Where did the matter and energy come from?

No it doesn't. The world as described by physics does exist as is, however yes, it is quite different from what we normally refer to as the physical world (since the physical world is represented as each individuals subjective world - described by our conscious experiences).The world as we perceive it is one representation produced by processes in the brain interacting with real energies, real matter, in the world - which models the nature of the realities in which we are embedded.What you seem to be getting at is that what we see needs to be more objectively ontological, right? If I'm correct in that assessment, you seem to be confusing the subjective/objective relationship as two seperate things when it's actually one and the same.Here's a thought experiement:Say I'm studying your brain, and for this example lets say I can pin point the exact neural correlates of any given experience. Lets say the experience is you looking at a book and I'm the scientist inspecting your brain.We are both getting a representation of the book. You subjectively in your mind. And me by objectively viewing the neural functions.At first glace it would seem that what I see, as the scientist, has more objective ontological status than what you see. But that is incorrect. The easiest way to see that it's incorrect is that our roles are interchangeable. I can now look at the book and you look at my brain, making you the scientist and me the subject.But why are my experiences of the book now suddenly subjective, however, when I was the scientist, my experiences of studying your brain that was looking at the book was objective?Point is, it's all the same thing, and nothing deeper has to be taken into account due to subjective experiences.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Consciousness interpretation? What does that mean, cavediver?- Oni

Ah ok. Due to our interaction with reality, and our complex sensory system, we are able to experience color, sound and texture in the manner that we do (some different from others).So are you saying that distance and space are subjective concepts that are experienced also?- Oni

Sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain?From what I recall reading though, and from what the experts here have explained iirc, quantum entanglment does work fine with relativity. I agree that there is no universal time clock from where we could go back in time from, but the past never existed? That sounds a bit like a load of shit. Not at all. Bones are in the ground and historians from the times of Rome left plenty of information. What are you trying to get at? Or you'd consider it an act of nature - like every single other thing.- Oni

If you mean "macro" objects then you are wrong. We live in a universe with decoherence, which keeps macro objects away from the quantum world - as I understand it.But this is beyond my level of knowledge in this field so I won't pretend any longer that I know what I'm talking about. You said that non-locality (quantum entanglement) had issues with GR, but the problem is it doesn't. Could you provide evidence to support that assertion of yours?What human intuitions and preconceived notions are you refering to? Can you be more clear... Yes, I agree with that. But that's irrelevant because you and I experience time. Therefore to humans, there is a past, present and future - we have a history, so does this planet, solar system, etc. There is a time flow for ALL things with mass. I believe you have allowed this to confuse you a bit much. Time flows for anything with mass. We experience time. It is real.There is no universal time clock, that I agree with in accordance with relativity. In other words, you couldn't get in a time machine and go to the year 1975 - there is no 1975.Now, that is one thing. But you are claiming that history doesn't exist, that is incorrect and a misunderstanding of relativity. If you are still asking this question, then you may need to re-read this thread from the beginning (no pun intended).- Oni

Not even close to the same.Evidence is the only thing that can lead to an assumtion. Scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are constructed by, as you said, speculation, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science.So it is not a blind assumtion to think things are random, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."Assuming something is due to god would first require evidence for god. There must be some previously ascertained fact that lead to this assumtion. But there isn't, obviously, because it is a belief. So it IS a blind assumtion, where as assuming randomness (or natural means) is not because, again, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes. I know. And what seperates the micro from the macro so that its not paradoxical? I still don't get how knowing that is a problem if we know we live in a universe with decoherence...?Curiously though, how do you know for sure that you live in a mind-independent outside world? Well I didn't say that. Nor was it implied. I said humans experience time. We do so at 300,000 m/s. That is a fact. You do understand the difference between "universal time flow" and "experienced time" right? Anything with mass experiences time.That is not the same as there being an actual time, I again agree that there is no universal time clock. But experienced time is real, time dilation is real. Speed does affect the time things (any thing) experiences. Then explain why 2 people travelling at different speeds would experience time differently - and thus age differently? As cavediver has pointed out, it does not. Define "god"? To me, god died when Carlin died.- Oni

I agreed on that, however, you said they were the same, which they are not if we evaluate the methods used to reach them.We can assume anything: the matrix, FSM, Invisible unicorns, etc., what matters, at least in honest conversations, is the methods used to reach each assumption.You would agree that if I claimed I assumed invisible unicorns were pulling earth around the sun, that it would not be the same as assuming a force in nature was coausing us to orbit, right? You would agree that the two are not the same, yes? What if D O G really spelled cat? (10 points if you/anyone know/s what movie that's from)I grant you that there are plenty of assumptions. The matrix, created by someone in another, more advance universe, etc., etc., etc., I agree that assumptions are assumptions.But you have to agree that there is are difference methods of establishing assumptions and that some are more qualiified as being logical than others - of course, as always, leaving room for any and all possbilities to satisfy the imagination.Grounding an assumption based on evidence is a lot better and accurate than basing it on blind faith, right?That difference is what doesn't make them equals.- Oni

Energy/density curves spacetime...get it right, the nerds are watching. - Oni

Thanks for the response, cavediver. I didn't think you meant solely subjective, but I just wanted to be clear that there is an objective world that there is a consensus on.I'm curious as to your opinion on Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory?When I first got to this forum I read on a thread you recommending his book Road to Reality, which I bought on your recommendation. So I figured he's a theoretical physicist whos work you respect.I was wondering if you think his take on consciousness being at the QM level, found inside Microtubules, has good evidence to support it?I'll provide a quote of what Orch-OR is for others reading who aren't familiar with it.

quote:

---

The Orch OR theory combines Penrose's hypothesis with respect to the Gdel theorem with Hameroff's hypothesis with respect to microtubules. Together, Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime.

​

The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons. The Orch in Orch OR stands for orchestrated to give the full name of the theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction. Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of the microtubules.

---

- Oni

Ask yourself this, have you ever witnessed anything begin from nothing? Or is everything just a change from another form?So what even has a beginning?- Oni

Just use "peek" and you can see how I did it. Absolutely true. It is a hard concept to grasp, but I think its the same for all of us. We experience time, so it's only natural to feel as thou things should begin and end. But this is only true for our macro, and more specifically, local world. Not so in quantum mechanics where there is no concept of time, beginning or end.- Oni

Hi John, You currently find them to be "just right," but the matter will change depending on what model universe we actually live in. Which is currently not known. And will change the force of gravity one way or the other.If the universe continues to expand at it's current rate, the force of gravity will not be enough to hold everything together, all the way down to atoms - source. How "just right" will the universe be then when everything the book explains is perfect right now is no longer the case?- Oni