The creation of everything... How?

Well, there is a linear model of progression that the big bang theory is built upon.
It starts from a single explosion, expands into more complexities until suddenly life, yet another level of complexity, happens. Then consciousness, as an element introduced at last. Generally speaking this is the progression.

But where does this linear progression idea come from? I will not claim to know that specificaly, but I know one place where one is found that is remarkably similar. Consider the linear progression of the biblical genesis. One god, makes heaven and earth, makes water and sky, makes animals, and at last makes man and woman (consciousness) and puts them into creation upon its completion.

Now consider that the big bang theory was originally proposed by a priest. It is not such a unlikely scenario that he chose his conceptual understanding of linear progression he got from the biblical genesis as a framework to construct his theory.

If the maker of big bang theory had come from a hinduistic background it is not at all certain that the theory would be even close to what it is. Then the cultural beliefs that prevail in hinduistic societies would likely be the conceptual frame he sought to mold his theory by.

But you can tell almost the same history even if you admit consciousness from the beguining...consider consciousness a progression in layers of computability...progressive poli algorithmic compared measurement...from a single particle measuring at base level the effect of prime forces like electromagnetism up to our scale in which we measure the dynamic of entire systems...

Besides.you cannot phenomenologically throw evolution out of the airlock just for the sake of it...big bang has that merit, it holds the glue together with the stuff...

Yes. I do not dispute that.
But the cultural basis upon which we judge this value is not as rock solid as the scientific basis, and there are elements of both in it.

Evolution theory also has a problem with consciousness and life if is contrast to the assumption of a unliving and unconscious universe. But the theory isn't dead for that reason. It's just not complete.

There...the middle ground is also my standing point...incomplete is nowadays only meal...

Consciousness evolved from animals developing brains that got complex enough to become self aware so in that regard consciousness have indeed come from matter located in the brain pans of the higher mammals.

There is zero indication that all the matter in the universe have any self awareness outside of animals or perhaps self aware machines created by animal intelligent somewhere in the universe.

So to sum up no matter how new age we get my cat beside me is very likely to have more consciousness then all the mass of all the suns in the universe as least by all the evidence we now have.

If you come up with any hard evidence otherwise I would be interested in hearing of it but not words games that prove nothing.

You can made up any **** claimed you care to and then demand someone disprove it and that is not how it work.

Show one proven time that consciousness is not connected to matter!!!!!

Proof is proof and nonsense is nonsense.

\

Creativity as in writing fantasy stories????????

So you are trying to discredit a proven scientific theory by the background of who happen to had come up with it?

I 'd rather that u don 't refer to irrelevant excrement,
if we r not discussing sanitation, Bill, just out of politeness, if u don 't mind.
(Remember: we r not fighting.)


Well (proven to ME, not to u) there have been several brief times wherein I had
out-of-body-experiences while I was on-the-job in court,
taking testimony, and once in a restaurant at lunchtime + a couple of other times.

Do u have a way of KNOWING whether a tree or a photon of light is conscious ?

If u assume that thay r or r not,
must your assumption be accurate ?????





David

Conected or not rather the problem seems to be knowing what matter is..

No matter how you define matter in a scientific sense consciousness is not part of it at least currently.

No. If you still think I am trying to discredit anything, I suggest you re read everything, if you even read it at all.



After the rant you gave me about proving negatives, you proceed to ask for it yourself.

I get you now. Science is your religion.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Show one proven time that consciousness is not connected to matter!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------

Sorry in what fantasy land is my question a negative?

In any case, science is my tool for looking at the world not wishes full thinking or new age nonsense.

It is the tool I happen to used because there is hard evidences for over 500 years or so that this tool work and work well in the real universe.

In that regards please take note it is not by means of prayers or Tran mediation that is allowing you and I to communicate but by the means of technology developed out of science.

Science is not a god or a religion however it does give the powers of the old gods to mankind for good or for evil.

Allowing the disease of leprosy to be deal with without the aid of Jesus and allowing sadly cities to be wipe off the face of the earth in seconds without the aid of angels.

1 - I don´t even remember if he ever implied that it was n´t, but that was not the point...the point instead is that terms like "matter" or "physical" grow practically meaningless these days on the eyes of top core hard scientists specially in QP...and secondly the term Consciousness is hardly anything in itself Scientific but rather the object of study from which with precision we almost know nothing about...now by saying the opposite you put yourself in a reckless position where the projection of your own beliefs far outweighs what science, in these fields at least, has to offer with some certainty...and concerning the Big-Bang, in which I believe by the way, is not sufficient to say it happen, but rather to understand what it represents in the overall picture...recently its most distinctive descriptive characteristic has the beginning of all there is has actually been questioned by String Theorists, who as you also well know I am sure, propose a Multiverse from which the Big Bang and our Universe are only just one more step in the chain...



You must be joking...unless you believe your brain does n´t fit the classical concept of matter...

Plus:

Often QM Scientists use the term "observe" not referring to any humans at all but to other particles instead...

Just out of curiosity, Bill, if I may:
do u consider the matter in obama's body to be conscious ?

QM and the theories related to it is out there at the cutting edge and you do tend to get cut on the cutting edge however the big bang is an event that had a mountain of proof behind it.

That is the certainty I had been addressing not the interesting and many theories of QM.

As far as playing words games with concepts such as consciousness and even matter that had always been a problem in dealing with the new age movement.

Hmm consider the brain dead members of the GOP far right that is an interesting question.

What new age movement are you talking about ? Again concerning facts you assume allot and know little...

But where does this linear progression idea come from?

My understanding is that it starts with the experience of the world as being composed of objects and the fact that we are conscious from the point of view of one of these objects and that the constitution of the object from which we are conscious causes that consciousness and affects it in specific ways in the sense of material causality.

The observation of these objects led to a restriction on their motion in the form of physical laws parameterized by time that allow one given an initial state to calculate the objects that would exist either forward in the future or backward in history.

Specifically three things were noticed: 1) Objects moving away from us moved faster the farther they were away from us which is equivalent to an expanding universe. 2) When the laws of particle physics were applied to generate what the past would have been like a prediction was made of the what the relative abundance of hydrogen to helium would have been and from that what it would be now. That relative abundance was then measured and found to be consistent with the prediction 3) From the prediction of the early universe a prediction was made that there would be an isotropic source of radiation called the cosmic background radiation and that radiation was found.

Based on the evidence therefore the theory was confirmed. Since then some are reporting that the Hubble constant is not constant but is accelerating.