Originally Posted by rogue2
remember, in quantum mechanics, the rules of our reality do not apply. in the quantum, E does not equal MC squared.
it has been proven thru analyzing particles at the quantum level, that when observed, the characteristics of the particle itself changes. as does the "experiment" or the relationship between the particles being observed.
so, like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (where you will never be able to locate a particle the more accurately you measure it's speed, and vice versa where you cannot measure the speed the more precisely you identify the location of an particle (only at the quantum level), this is similar, but different.
look: if you want to use the tools of science (and science is but a tool, not a paradigm of thought) to measure or quantify principles that science INTENTIONALLY AVOIDS because they are not defined as NATURAL (check the definition of science, re-written in 1989) events, then your'e going to run into the same wall that you get when you argue with a deeply religious zealot or a drunk.
apples and oranges cannot be compared or used to test eachother.
science only allows itself to work within the NATURAL world, always assuming that the natural world will behave in a predicatable manner. period. therefore, it PURPOSFULLY excludes the supernatural (which does not have a concrete definiton in science) as being unmeasurable, undefineable, and unreliable to reproduction. and therefore, anything non-natural is out of the box of science. it is a saftey measure, and a leash at the same time.
this can be good and bad.
good, because we have used the tools of science to manipulate the elements around us, to categorize the minerals and compounds of the natural world and have altered them based on their studied and known properties to crate the civilization under our feet. i KNOW because of science, how much weight this concrete, wood and steel beneath me can hold, and i do not have to attribute this building standing to angels or fairy dust or invisible gnomes, etc.
so, everything you have in front of you, including the computer you're staring at right now and the roof over your head, and the fillings in your teeth are due to our understanding of the natural world. this is why alchemy did not work...because the rules of the physical world do not break. you cannot heat lead up to get gold. period.
however...the flaw of this rigid set of rules that has brought us so far, is that shifts in paradigms or quantum leaps (pardon the pun) in science happen so rarely because you have to completely rock not only the theory (which is an EXTREMELY powerful set of circumstances that surround a concept or principle, not just an idea like so many scientifically ignorant people thing it is) and ALL the theories, hypothesis, and the greater paradigm that those observable, defendable, and reproducable results support.
in 1900, Lord Kelvin famously said, something like, "we've discovered everything there is to discover in physics, the rest is fine tuning". yea, in 1900 he said that. then, in 1905 einstein rocked the ENTIRE WORLD with 3 papers on relativity. newtonian physics were not the only forces out there to play with (although they did account fairly well to the motion of the planets and other physical observations).
the point is: einstein rocked the entire paradigm of science, which was then rocked again in 1934 with the tuning of quantum mechanics and the reality that there are differnent sets of rules for different dimensions(?). you'd have to look that up...it's late, and i've had a couple drinks, hense this tangent getting WAYY off the topic.
but, to answer: your quest for scientific explinations to consiousness is a very very noble one. and they're out there. there is a book with is just so good: (we've talked about it before on avalon) called the Holographic Universie by Michael Talbot. you want the science behind some of these hypothesis on consiousness/matter relationships? this book will give you a measurable and quantifyalbe hard on in your pursuit.
there are other books and therefore other people who have looked into these things, but the reason you do not hear too much about that is because it is very difficult to get funding, and therefore support from academia if you're pursuing these principles. the world of science is corrupt, it's a who-knows-who game and the ego's are out of this world.
the irony is that all ivory towers fall when a new paradigm is ushered in. and a new one is coming to a world near you.
|