mistake - a non sequitur - because it is akin to say that since we haven't mapped all huts and shelters in the Amazon, we can't say for sure that there isn't a skyscraper in the middle of the Sahara Desert. A person that claims there is a skyscraper in the middle of Sahara; or that the earth is flat; or that clouds aren't caused by water vapour but that god created them ex-nihilo; or that the sun goes down in a pile of mud in the west; is simply wrong and there is no reason to be apologetic about that.

Furthermore no real scientist claims to know it all, in fact scientists are very good at admitting there is something they do not know when they actually don't. You see, it is a great liability in science to claim to know something you don't, or can't possibly know, so that is not done. Most scientists are very honest and humble people, and they know it pretty damn well when there is something they do not know, and they admit it right away. To take an example; often at science conferences where someone presents some results or talks about something, a scientist within one specific field will immediately let his audience know when he is talking about something outside his area of expertise. He will typically say "I don't know very much about this, but I think...", "This is not my field, but...", "You should ask someone else, but..." and so on. You don't see this coming from pseudoscientists, deluded people, quacks or scammers - often you don't see this attitude coming from many religious, spiritual or mystical people either.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is quite relevant here as well.

I am not a scientist. Not even a Pseudo one... Nonetheless, this subject fascinates me. Well Quantum Physics anyway. I am especially fond of Garrett Lisi's theories on the subject. I think his new name for it is E8 Theory, but it was (I believe) 'An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything'.

Being a person with no scientific training, just a passion for learning; I've always leaned towards "What makes sense" kinda combined with the Razor - loosely - "The simplest solution is usually the right one".

Now I'm not saying that this thought holds any sort of scientific credence, BUT: -
The fact that the E8 theory involves this magnificent geometry, and when you achieve these altered states of consciousness many people get this amazing geometric visuals - is something that maybe there is more to.

I think it's a great point for meditation anyway.

Here is a link to Garrett presenting his theory, for anyone with a lot of time on their hands and an interest: http://digitaloctober.co...o_prostaya_teoriya_vsego

p.s. sorry I skipped the whole 'science doesn't know' thing. That one just makes me /sigh anymore...

"Most scientists are very honest and humble people, and they know it pretty damn well when there is something they do not know, and they admit it right away. To take an example; often at science conferences where someone presents some results or talks about something, a scientist within one specific field will immediately let his audience know when he is talking about something outside his area of expertise. He will typically say "I don't know very much about this, but I think...", "This is not my field, but...", "You should ask someone else, but..." and so on. You don't see this coming from pseudoscientists, deluded people, quacks or scammers - often you don't see this attitude coming from many religious, spiritual or mystical people either. "

On the contrary, I've met tons of spiritual/mystical folks who do display that attitude you speak of. And many scientists as well. And lets not forget there is also scientists with spiritual inclinations..These types, in my experience at least, are the ones who most often admit when they don't know something- and are the most likely to humbly elaborate on how much remains currently unknown

But I've also met many other scientists who've gone to great lengths to avoid admitting when they don't know something (i suspect this is more common in the classroom than a conference of peers- as you spoke of). And many religious/spiritual/etc folks who do this as well

It sounds like your implying that scientists almost always humbly and honestly admit when they don't know something, and spiritual people almost always do not. This is a huge generalization in my opinion and things are never so clear cut

Perhaps you are reading into it more than I meant with it. Anyway I apologize if I formulated myself unclear. I said most scientists, not all. I still stand by that most scientists are humble and honest, and I think this is at the very least not far from the truth. And no, I am certainly not talking about students, but professional scientists doing real work with or in their fields. Furthermore I said that often you don't see this coming from many, again not all (not even most), spiritual, religious OR mystical people. This is also, at the very least, not far from the truth. You can even see this at the Nexus.

So no, I am in no way trying to overly generalize different groups, and I don't think you think I am so stupid that I don't reckognize the nuances. But again, I apologize if I came out the wrong way. All I wanted to do really was to defend scientists from the often used notion that they are so arrogant and think they know everything, because that is very far from the truth.

With that said I agree with much of what you say