Univers Expansion Acceleration.

[Guest Fadi]

Here Sasun, a subject for you.

 

The reason I do not believe the continual expension brough by the said observations of the acceration of the Univers, is that I believe that this is a creationist view, and I am against a creationist view.

 

If in fact the Univers will expand forever, then, that would suppose that there was something responsable of the creation of that Universe, Suppose that the Universe is about 15 billion years old, then we know that if big bang was, then something happened in order that this big-bang happen, why it happened 15 billions of years before, why not 20 billions, why not 30 billions ? This amount of energy before the big bang, this concentrate amount of energy from the principle of the concervation of energy should have been always there, then what happened in order that 15 billion years ago it exploded and not before ? I mean, if the concentration of that energy was so big and concentrated and an explosion was created, then logically, this energy should always have been there, and if it was there before the 15 billion years, it should have exploded that time, in fact, it should have exploded at the second when this energy first existed, or never have exploded.

 

The continual expansion of the Universe suggest a creationist theory that contradict the principle of conservation of energy, only because the Universe has an age... In order that the concervation of energy is respected, and at the same time there is an acceration observed, then it should be a kind of a bubble black hole covering the Universe, a kind of spheric thing, where the Universe is inside, and where, everytime an object goes there, from another dimension brough in the center of the Universe, like a perpetual movement, but if we suppose that, then a big bang could have never happened as well, and that the expension of the Universe, only explain the fact that this kind of spheric black hole that cover the Universe attract object on itself to then bring them back at the center where they will continue moving at the same direction where they were moving.

 

If that is not the cases, then why would the energy explode 15 billions years ago, are those researchers claiming that they believe a creationist theory...

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, you were right, I was wrong, the big-bang really do support a creationist theory, I don't buy it anymore. :-) Domino says there was no big-bang, and neither the Universe will expend forever, and neither it is accerating, like it is said it is...

 

Thats Religious propaganda. :-)

 

 

 

DEITED: Article removed.

Edited May 10, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, I read your post and did't understand about 50% of what you said, and at the moment I don't know what you mean. I will read again when I am not sleepy, but it would help if you could edit your post and make it more clear Also, looks like you had an article of which you were talking, then you removed it. Why not put it back so I can read and know what you are talking about :D You can remove it later again.

 

Eh Domino... and who said that energy can be conserved throughout the creation of universe (including energy itself) ? I mean, when there was no energy yet, then we shouldn't talk about coservation of energy.

[THOTH]

Domino - like you I have always been a sceptic of the Big bang theory. However I realize that I don't possess the scientific understandings to do more then have (at best) only a moderatly informed opinion. One thing I will say however - is that it is apparent to me that we don't know more then we know. There are layers of reality that are - at this time - beyond our perception - and it is presumptious to think we do or will know the "answers" to such questions with the limitations we have. So - at best - our understandings are incomplete and any conclusions are much as a religion. Still I support research, data gathering and discovery in these areas because every insight is certainly interesting and - at a certain level - useful perhaps. There are just so many phenomenon for which we have inadequat explanation for to really make any conclusions howevwer. What we percive is very limited - and we do not understand how time and space really work and how other dimensions and realities might interplay. If you are interested in these subjects however - there are a number of good books - fiction and non - that I could recommend (the fiction are based in current science and are very good brain strethchers). Are you familiar with any of the works in this area of Gregory Beneford? I think you might like some of his speculation... Edited May 10, 2003 by THOTH

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, the reason I took off the article was because it does not explain what I meant, it was writen by an association of skeptics(not scientifics), and there was one rubish in it that does not made sense, so before you jump on me I tooked off the article.

 

I will not edit my previous post, but re-explain what I meant.

 

Suppose that the conservation of energy is always respected like claimed by many scientific, many claims that even before the big bang it was respected.

 

How they see the big-bang, is that there was a very big amount of energy concentrated that exploded, an energy that was always there, and always because the Universe not existing, the Time dimention was still non-existing. I have no problem with that, the problem that I have is that from calculations, it is said that the Universe is about 13 billions of years old, if energy there was always, and that energy is not dependent of time neither space, because it existed even before the big-bang, then this energy considering the conservation of energy always existed and of the same amount, if that is a fact, then the age of the Universe should be "Infinit" not 13 billions of years, because it is said that there was an explosion because of the concentration of a very high amount of energy. The problem like I said above is that this energy was always there, and of the same amount, it should have exploded the second it existed, and not later, that supposes then that this energy only existed for 13 billions of years ago, therefore the concervation of energy is not respected, this is what I mean when I say it is a creationist view, because the concervation of energy principle claim energy can not be created, then how come the Universe age is not "Infinit" because if this enhergy was strong enough to make that explosion, it was strong enough an Infinit years ago to creat that explosion, and Infinit years ago, because this energy could not have been created and should have existed always, and if always the Universe should have existed an Infinit years ago, because that Energy should have exploded an infinit years ago.

 

I don't know if you understand what I mean. On the other side, the Universe is accerating from spectroscopic studies far on the Universe, even if in a really little amount, that could be explained by the decrease of the speed of light as well, or other conclusions could be drown by this, but suppose in fact it is expanding by accerating, that would mean that the Universe total amount of energy is still increasing, because of an another force(that they now claim to be maybe the 5ft forces) that would be applied from the extremities, a forces that does not appears to be matter dependent, because it is not an interaction forces, but rather a kind of energy.

 

So, I came to the conclusion, that in order that thoses observations be made possible by respecting the conservation of the Universe, the Universe age should be Infinit, and that there is another dimension, and that Gravity exist in this other dimention, and that explains why those objects are accelerating. What I mean culd be viewed as black hole... imagine another dimention, a kind of bubble covering the Universe itself, every object going to the exterminities will end up at the center of the Universe and then continue on the same direction, by then decelerating, untill they achieve the 1/2 distance of the radius of the Universe, and then then they start accererating because they are attracted from the exterminities... and why that happens could be that since gravity could pass trew that dimention, the objects from the exterminity are attracted because of gravity by the rest of the objects of the universe starting from its center, because it is the most massif place, and where the gravitational attraction is the strongest, and this center is the extremity of the Universe at the same time, the same goes for the extermity that is the center of the Universe, and those two are linked by another dimension. Hard to explain what I am starting to believe by words, see if I can make a picture of that...

 

So that would mean that, the big bang never was, or was an Infinit years ago, that would mean, never was And that the Universe is not expending, and that there is a kind of perpetual movement, of acceration, because there is another dimention, where gravity can pass trew as well as objects... the same dimention where the electrons goes when they pass from an orbital to the other.

 

So suppose that you understood my s.t English, about 25 %, and 25 % before, that would make you understand 50 % Of what I tried to say, that will also mean that I have to do 2 more presentations of 25 % each.

[Guest Fadi]

Domino - like you I have always been a sceptic of the Big bang theory. However I realize that I don't possess the scientific understandings to do more then have (at best) only a moderatly informed opinion. One thing I will say however - is that it is apparent to me that we don't know more then we know. There are layers of reality that are - at this time - beyond our perception - and it is presumptious to think we do or will know the "answers" to such questions with the limitations we have. So - at best - our understandings are incomplete and any conclusions are much as a religion. Still I support research, data gathering and discovery in these areas because every insight is certainly interesting and - at a certain level - useful perhaps. There are just so many phenomenon for which we have inadequat explanation for to really make any conclusions howevwer. What we percive is very limited - and we do not understand how time and space really work and how other dimensions and realities might interplay. If you are interested in these subjects however - there are a number of good books - fiction and non - that I could recommend (the fiction are based in current science and are very good brain strethchers). Are you familiar with any of the works in this area of Gregory Beneford? I think you might like some of his speculation...

Thoth, I don't like reading science fiction.

 

As for Benford, of course I know him, he's one of my favoured.

 

I have no problems with the observations of the Universe, what I have problem with is that some(in fact many if not the majority, in the field of astrophysic), like other scientifics in other brachs, claims that energy is conserved during the big bang, and then as well come with explanations that are only based on prediction of microphysics, like Quantium Mechanics, even if other recognised theories like the relativity contradict it etc... I see that like a buggy OS Kernel, where there is new patchs that resolve some problems but bring others, more problems that there was before.

 

We must start by saying, that nothing should be contradicted, and logic should be able to explain everything, if it can, then there is more things that we ignore, and what we can ignore is that there is other kind of interaction between particules and the Universe itself, since we can't detect it, in the same manner that we can detect any electrons between two orbitals, but we know logical that there should be, the simplest explanation would be there is more dimention, rather then comming with complex s.t, trying to patch, and patch what does not work, and bring only probability to explain phenomemens, even if Quantum mechanics predicts many things, it does not explain the why, and they contradict logic... we can make numbers and statistics to mean many things, that does not explain the why, and does not explain why it is like this.

[THOTH]

Domino - I very much think there could be something to this -our universe is the ejecta from some huge black hole in some other universe thing (as I think you are in part implying). Cerain things seem to fit this explanation - however again - so much is just not know right now.

 

And am I right in thinking that current date indicates that the rate of accceleration (from the mythical center) is slowing? Isn't "the latest" theory that our universe will somehow eventually collapse back upon itself (all that gravity & such from that confounded dark matter...)....

[THOTH]

Domino - these contradictions only show that we are not obseving or acuratly understadning all phenomenon or all underlying elements (or even very basic underpinnings of order) etc. In the meantime certain things seem to work as predicted (even if cross disciplin) - OK. We can work form this - but at the same time we shouldn't be so locked in that we don't question the assuptions - they may only be working as a matter of coincidence - or because we have interjected some like mistake...etc - and to not be flexible and accept (and freshly interpret) new data (in unconstrained ways) could doom us to going off on some very false paths...(and thinking them true..)

[Guest Fadi]

Thoth, an acceration that is slowing still means that the speed of the expansion is increasing, but it could as well mean that one time in billions of years passing, this accaeration or will stabilise, or that it will become zero, then the speed will not increase anymore, but during that time, the expansion will have beaten gravity, and there will not be a possible big crunch, because only the fact that it is accerating supposes that the expansion has beaten the gravity.

 

But that can be explaned by the existance of another dimension as well... we have to wait concerning the decrease of the acceleration, because if that is the cases, then the conservation of energy is even less respected, and the theory of the big-bang as well as the expansion of the Universe would make even less sense.

[THOTH]

Thoth, an acceration that is slowing still means that the speed of the expansion is increasing, but it could as well mean that one time in billions of years passing, this accaeration or will stabilise, or that it will become zero, then the speed will not increase anymore, but during that time, the expansion will have beaten gravity, and there will not be a possible big crunch, because only the fact that it is accerating supposes that the expansion has beaten the gravity.

 

But that can be explaned by the existance of another dimension as well... we have to wait concerning the decrease of the acceleration, because if that is the cases, then the conservation of energy is even less respected, and the theory of the big-bang as well as the expansion of the Universe would make even less sense.

Understood - but we still don't know what gravity this dark matter (or other forces) is/are imposing...but this collapse thing seems difficult to concieve -as you have said - everything is still accelerating from each other.

 

And since we have no perception of or understanding of these possible other dimensions or universes is seems fdifficult to speculate. Obviously the exsistanc eof such will put many of our thero\ies/understandings in serious doubt - so who is to say...

 

Also - when you say "we will have to wait...to see"...etc - well i don't really suppose we will still be around...no?

Edited May 10, 2003 by THOTH

[Guest Fadi]

Exactly thoth, and that is the main problem, because in order that the big bang really have existed, and that it is not infinit years ago, that would mean that the energy in question was not singulair, and became singulair, then after that, exploded. Because if it was always singulair, then the big-bang should have existed infinit years ago, in order to explain an expansion that will always continue.

 

There is two logical explanation that will respect common sense, or the Universe is Infinit years old, or that the singulair energy that created the big bang, was not singulair before the big bang, became singulair, then, there was an explosion that created the Universe, that would mean, that if in fact the Universe as a determinable age, there should have been another Universe before that, and as well another before, another before, and another before... because if there was one Universe before this one, where energy was covering an infinit volume of space, it should have been concentrated to a point, in order to have a singulair energy, in order that that happens, that Universe should not have respected the laws that our Universe respect, the second laws of thermodynamic, or it is that, or the other Universe was respecting the same laws, and that there really was a big crunch of that Universe after a big bang, and not a big crunch from an energy in a infinit volume of space, that would mean that the concentration of energy in an area would be 0.

 

If we suppose that, then we supposes that since the energy existed, and if before the big crunch the Universe in question respected the same laws of thermodynamics, and the foundamental interactions, then, there has been an infinte numbers of big-crunch, and infinit numbers of big bang, and there is absolutly no reason why this Universe will not collapse, since having an age, supposes that it should give birth to another Universe, because the energy was always there, but not our universe, and there is no reason that this Universe that has an age could exist for infinit years old, because if it could, that means it has an infinit years old..

 

So, I think, if there was a big bang, then there will be a big crunch, if there will be no big crunch, then there never was any big bang.

[Sasun]

Domino, now I understand you better. Doesn't it seem to you that your sentences are too long? When I come to the end of your sentence I have already forgotten the beginning and the middle of it So I don't understand.

 

So, your conclusion that

So, I think, if there was a big bang, then there will be a big crunch, if there will be no big crunch, then there never was any big bang.

is based on the law of conservation of energy. Am I right?

 

What do you mean by energy being "singulair"?

 

Like I said before, what if at some point long time ago (not infinitely long) the universe, energy and all laws including energy conservation were created? This seems logical. There was no energy before (not just 0 energy), and one day it was created, and the law was also created that this energy should be conserved?

 

I agree with THOTH that we maybe understanding everything very wrong, and we may never understand anything correctly. ( If I am not mistaken, this was a serious philosophical question, related to "I think therefore I exist" type of things.) This could be because of our senses, because of our mind, because of the nature of the universe (For example, what if the nature of universe is that it can never be understood? Period. We are simply creating illusions for us and call it knowledge.)

But, there is a solution to this. First, we need to understand ourselves, our nature, then all things will be possible to understand. It is clear that this is not the goal of exact sciences.

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, the energy being singulair, means, that it is so concentrated in a point, that it unify all the dimentions, and the 4 foundamental interactions etc...

 

You know, I told you that I am not an athe but an agnostic, but even if you could believe in god, that does not explain why this energy of the big-bang could be created... I see this as an artist that woulod want to paint, but has nothing to paint, how can he still paint ? And more, the Quantum Bubble theories answers that there could be something out of nothing by still respecting the conservation of energy, of course I do not buy that, because Quantum physic has never searched for any logics and explanations on anything, but only predict and view the world as a mare statistical matter. The fact is that, there could be something out of nothing, but there should be as well something that could make this nothing something, by still respecting the principale of concervation of energy. I talked about this in the past. Suppose that nothing is "0" mathematically, 0 can do something out of this nothing, example: 5 + -5 = 0, so there is no reason why this can not be the cases in physic, if you combine a hydrogen atom with an anti-hydrogen matter, you get 0 matter, plus a big amount of energy... the orgine energy that could have made something out of nothing, so even supposing that there could be something created from nothing, it still take an energy to separate this nothing to creat something out of nothing.

 

That could mean something, it could mean that the nothing does not exist, or better, nothing means energy, a kind of energetic "0" So still energy can not be created, if you believe on a God, then in order that you respect the conservation of energy, and as well admit that a God can not creat something with nothing, then you would be forced to conclude that the Universe should be a part of this "God" because if you suppose at first there was only a god, and nothing more, the only way this god could do something out of nothing, is by being this energy and then being the Universe by itself(because this energy was used, to creat the singulary energy, then to explode), that could be the only way that you could believe in a God, by still respecting the conservation of energy as well as common sense, if you do that, then, that would make you an agnostic like me.

 

As for my long sentences, Sorry, would be difficult for me to change that.

[Sasun]

Domino, fine so you keep long sentences and I will keep not understanding them OK, no, actually I got used to your sentences and know what you mean. Sorry I don't mean to make you change your writing habits, I have no such hope, I know you are not going to change

 

I haven't spent much time understanding big bang theory and other theories. I am aware of the theory of supersymmetry, according to which all particles have the opposite, the symmetrical particle. A convenient name for the anti-particles is "s" + the name of the particle. So now they are talking about the dark matter in the universe, and they think that this dark matter is selectron (i.e. the opposit of electron) which are very hard to detect. Actually this dark matter could be an opposite of something else. I am not sure why they expect it to be selectron. So, I guess what you are saying about 0=5+(-5) is about this. The thing is this theory is very nice and logical (also mathetmatically very complex), but there is no empirical evidence as of yet. They say that this theory unites Quantum Mechanics and General Theory of Relativity, which would be cool if it proved true. You most probably know of the underground experiments on cosmic rays that are being condacted in Europe now. They are trying to prove that these dark particles penetrate underground while other particles in the cosmic ray do not reach that far.

 

Anyway, according to the philosophy that I believe in, all that there is in the Universe is a manifestation of the thing that we call God. So when we say God created the universe is another way of saying at some point in the past there was nothing, this nothing was the form of God at that time. Then God decided to manifest itself through infinite number of limited things. And the result was the universe. This even could be the Big Bang.

 

God was an infinite silence back then, or infinite nothingness. However, what we call nothing could be something that we are not capable of comprehending with our senses and mind. Perhaps energy can convert from this nothing. Or in other words, energy is a form of nothing. So, there could be a law of conservation of nothing, and the law of conservation of energy is a special instance of this more general law.

 

The creationist version holds that the universe has been created. But according to this philosophy the creation of the universe has not been completed yet, it is a continuing process as of today (let alone its creation in one week). It seems slow to us. When it will be completed, everything will be perfect as the creator is.

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, I will answer you when I can, considering my other answer in the other topic, and how I choosed the wrong words, I need a little more sleep to answer you.

[Guest Fadi]

OK, here is my reply Sasun, first, the "s" is not really meant to say, the opposit of particules, but rather the product of the collision of an anti- and a particule. The opposit of Electron is called a Positron, physicist are expecting to find a kind of something after a collision of those two, that will be called selectron, or neutralinos, a kind of neutralisation of those two that will form a kind of "virtual" sub-particule that would coexist with energy. In a more generalised way, they are in search of "scalar Leptons"

 

I like this vision of the Universe, with those theories, what it means is that maybe the continual expension finally could not come like they predicted, because all dependent on the rest 95 % of the Universe that could not really be detected with intrumentation we already have, and that all our conclusions on the Universe are based on this little 5 %, and even then, how much of this 5 % can we observe ?

 

As for God, even if you assume the existance of God, you should use still common sense, this God in order to creat something out of nothing, and that if you suppose this God was the only thing before anything, then it should have used himself to creat something, because the only "thing" that was was him, and the only way of creating something is to use himself as a thing to creat something... so what I mean, if a God is, it is the Universe itself, and everything in it... like you are a part of this God.

[Sasun]

Domino, I missed you answer somehow. I thought you hadn't answered yet.

 

I know that positron is the opposit of electron, but selectron is the symmetric (or supersymmetric) of electron. That is what I meant. If I am not mistaken, the product of a positron and electron will be neutralino and selectron. This is according to superstring/supersymmetry theories only. I don't really know much, but I found this website ( http://www.superstringtheory.com ), I am reading little by little, it is very useful. It has much more than String Theories and has basic and advanced levels of explaining many things. There is also a forum for super-geeks

 

 

 

As for God, even if you assume the existance of God, you should use still common sense, this God in order to creat something out of nothing, and that if you suppose this God was the only thing before anything, then it should have used himself to creat something, because the only "thing" that was was him, and the only way of creating something is to use himself as a thing to creat something... so what I mean, if a God is, it is the Universe itself, and everything in it... like you are a part of this God. wink.gif

 

This is what is meant by manifestation. God manifests itself/himself by everything and everyone in the universe. What we call creation is that. In other words, God became the universe and all small and big things in the universe. The universe is not the only 'world', there are also other non-material 'worlds', also created by God. These worlds are states of consciousness, where physical world is one of the lowest state of consciousness.

 

Anyway, yes I am also part of God like everyone else

 

You are saying 'commonsense' but what does that mean? Commonsense is a limited consciousness, which should be used in common situations. How much of quantum mechanics is commonsense? Or theory of relativity? Think about it ... if commonsense doesn't explain God, then you should not use it I believe there is a different logic for God, like there is a different logic for Quantum Mechanics. We do not understand many things because our experience, senses and mind are limited to common things like everyday life and observable things. We learn from observation and if something conflicts it then we don't understand. For example, if we ask someones first and last name, he will tell us both and we will learn it as a certainty. Likewise, in the macroworld we can know exactly the location (coordinates) and momentum(speed x mass) of a particle at the same time. However, in the microworld, we cannot know particles momentum and location at the same time. We can know only one of them at a time (with some not absulute certainty). With the analogy of the name, you can ask a person his first and last names, but he will say "Sorry, I am unable to tell you both of the names. I can only give my first name, you have to ask my last name later." But when you ask his last name later, he will tell it to you, but his first name is not the same as before.

Had we observed similar situations in life, probably quantum mechanics would feel commonsense. What do you think?

 

Edit: corrected an error regarding Heisneberg uncertainty principle.

Edited May 16, 2003 by Sasun

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, I am now in what we call, in my twenties crisis. And I switch from atheism to agnostism depending on my mood states. I am in a moment that I am trying to find a sense to my life.

 

I meditated on many things about the origin of consciences, and why it exist. Let me tell you what I mean. Conscience is what we know as "self-reflectivness" what I mean is that, we see conscience as something that permit us to know that we exist, right now from researches we know that beside humans only few apes can have conscience and maybe perhaps daulphins. Of course this is not sure, because there is no way to know in certain that only a limited organisms have consciences... but it makes sense to think that more you have a more complex and bigger brain, and more you are conscient, so logically speaking, conscience must be a product of the brain. But here the problem is again, how logically we can explain the "logicness" of the dependence of conscience of the brain. Neurologists have tried to explain that, new theories about the "many" selfs in the brain undergowing a darwinian natural selection, and then the choices made is a result of this "battle."

 

What it means here, is that many consciences can exist, and in every fraction of second a new conscience and a new self "appears" what it means is that, what proves that a second ago, it was this "you" that was "you," because it could very well be that this you that you are at this second is a new "you" and the reason that you think that it is the same you, is the result of the fact that you have access to your memory, and that this conscience at this second thinks it was always this "you" when in fact it was not.

 

I can explain this, as this. Suppose that all your past records, your memories are "A" and there is many consciences, lets say the first one was b, then c, then d, then e etc... First "b" connects to "A" and the connection brings bA, then a kind of natural selection happens, in a kind of continual natural selection of "yourself" then "c" comes in has won for the moment, it comes and connect to "A"(your memoeires, etc...), now during that time, you think that you always were the same conscience, but this is an illusion, because your brain recorded your past existance, and this new you, that is your conscience, think it always was the same, because it has now access to your brain.

 

This new theories of neroscience makes a lots of sense, they bring evidences with brain regions, and what happens when a region of the brain is cut etc...

 

I then did my personal research, and came to the conclusion that this theories have many and many flaws, first, its the way that memories are storted, even an over estimation of the numbers of neurons, and even overestimating the quantity of information that each neurons could carry, even then after this overestimation you suppose that all those neurons are made to record memory(when it is not the cases), it would take many and many hundreds of times more neurons to explain the quantity of informations we carry... those theories as well have other flaws, such as "why" when we take off important part of the brain, the brain is cappable of adaptation and how the informations pass threw, when this darwinist theory is supposed to conclude that this addaptation should only be a kind of natural selection from those "yourselfs" and that still the brain just after the surgery start this process of addaptation, when we can know how it will end, and near predictable, when from this "selectionsim" theory many of those neurons, after that this natural selection equilibrum has been destroyed should be destroyed as results, because natural selection would not permit their survival, but that is not what is observed, to the contrary, just near that area, those neurons expand and try to replace the death ones by trying to take exactly the same fonction in order to make yourself as close as possibgle as your past "yourself."

 

Still the biggest flow of such theories is not that, but another one, this flaw has to do with those "b" "c" "d" etcs... "yourselfs" what I mean, is that if the "c" that comes after the "b" is another conscience, even if it will have access to your memory, and will think he was this past "yourself" creating the illusion that he was the same "himself" as the true yourself that just was replaced, it would still be another yourself, that will think he was yourself, but if that was really the cases, then you should even not be conscient of your existance right now, but another "yourself" should be here thinking he was always yourself. So thats nonsense, it has sense, because the new "yourself" will think he was your past yourself, because it has been connected to your memory, but he will think it, and you will not be here anymore, but will be replaced by this "yourself" that will think he was the same yourself. I don,t know if you understand. What I mean is that the theories of the "many" "yourself" in a darwinist brain, explains the evolution of the size of the brain, explains why you think you are the same "you" as a second before, but at the same time, it does not explain why you "yourself" is still conscient after this replacement, I mean, the definition of consciensness is all about knowing your own existance, the new replacement of yourself, will think it was you, but you will not be here anymore.

 

But on the other hand, this theory could make sense, if you take the side of the new consciensness that replaced the older one, what I mean is that, you yourself could think that you were the same yourself, when the other yourself a second ago has been replaced by yourself, and you think you are the same yourself because of your memory. Even considering this poses problems, because it means that conscience could be replicated, not only replicated, but in hundred of years later, the same yourself could exist, and know that he existed, if you are connected to a memory that tells you you have existed, you will know you have existed, and it will be the same "you" because the fact that you are here and know you exist, and not another "yourself" think he existed and was you, proves that even if there may be many "you" you still exist as a "you" and that this means that no matter if there is many you, the old you that has just died to be replace by this new youhas not died really because this past you and this future you are interconnected by the present you that exist in a time = 0. Because present does not really exist.

 

Some answers could be given from Quantum physics, it has been observed that in order to make a Quantum copy of a particule, the older one must be destroyed in the process, because quantum admit one existance of those particule entities... but during the process a kind of strange thing happens, the new one act exactly as the older one, what it means is that what makes this particule the same is something that likes the past destroyed particule with the future existing particule, a link passing trew the present.

 

So, as expected, this means that probably conscience exist not as amatter of neurons, but rather a "Quantum" entity" respecting the said "Quantum laws"(are they really laws ?), the prove of that lies on the fact that the only way one could explain the way that the brain keep so much quantity of informations, ia that the information is kept in a way of Quantum "states" and since those Quantum states are linked with the rest of the Universe Quantum states, it as well means that what we are is just a conscience part of the Universe that is conscience of itself, if if this quantum particul is destroyed a copy of itself is made and that this same copy is an exact replica of the older one. In somme, we are the Universe, and everything we observe from the Universe are the product of the Quantum states in ourself.

 

New researches point to that direction, some scientists predicts that it would be possible to build Quantum computers that will have consciensness, because now some suppose consciencess lies in the Quantum states and not the organic alone.

 

And evidences here could be brough by comparing dreams with NDE(near death experience). During a dream, the brain aves enter in another wave phases, commonly called REM sleep, it is the only phases that could replicate the experiences of those having NDE. The problem is that EEG of those having NDE are flat, that supposes no brain activities, while during that time, the individual like he/she discribe feel more consciensness then during a normal brain activities. Neurologists extrapolated by giving explanations that still does not make enough sense, one of those being that we can not trust memory, and that memory could be fooled by thinking that it was recorded during a moment, when it as after or before the moment... but some observations contradicts that, because if that is the cases, it does not explain why the person interviewed just after described those things, being quicker then the fomration of memories after that the brain is "restarted" That implies that memories are first recorded as Quantum states, and then as a results passing trew the synaps.

 

What that means ? It means that in a long future you could be recreated, and no matter if it is a new "yourself" meaning that it is existing in its present, means that its in fact a future having been connected to its past... and the present is just equal to 0.

[Sasun]

Domino, I will answer a bit later. For now, I guess you are using the word 'conscience' instead of 'consciousness' - these have different meanings, and people in forums often use the first word instead of the second one for some reason.

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, does consciensness not mean, self reflectivness ?

[Sasun]

I am not sure if there is a word 'conscienceness', I will check the dictionary when I go home. 'Conscience' is a sort of self-reflection, but it has to do with morality/ethics. Consciousness is self-reflection but also a lot of other things. Self-reflection will be self-consciousness I think. But you better ask a linguist, or at least a native English speaker

 

I understand this way:

 

Conscience=khightsh

Consciousness=gitaktsutiun

Self-consciousness=inqnagitaktsutiun (I think this is what you are talking about)

Edited May 16, 2003 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Domino, I am trying to understand your post about different 'you's but do not have much success Can you put some link to a website that briefly explains the darwinian theory of selection of the fittest 'you' and the neural theory. Only after I understand it I can understand the flaws that you are mentioning.

 

I think the proper way to call this 'you' is not conscience or consciousness, but self recognition or self identification.

 

I don't think anyone is capable to prove that we exist. Maybe we don't exist? It is just an assumption that we make always. The first thing we always assume without proof is that we exist.

 

The mind is creating a total illusion of everything. But how can we ever understand the mind using this same misinterpreting and lying mind? Therefore, the mind is useless for everything that is important

[Guest Fadi]

Come on Sasun, just search on google, you will find those theories.

[Sasun]

Domino, I thought about it but I don't know what keyphrase to use because it is a whole unfamiliar subject to me. If I search for the words that you are using (e.g. "the strongest you" ) I will hardly find anything relevant :D Besides you should do the dirty work of searching Don't ask me why...