Qual o melhor? Terminar seus dias numa velhice apática como homem aposentado, ignorado pelos jovens, passando dias a esperar a morte jogando cartas na praça com outros velhos, como mulher gorda obcecada com receitas e telespectadora do que fazem os filhos e netos e sonhando como a vida teria sido diferente se casada com Elvis Presley, ou terminar seus dias como um velho super-agitado devido a um cérebro que não para de gerar ideias e um moral que o torna um mosquito elétrico sempre procurando ajudar os vizinhos na limpeza ou reforma da casa, de maneira que nunca pensas na velhice e na morte?
A diferença entre estes dois destinos é escolhida na juventude, ou ainda na adolescência: se você exercita mais o corpo na academia para obter músculos e o corpo bonito ou se você exercita seu cérebro com avalanches de informações sobre tudo o que se relaciona aos fenomenos naturais do mundo real. Uma vez exercitado e excitado na juventude, o cérebro se torna guloso, super-ativo e dai para a frente, ate o ultimo suspiro, ele nunca para de querer crescer mais e mais.
Existem milhares de perguntas ainda sem respostas. Provavelmente ainda não conhecemos nem 10% das informações contidas neste Universo. Temos aumentado muito o conhecimento em relação ao nosso passado de primatas, mas a Natureza esta tunelada para obter um ser com conhecimento milhões de vezes maior que o nosso atual, e o que prova isso é que todas as nossas mais complexas teorias cientificas não resolvem as questões praticas. Como muito bem explica o autor do artigo que forneço o link aqui. Mas certo ou errado, o unico jeito que temos encontrado para fazer crescer o nosso conhecimento do mundo real é reunindo todos os dados e fatos conhecidos e comprovados aqui e agora, bota-los em cima da mesa como peças de um quebra-cabeças, ficar olhando horas, dias, meses a fio aquelas peças, guardando cada uma delas na memoria, para nelas ficar pensando, pensando, e ficar tentando montar um quebra-cabeças para cujo quadro final estão faltando 90 % das pecas… e seu quadro final se chama ” teoria”.
A sua teoria, a sua marca de diferença no mundo, o rastro inapagável da sua passagem por este mundo, pois seras uma mensagem, que ninguem mais sera, a mensagem de um possivel explicado mundo que voce descobriu sem a ditatorial imposição de mais ninguem. Isto sera o alento ate seu ultimo suspiro, pois morreras certamente sem conseguir as peças faltantes e provar que a sua visão de mundo é a mais inteligente, a mais correta, aquela que fez a inteligencia coletiva da Humanidade dar um passo a frente. Teorias são assim construídas e como quadros finais explicam os mistérios existentes e estimulam a observação mais profunda e constante do mundo. Novos dados ou se encaixam como evidencias ou causam uma distorção em toda a teoria, mas o mais importante é que as teorias estão sempre nos atormentando porque querem novos experimentos. Elas nos dirigem a fazer experimentos que sem elas jamais faríamos. Muitos destes experimentos podem explodir como bombas em nossas mãos nos entortando todo, mas muitos abrem mais espaços ampliando nossas fronteiras. O desenvolvimento do conhecimento humano é mais baseado no processo do ” trial and error”, ou seja, julgamento, experimento, aprendizagem do erro, e do acumulo de erros se vai chegando, por eliminação, ao caminho do acerto. As teorias tem guiado, dirigido nosso conhecimento que é internacionalmente compilado numa biblioteca e se torna a base da nossa cultura. Caindo, tropeçando, avançando aos trancos e barrancos, a primeira teoria que surgiu na cabeça de um primata quando ele comeu ate se fartar, deitou recostando-se na sombra de uma arvore e sem sono, foi forçado a ver o céu e as folhas ou macas caindo da arvore, e sem poder evita-lo, teve que pensar nas explicações, causas… essa primeira teoria cresceu, se diversificou em milhares de ramificações, para cujo entendimentos a Humanidade teve que separar pessoas em disciplinas especializadas… pois como absorver tudo o que diz a mais moderna M-Spring-Theory ao mesmo tempo que absorver tudo o que trata a RNA-World Theory? No entanto, apesar dessa evolução da primeira teoria na cabeça daquele gorila sentado, ainda esta ai a maioria esperando por novas teorias, pois muitas disciplinas, como a Fisica e a Matematica, estão chegando a limites das suas ultimas teorias e precisam de novas que sugiram novos experimentos. Mas todos podem colaborar de alguma forma, com seus quadros finais, mesmo um que sugira que nos existimos dentro da ponta da cauda de um cosmico e alado dinossauro voando em linha reta e velocidade constante porque acredita que um dia vai alcançar o fim do infinito, dar um passo adiante e comer o universo inteiro que se parece com um queijo suíço. Pegue sua lupa, vá atras do seu dinossauro, certamente nunca vai encontra-lo, mas com o avançar da sua mente esperta vais cada vez mais corrigindo o quadro do dinossauro para se parecer com o quadro do mundo real. E lute para afirmar sua diferença, afinal não es apenas um mero macaco melhorado porque sua inteligencia inquieta já não cabe mais dentro dele. Os outros velhos que agora empregam suas adquiridas musculaturas para levantar cartas de baralho e estão sempre a jogarem cartas na praça vão comentarem – todas as vezes que o virem passar por la ativo e se movendo rápido como uma bala – ” … la vai o maluco aprontar mais alguma…” , porem melhor assim, você tem mais vida que eles, termina seus dias em maior felicidade interna que eles. Não se esqueça porem de manter o código moral como gene que es, cuja missão aqui é tambem arregaçar as mangas e por as mãos na lama para trabalhar produzindo coisas concretas, mesmo que seja se oferecendo para ajudar o vizinho a construir o muro e sua casa. Vamos agora seguir o link e ler o interessante artigo ilustrado com maravilhosas imagens ( se tiver tempo volto aqui para posta-lo traduzido).
The author is forgetting relativity, which suggests that differente observers of a unique object, located at different point in time space, should have different interpretations. He says that “ At the hands of astronomy and cosmology, we seem to have been reduced to near nothingness”. It seems for him, an observer based in Astronomy, Physics and Mathematics, not for me, an observer based in Biology and Systemology. His theory is based solely on the skeleton of the Universe (the structure of galaxies), my theory is based on the soft meat that covers the skeleton, the biological organization of galaxies.
Our problem initial is: was this Universe produced by a previous design ( I am not saying “designer” and not “intelligent”) or not, merelly or randomly from nothing? If there is a previous design, certainly the shape at the top of evolution, ( consciousness must be significant. If not, everything from nothing, will be forever, nothing. My method is suggesting that we are like genes building our future shape as pure and unique consciousness.
Since that the author exposed the evidences that supports his theory, I have the right to do it, although have no space here for 1% of my evidences. My method began with seven years isolated at the heart of Amazon jungle studying systems and its connections (biosphere, Earth, Solar system, Milk Way), applying the old method of comparative anatomy among all systems – living and non-living – searching evolutionary links, as the link between cosmological and biological evolution.
If an intelligent being smaller than an atom living inside human skeleton, his natural sensors and artificial sensors ( scientific tools), which are merely extension of his natural sensors, will see his ” Universe” finishing at the limits of the skeleton. He never will see the soft meet, the organs, even the mind. The effects of these things will be called ” dark matter or dark energy”. But comparative anatomy makes the investigation in reverse way, from top to botton, starting at the final product – neurology, biology – and the student will be an observer strongly affected by biological interpretation of the skeleton and the Physics observed by Mr. Caleb.
Only a unique sample of same evidence under different interpretation: The Big Bang.
The Theory is strong supported ( cosmic radiation, expansion, etc.) for both observers. My method also arrived to biologically organizing quarks, went further seeing the vacuum plenty of vibrations of ” dark” light waves as the code for life’s cycles and the source of these emanations of light was a big Big Bang. But while Mr Lawrence Klauss saw everything from nothing, and after that, a small high condensed atom, my method suggests a different thing after and beyond the Big Bang. The salvage Nature in Amazon always suggested to me: Nature does not play dices with her creatures. The chaos saw in biosphere is product of order, see the sky”. And I never saw this Universe making magics, taking something out from nothing. So, the complexity here is merely the convergence of spread informations existing at the Big Bang. The Universe only do things that he has information for. He creates things by the same process that he was created. Then, my specific type of observer plus skepticism about magics, made me see that my own body was made throught a bigbang. The first initial moment of a human body – one top evolutionary product here and now – begins when a small spermatozoon “explodes” inside a big ovule. And all sequential shapes ( morula, blastulae, recapitulates the sequential shapes of the Universe (atomic nebulae, mass of galaxies…). But my method leads me further: you can see at my website, the graphic of electromagnetic spectrum, how natural light wave has the same shape of a universal Matrix that is the actual biological DNA. It is scientific falsiable or testable: the works of DNA inside the nucleus emits the biological counterpart of cosmic radiation. This Universe is a cosmic egg (or the fossil of our ancestors) where is occurring a natural process of genetic reproduction of the system that was before the Big Bang. This is falsiable, universes from nothing is not scientific testable.
Ok, I would like to debate here detail by detail each evidence has the two sides. It is interpretations against interpretations, since that the evidences are known by both sides. But I would like that the other side always brings on the table, a natural known parameter for supporting each Math formula or another thing used as links among the data. Like here, my known parameter for interpretation of Big Bang is embryology. I don’t know where the other side will find a natural parameter for their “nothing”, and for ” a microscopic atom able to grow to the size of the Universe” , etc.
Escrevi o comentário abaixo para postar no artigo mas fui barrado pela maquina. O limite imposto de 239 palavras é uma aberração Como pretende o autor manter um debate serio se ele usa 10.000 palavras na sua argumentação e os outros só podem usar 239? O autor acredita que encontrou e definiu a verdade total e nada mais tem a obter de outras mentes para ajuda-lo ele mesmo a corrigir possíveis erros? Assim não posso participar.
Comentario que seria postado:
Everybody has one ideology, one private intention, so, Deepak Chopra has his own, I have other, different. But there are external phenomena that are common interests, and I guess that there is this problem about illusion, matrix, etc. Our approaches, actions, suggestions will be different.
My suggestion is based upon my Matrix/DNA world view. We are victims of a fake, delusional reality due mistakes made by ours ancestors applying their free will. The real world offers at least two different alternatives for to choose as way of living: or being a closed system (extreme selfishness), or being an opened system (extreme dispersion). The wise choice should be something in the middle, because total dispersion of opened systems are not good also. ( You can say that closed system creates a reality composed by macro matter distant of God as consciousness, and opened system is the opened way through quantum reality of consciousness towards God).
I don’t know about extremely opened system but I got the formula of an extremely perfect closed system. And this formula shows that every individual part inside this closed system is inside a Matrix, and it is the Matrix itself. A closed system cuts any relations with the external world, creates its own reality, and is a closed door to evolution.
We are 13,7 billions old and about 4 billion years ago our infant and primitive ancestors made the bad choice of being extremely closed system. The event was at the evolutionary passage from the shape of stellar system to galactic system. That was our body at that time. Consciousness was a kind of fetus, dreaming yet, but driven its destiny thought its dreams, because without the Matrix, the real reality was the the world of dreams. The original first galaxy was/is a perfect machine, a perfect isolated closed system ( see its theoretical picture at my website). And we, as human beings, are like genes here and now being driven genetically towards the reproduction of that ancestor. Galaxy has modeled our biospherical environment and it is inside our DNA. If I arrived to this event applying the most materialist, rationalist, method (comparative anatomy between living and non-living system), the mystic authors of the Bible, of the I Ching and all great religions arrived there also, because our past is encrypted into our memories, into our DNA. Metaphorically the Bible narrates that event under the name of Adam and Eve in the Paradise. Our reality today is the fake paradise for our consciousness that now, is awaken. We need win the war against our selfish gene in order for to get into the reality that the world has to offer. But, for doing it, we need to take out the veil that hides our demon, the Matrix inside us, created by us at our infant times. (sorry the bad English and the complexity of this issue, but, any comment will be welcome)
Comentario que foi postado:
Very good issue and well written, but, how the author intends to maintain a serious debate whether it uses 10,000 words in his argumentation and the other can only use 239? The author believes that found and defined the whole truth and has nothing else to get from other minds for him to help himself to correct possible errors? So I can not participate.
Outro post enviado e aguardando aprovação dos moderadores:
” The name of some quantum discoveries, like the Uncertainty Principle, is enough to induce faint queasiness. But incrementally, the quantum worldview has overturned so many aspects of the physical world that by now, quite literally, nothing we casually take to be real actually is. Solid objects aren’t solid…”
Our physical world is not overturned by quantum worldview, solid objects continuing to be solids objects, and if we are in this world like men, we need to fight and survive like men. The Uncertainty Principle maybe is not indication that quantum dimension is different, it is an indication that we did not learn the relativistic aspect of this world. You can not measures the shape of yours own body and the age or position of yours body in time at the same time, because from the act of measurement to the acts of conclusion yours body is minutes older and so, different shape. Now, try to calculate this difference at micro-scales and considering that particles are under the process of life’s cycle also. It is a relativistic issue of the observer and not a difference between two realities of the observed world. All quantum weird phenomena seems to be a relativistic issue. But, I agree that we are living under the rules of a Matrix, but, the Matrix was built by ourselves as our ancestors, as suggested by models of Matrix/DNA world view.
Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14. - JournalofCosmology.com, 2011
( Copiado Aqui para Analise pela Matrix/DNA Theory)
Issues related to consciousness in general and human mental processes in particular remain the most difficult problem in science. Progress has been made through the development of quantum theory, which, unlike classical physics, assigns a fundamental role to the act of observation. To arrive at the most critical aspects of consciousness, such as its characteristics and whether it plays an active role in the universe requires us to follow hopeful developments in the intersection of quantum theory, biology, neuroscience and the philosophy of mind. Developments in quantum theory aiming to unify all physical processes have opened the door to a profoundly new vision of the cosmos, where observer, observed, and the act of observation are interlocked. This hints at a science of wholeness, going beyond the purely physical emphasis of current science. Studying the universe as a mechanical conglomerate of parts will not solve the problem of consciousness, because in the quantum view, the parts cease to be measureable distinct entities. The interconnectedness of everything is particularly evident in the non-local interactions of the quantum universe. As such, the very large and the very small are also interconnected.
Consciousness and matter are not fundamentally distinct but rather are two complementary aspects of one reality, embracing the micro and macro worlds. This approach of starting from wholeness reveals a practical blueprint for addressing consciousness in more scientific terms.
Opinião da Matrix/DNA:
O valor deste artigo esta no interessante passeio pelas ultimas informações que vem das disciplinas estudando a Mecânica Quântica e estudiosos elaborando ou aprimorando teorias quanticas. Porem não se trata aqui de uma teoria, apenas uma hipótese a afirmação do titulo de que o universo fisico seria produzido por uma consciencia existindo fora e alem do espaço tempo. O autor não demonstra como consciências criam objetos fisicos e aplica o método de primeiro ser imbuido de uma fé e depois vasculhar o mundo desesperadamente procurando fatos que se encaixem na sua fé ou a prove em definitivo. A dimensão quantica parece ser a ultima região onde tais crentes se encontram agora. Na Teoria da Matrix/DNA tambem esta existindo neste momento a suposição de que uma forma de consciencia teria existido antes do Big Bang, principalmente porque, supondo que este universo esta sendo o palco de um processo de reprodução genética do sistema ex-machine que o gerou, e sabendo-se que aqui emergiu o fenomeno da consciencia, deduz-se que esta seria reprodução de uma consciencia existente naquele sistema, ou melhor, cada ser humano portador de uma porção de consciencia é como um gene com a missão de construir um embrião universal que sera consciente. Mas como tal suposta extra-universal consciencia se encontra em distancias impossiveis de serem por nos alcançadas agora, suspendemos essa pesquisa em favor de pesquisas que forneçam resultados praticos uteis aqui e agora, apesar de que não nos passa despercebido a possibilidade de que exista alguma forma de comunicar nossos problemas a tal suposta consciencia extra-machine. Afinal, todo embrião quando molestado chuta a barriga da mãe e ela o percebe.
( Apenas como curiosidade: Quando eu estava no inferno da selva sendo torturado principalmente pela malaria, como nada mais tinha a fazer, eu xingava alto Deus e o Diabo, dava chutes e socos no ar imaginando que estava chutando a barriga e o saco de Deus, pois ele seria o culpado deste mundo absurdo e de todos meus problemas. Foi então que me surgiu a ideia da formula da Matrix/DNA. Por brincadeira posso dizer que Deus ouviu meu choro e sentiu os chutes na barriga e me deu a formula para me calar a boca, assim como um medico administra remédios para uma mãe gravida tomar e consertar alguma coisa de errada com o embrião Aduz-se a isto o fato que parece mesmo um milagre eu ter saído vivo da selva… e se eu fosse um cabeça mole teria me tornado um crente fundamentalista daqueles que enchem o saco. Como cético mas com a mania de cientista estou querendo testar aquela ocorrência procurando alguem que esteja revoltado com a vida para que chute e distribua socos no ar…)
We realize that the title of our paper is provocative.
Matrix/DNA Theory:Provocative,,, é um grande erro inicial. Nesta área altamente teórica ainda nada deve ser afirmado por um racional naturalista, desde que nada pode ser mostrado in fato como evidencia e os fenômenos arrolados como evidencia estão sujeitos a humanas interpretações Ao invés do titulo afirmar “Como auto-consciência se torna o Universo fisico”, deveria ser uma sugestão ou indagação, assim como a Teoria da Matrix/DNA faz questão de iniciar que é ainda apenas uma sugestão teórica. O fenomeno publicado mas desconhecido do publico em que cientistas afirmam que no nivel quantico o observador interage com particulas fisicas pelo mero ato da observação não autoriza ninguém a afirmar que esteja ocorrendo uma físico direta entre mente e materia fisica pois existem outras possibilidades de interpretação como a de que o observador ou seus olhos emite um campo eletromagnetico ao redor ou ainda que emite luz sobre a particula talvez refletida por seus olhos. Um documento que pretende ser cientifico nao pode iniciar desta maneira pois ja de inicio perde credibilidade.
It is aimed at providing a theory ( Matrix/DNA Theory; Ok. agora se menciona que se trata de uma teoria, mas este aviso já deveria ter sido inserido no titulo inicial. Depois reclamam que as Teorias do Big Bang, Abiogeneses e Darwinismo estão sendo ensinadas como verdade… pois usam a mesma técnica astuta para tentar impor uma privada visão do mundo)…
of how the physical universe and conscious observers can be integrated. We will argue that the current state of affairs in addressing the multifaceted issue of consciousness requires such a theory if science is to evolve and encompass the phenomenon of consciousness. Traditionally, the underlying problem of consciousness has been excluded from science, on one of two grounds. Either it is taken as a given that it has no effect on experimental data, or if consciousness must be addressed, it is considered subjective and therefore unreliable as part of the scientific method. Therefore, our challenge is to include consciousness while still remaining within the methods of science.
Our starting point is physics, which recognizes three broad approaches to studying the physical universe: classical, relativistic, and quantum. Classical Newtonian physics is suitable for most everyday applications, yet its epistemology (method of acquiring knowledge) is limited — it does not apply at the microscopic level and cannot be used for many cosmic processes. Between them, general relativity applies at the large scale of the universe and quantum theory at the microcosmic level. Despite all the attempts to unify general relativity with quantum theory, the goal is still unreached. Of the three broad approaches, quantum theory has clearly opened the door to the issue of consciousness in the measurement process, while relativity admits that observations from different moving frames would yield different values of quantities. Many of the early founders of quantum mechanics held the view that the participatory role of observation is fundamental and the underlying “stuff” of the cosmos is processes rather than the construct of some constant, underlying material substance.
However, quantum theory does not say anything specific about the nature of consciousness — the whole issue is clouded by basic uncertainty over even how to define consciousness. A firm grasp of human mental processes still remains very elusive. We believe that this indicates a deeper problem which scientists in general are reluctant to address: objective science is based on the dichotomy between subject and object; it rests on the implicit assumption that Nature can be studiedad infinitum as an external objective reality. The role of the observer is, at best, secondary, if not entirely irrelevant.
2. Consciousness and Quantum Theory
In our view, it may well be that the subject-object dichotomy is false to begin with and that consciousness is primary in the cosmos, not just an epiphenomenon of physical processes in a nervous system. Accepting this assumption would turn an exceedingly difficult problem into a very simple one. We will sidestep any precise definition of consciousness, limiting ourselves for now to willful actions on the part of the observer. These actions, of course, are the outcome of specific choices in the mind of the observer. Although some mental actions could be automated, at some point the will of conscious observer(s) sets the whole mechanical aspects of observation in motion.
The issue of observation in QM is central, in the sense that objective reality cannot be disentangled from the act of observation, as the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) clearly states (cf. Kafatos & Nadeau 2000; Kafatos 2009; Nadeau and Kafatos, 1999; Stapp 1979; Stapp 2004; Stapp 2007). In the words of John A. Wheeler (1981), we live in an observer-participatory universe. The vast majority of today’s practicing physicists follow CI’s practical prescriptions for quantum phenomena, while still clinging to classical beliefs in observer-independent local, external reality (Kafatos and Nadeau 2000). There is a critical gap between practice and underlying theory. In his Nobel Prize speech of 1932, Werner Heisenberg concluded that the atom “has no immediate and direct physical properties at all.” If the universe’s basic building block isn’t physical, then the same must hold true in some way for the whole. The universe was doing a vanishing act in Heisenberg’s day, and it certainly hasn’t become more solid since.
Matrix/DNA Theory:Eu estou supondo nestes dias – enquanto nada venha a mudar esta suposição - que os building blocks do Universo sejam vortices tão abstratos como são os tornados e rodamoinhos que surgem e desaparecem na nossa atmosfera, e tais vortices apresentam forças, propriedades, e uma historia de existencia breve regulada pelo processo do ciclo vital, portanto cada vortice tem seu numero unico, é especifico e inimitavel, portanto é um bit-informação assim como qualquer gene. Mas sempre amparando meu raciocinio sobre algum fenomeno real como parâmetro observo que existe uma situação real semelhante: o aparecimento de genes dentro de um ovulo recem-fecundado. Estes genes serão as instruções dos building blocks fisicos do corpo sendo gerado porem as instruções não se auto-criam dentro do pequeno universo intra-ovular, elas vem de um sistema natural que é a especie humana existente antes e alem do ovulo. Da mesma forma, os building blocks do Universo devem serem fisicos como o é o Universo, ressalvando-se a hipotese que sejam dirigidos por forças igualmente fisicas mas diferentes das forças fisicas que tem movido a materia fisica do Universo. Isto induz a supor que o Universo é fisico na sua totalidade. A afirmação de Heisenberg pode ser entendida como que o atomo nao produz por si suas propriedades fisicas e sim as herdam do ambiente modelado pelo estado do mundo onde se formam e isto não significa que exista discrepancia entre pratica e teoria.
This discrepancy between practice and theory must be confronted, because the consequences for the nature of reality are far-reaching (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000). An impressive body of evidence has been building to suggest that reality is non-local and undivided.
Matrix;DNA Theory: Eu gostaria de saber em que mundo vivem estes autores porque no mundo em que estão acontecendo minhas experiencias desta minha existencia as coisas reais são localmente afixadas. Se eu não tivesse esta certeza não sairia agora de casa certo que vou comprar cafe na lanchonete que ontem vi parada na minha rua. Não costumo ver meu carro por ai em todos os lugares ao mesmo tempo. Que maneira de negar o real em nome de uma crença! E possivel que tudo esteja interligado, mas essa interação pode ser abstrata, magnetica, a nivel de ondas de luz, etc., o que em nada nos ajuda a resolver os problemas da vida imediata pratica. Tem sim sido aplicado algumas destas noções na eletronica e dado certo, mas humanos não são equipamentos eletronicos sustentados por alimentos e bens eletronicos.
Non-locality is already a basic fact of nature, first implied by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment (EPR, 1935), despite the original intent to refute it, and later explicitly formulated in Bell’s Theorem (Bell, 1964) and its relationship to EPR – for further developments, see also experiments which favor QM over local realism, e.g. Aspect, Grangier, and Roger, 1982; Tittel, Brendel, Zbinden & Gisin, 1998. One can also cite the Aharonov-Bohm (1959) effect, and numerous other quantum phenomena.
Matrix/DNA Theory:Mas quem pode garantir que a mente é regida pela não localidade quantica e não pela localidade fisica imediata… O proprio fato de que sinto minha mente localizada no meu corpo, que não consigo fazer minha mente se comunicar, tocar, a mente do meu vizinho, sem um intermediario fisico, me confirma que mentes existem separadas em locais afixados, ao menos neste estagio evolutivo.
Moreover, this is a reality where the mindful acts of observation play a crucial role at every level. Heisenberg again: “The atoms or elementary particles themselves . . . form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
Matrix/DNA Theory: Então porque você não come uma sopa feita com atomos de arsenico contando com a crença de que sua mente vai comandar aqueles atomos na direção da possiblidade de que sejam bons para sua saude… E claro que atomos tambem se referem a coisas reais no nosso nivel de existencia aqui e agora.
He was led to a radical conclusion that underlies our own view in this paper: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Reality, it seems, shifts according to the observer’s conscious intent. There is no doubt that the original CI was subjective (Stapp, 2007). However, as Bohr (1934) and Heisenberg (1958) as well as the other developers of CI stated on many occasions, the view that emerged can be summarized as, “the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down… relations between the multifold aspects of our experience” (Bohr, 1934).
Matrix/DNA Theory; Justamente porque existem varios niveis de fenomenos e alguns são regidos por regras que estão demasiado distantes do estagio evolucionario da nossa atual existencia como humanos – que a Matrix/DNA difere de sua atitude em convencer humanos que exista entidades supernaturais atuando sobre nos e que seria possivel nos relacionar com tal entidade. E possivel que exista tal entidade em distante nivel evolucionario, tal como distante esta de nos a causa que causou o Big Bang, a qual não vejo ninguem contactando, se comunicando ou sendo influenciado por. Primeiro testa-se nossas teorias e somente se forem comprovadas podemos afirma-las tentando convencer pessoas.
Stapp (2007) restates this view as “quantum theory is basically about relationships among conscious human experiences” (Stapp 2007). Einstein fought against what he considered the positivistic attitude of CI, which he took as equivalent to Berkeley’s dictum to be is to be perceived (Einstein 1951), but he nevertheless admitted that QM is the only successful theory we have that describes our experiences of phenomena in the microcosm.
Quantum theory is not about the nature of reality,
Matrix/DNA Theory:Talvez a teoria quantica não seja porem os fenomenos referidos como pertencentes a mecanica quantica são naturais. Sao percebidos por entidades naturais chamados de ” seres humanos” e a Natureza só poderia perceber o que é de sua mesma essencia. A aparente desconexidade das regras ao nivel quantico se devem aos efeitos ilusórios produzidos por diferenças nas grandezas de tempo e espaço alem do habitual erro de ignorar que os elementos no nivel quantico tambem estão sujeitos a ciclos vitais, portanto a velozes mudanças de formas e estados.
even though quantum physicists act as if that is the case. To escape philosophical complications, the original CI was pragmatic: it concerned itself with the epistemology of quantum world (how we experience quantum phenomena), leaving aside ontological questions about the ultimate nature of reality (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000). The practical bent of CI should be kept in mind, particularly as there is a tendency on the part of many good physicists to slip back into issues that cannot be tested and therefore run counter to the basic tenets of scientific methodology.
Matrix/DNA Theory: Mas a Fisica não abrange a totalidade dos fenomenos do mundo fisico. Numa analogia com o corpo humano, a Fisica se limita a lidar com a fenomenologia do esqueleto ósseo A cobertura mole de carnes e substancias liquidas são deixadas para a Biologia, enquanto os fenomenos relacionados ao cerebro e suas produções são da area da neurologia. Em relação a Natureza Total, Universal, a Fisica capta a fenomenologia esqueletica das suas estruturas, não sendo autoridade para negar a possibilidade de niveis de organização de materia em estados biologicos e mentais a Natureza Universal. Se a Fisica chegou ao nivel quantico e seu metodo captou alguns aspectos desse nivel, provavelmente devem ser relacionados ao esqueleto estrutural quantico. O fato de que alguns fisicos utilizem seu conhecimento para elaborar teorias da totalidade, tais como a teoria de um Universo como algo produzido pelo nada ( Lawrence Klauss e “Something from Nothing” ) não deve preocupar quem esta estudando o nivel da consciencia, mesmo que este estudo tambem alcance o nivel quantico. E dever de tal estudioso procurar no nivel quantico a fenomenologia relacionado as manifestações mentais. Por que e para que alimentar um conflito com os Fisicos, se entre o esqueleto ósseo a carne, e a mente não existe conflito que não permita a coexistencia dos tres…
To put specifics into the revised or extended CI, Stapp (2007) discusses John von Neumann’s different types of processes. The quantum formalism eloquently formalized by von Neumann requires first the acquisition of knowledge about a quantum system (or probing action) as well as a mathematical formalism to describe the evolution of the system to a later time (usually the Schrödinger equation). There are two more processes that Stapp describes: one, according to statistical choices prescribed by QM, yields a specific outcome (or an intervention, a “choice on the part of nature” in Dirac’s words); the second, which is primary, preceding even the acquisition of knowledge, involves a “free choice” on the part of the observer. This selection process is not and cannot be described by QM, or for that matter, from any “physically described part of reality” (Stapp, 2007).
These extensions (or clarifications) of the original orthodox CI yield a profoundly different way of looking at the physical universe and our role in it (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000). Quantum theory today encompasses the interplay of the observer’s free choices and nature’s “choices” as to what constitute actual outcomes. This dance between the observer and nature gives practical meaning to the concept of the participatory role of the observer. (Henceforth we won’t distinguish between the original CI and as it was extended by von Neumann—referring to both as orthodox quantum theory.) As Bohr (1958) emphasized, “freedom of experimentation” opens the floodgates of free will on the part of the observer. Nature responds in the statistical ways described by quantum formalism.
Kafatos and Nadeau (2000) and Nadeau and Kafatos (1999) give extended arguments about these metaphysically-based views of nature. CI points to the limits of physical theories, including itself. If any capriciousness is to be found, it should not be assigned to nature, rather to our mindset about how nature ought to work. As we shall see, there are credible ways to build on quantum formalism and what it suggests about the role of consciousness.
3. Quantum Mechanics and the Brain
It is essential that we avoid the mistake of rooting a physical universe in the physical brain, for both are equally rooted in the non-physical. For practical purposes, this means that the brain must acquire quantum status, just as the atoms that make it up have. The standard assumption in neuroscience is that consciousness is a byproduct of the operation of the human brain. The multitude of processes occurring in the brain covers a vast range of spatio-temporal domains, from the nanoscale to the everyday human scale (e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2004). Even though they differ on certain issues, a number of scientists accept the applicability of QM at some scales in the brain (cf. Kafatos 2009).
For example, Penrose (1989, 1994) and Hameroff and Penrose (1996) postulate collapses occurring in microtubules induced by quantum gravity. In their view, quantum coherence operates across the entire brain. Stapp (2007) prefers a set of different classical brains that evolve according to the rules of QM, in accordance with the uncertainty principle. He contends that bringing in (the still not developed) quantum gravity needlessly complicates the picture.
In order for an integrative theory to emerge, the next step is to connect the quantum level of activity with higher levels. As a specific example of applying quantum-like processes at mesoscale levels, Roy and Kafatos (1999b) have examined the response and percept domains in the cerebellum. They have built a case that complementarity or quantum-like effects may be operating in brain processes. As is well known, complementarity is a cornerstone of orthodox quantum theory, primarily developed by Niels Bohr. Roy and Kafatos imagine a measurement process with a device that selects only one of the eigenstates of the observable A and rejects all others. This is what is meant by selective measurement in quantum mechanics. It is also called filtration because only one of the eigenstates filters through the process. In attempting to describe both motor function and cognitive activities, Roy and Kafatos (1999a) use statistical distance in setting up a formal Hilbert-space description in the brain, which illustrates our view that quantum formalism may be introduced for brain dynamics.
It is conceivable that the overall biological structures of the brain may require global relationships, which come down processes to global complementarity—every single process is subordinated to the whole. Not just single neurons but massive clusters and networks communicate all but instantaneously. One must also account for the extreme efficiency with which biological organisms operate in a holistic manner, which may only be possible by the use of quantum mechanical formalisms at biological, and neurophysiological relevant scales (cf. Frohlich, 1983; Roy and Kafatos, 2004; Bernroider and Roy, 2005; Davies, 2004, 2005; Stapp, 2004; Hameroff et. al., 2002; Hagan et. al., 2002; Hammeroff and Tuszynski, 2003; Rosa and Faber, 2004; Mesquita et. al., 2005; Hunter, 2006; Ceballos et al., 2007).
Stepping into the quantum world doesn’t produce easy agreement, naturally. The issue of decoherence (whereby the collapse of the wave function brings a quantum system into relationship with the macro world of large-scale objects and events) is often brought up in arguing against relevant quantum processes in the brain. However, neuronal decoherence processes have only been calculated while assuming that ions, such as K+, are undergoing quantum Brownian motion (e.g. Tegmark, 2000). As such, arguments about decoherence (Tegmark, 2000) assume that the system in question is in thermal equilibrium with its environment, which is not typically the case for bio-molecular dynamics (e.g. Frohlich, 1986; Pokony and Wu, 1998; Mesquita et. al., 2005).
In fact, quantum states can be pumped like a laser, as Frohlich originally proposed for biomolecules (applicable to membrane proteins, and tubulins in microtubules, see also work by Anirban, present volume). Also, experiments and theoretical work indicate that the ions themselves do not move freely within the ion-channel filter, but rather their states are pre-selected, leading to possible protection of quantum coherence within the ion channel for a time scale on the order of 10-3 seconds at 300K, ~ time scale of ion-channel opening and closing(e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2005). Similar timescales apply to microtubular structures as pointed out by Hameroff and his co-workers. Moreover, progress in the last several years in high-resolution atomic X-ray spectroscopy from MacKinnon’s group (Jang et al. 2003) and molecular dynamics simulations (cf. Monroe 2002) have shown that the molecular organization in ion channels allows for “pre-organized” correlations, or ion trappings within the selectivity filter of K+ channels. This occurs with five sets of four carbonyl oxygens acting as filters with the K+ ion, bound by eight oxygens, coordinated electrostatic interactions (Bernroider and Roy 2005).Therefore, quantum entangled states of between two subsystems of the channel filter result.
Beyond the brain, evidence has mounted for quantum coherence in biological systems at high temperatures, whereas in the past coherence was thought to apply to systems near absolute zero. For proteins supporting photosynthesis (Engel, et.al., 2007), solar photons on plant cells are converted to quantum electron states which propagate or travel through the relevant protein by all possible quantum paths, in reaching the part of the cell needed for conversion of energy to chemical energy. As such, new quantum ideas and laboratory evidence applicable to the fields of molecular cell biology and biophysics will have a profound impact in modeling and understanding the process of coherence within neuro-molecular systems. funcional de como
4. Bridging the Gap: A Consciousness Model
Our purpose here is not to settle these technical issues – or the many others that have arisen as theorists attempt to link quantum processes to the field of biology – but to propose thattechnical considerations are secondary. What is primary is to have a reliable model against which experiments can offer challenges. Such a model isn’t available as long as we fail to account for the disappearance of the material universe implied by quantum theory. This disappearance is real. There is at bottom no strictly mechanistic, physical foundation for the cosmos. The situation is far more radical than most practicing scientists suppose. Whatever is the fundamental source of creation, it itself must be uncreated. Otherwise, there is a hidden creator lying in the background, and then we must ask who or what created that.
Matrix/DNA Theory: Todos estes aspectos técnicos podem serem usados para testar um modelo ce consciencia existente – o modelo da Matrix/DNA Theory. Tal modelo apresenta a realidade como sendo composta de dois lados de uma face, o lado do hardware e o lado do software. Sendo relativa ao software, a consciencia deve ser influenciada e pode influenciar a dimensão quantica, ms precisamos ainda encontrar a força que permite a interação entre software e hardware. Tal modelo apresenta uma figura baseada numa formula funcional de como esta sendo estruturada a configuração fisica da mente, e tal proposta pode ser testada contra fatos desde que se disponha dos instrumentos adequados. E não existe impedimentos comprovados para que a Natureza Universal não seja produto de forças naturais. Ao contrario, maiores evidencias sugerem que este Universo pode ser um mero processo de reprodução genetica. Se for o caso o Universo não teria sido “criado” mas sim, gerado, como qualquer animal gera sua reprodução Primeiro é preciso trazer tal criador a mesa, e depois questionar a respeito de sua origem.
What does it mean to be uncreated? The source of reality must be self-sufficient, capable of engendering complex systems on the micro and macro scale, self-regulating, and holistic. Nothing can exist outside its influence. Ultimately, the uncreated source must also turn into the physical universe, not simply oversee it as God or the gods do in conventional religion. We feel that only consciousness fits the bill, for as a prima facie truth, no experience takes place outside consciousness, which means that if there is a reality existing beyond our awareness (counting mathematics and the laws of physics as 1 part of our conscious experience), we will never be able to know it. The fact that consciousness is inseparable from cognition, perception, observation, and measurement is undeniable; therefore, this is the starting point for new insights into the nature of reality.
Matrix;DNA Theory: Isto é um gigantesco salto inconsequente sobre o abismo do conhecimento entre a consciencia humana e uma suposta consciencia cosmica. O perigo de tal atitude é funcionar como um science-stopper: a atitude responsavel racional é entrar no abismo e caminhar passo a passo para conhece-lo, não fazer julgamentos e ignorar o abismo. A atitude racional agora é exercitar o cerebro na busca de meios para avançar na busca. Como por exemplo, a Matrix/DNA esta agora buscando conhecer o elemento que permite a interação entre software e hardware num computador, como as instruções da mente humana operam uma maquina e ao mesmo tempo a busca do elemento que permite a interação entre neuronios e os pensamentos.
What is the nature of consciousness in our model? We take it as a field phenomenon, analogous to but preceding the quantum field. This field is characterized by generalized principles already described by quantum physics: complementarity, non-locality, scale-invariance and undivided wholeness. But there is a radical difference between this field and all others: we cannot define it from the outside. To extend Wheeler’s reasoning, consciousness includes us human observers. We are part of a feedback loop that links our conscious acts to the conscious response of the field. In keeping with Heisenberg’s implication, the universe presents the face that the observer is looking for, and when she looks for a different face, the universe changes its mask.
Consciousness includes human mental processes, but it is not just a human attribute. Existing outside space and time, it was “there” “before” those two words had any meaning. In essence, space and time are conceptual artifacts that sprang from primordial consciousness.
Matrix/DNA Theory:Qual racional naturalista pode afirmar isso em sã consciência…! Os nomes espaço e tempo assim como as ideias relacionadas a eles são criações da mente humana mas que eventos se sucedem e objetos se localizam ocupando um local e mantendo distancia com outros objetos são coisas reais concretas independentes de se existem observadores humanos ou não. Ninguem nunca esteve fora, alem, da totalidade de eventos e locais, portanto como pode alguem afirmar o que existe la ou não .. ! Esta teoria esta cheia de julgamentos sem bases na Natureza e realidade.
The reason that the human mind meshes with nature, mathematics, and the fundamental forces described by physics, is no accident: we mesh because we are a product of the same conceptual expansion by which primordial consciousness turned into the physical world. The difficulty with using basic terms like “concept” and “physical” is that we are accustomed to setting mind apart from matter; therefore, thinking about an atom isn’t the same as an atom. Ideas are not substances. But if elementary particles and all matter made of them aren’t substances, either, the playing field has been leveled. Quantum theory gives us a model that applies everywhere, not just at the micro level. The real question, then, isn’t how to salvage our everyday perception of a solid, tangible world but how to explore the mysterious edge where micro processes are transformed into macro processes, in other words, how Nature gets from microcosm to macrocosm.
Matrix/DNA Theory:Não é este o nosso problema aqui. Matrix modelos já tem explicado detalhadamente como e porque a Natureza aplica nanotecnologia e gigantologia na evolução O seu problema aqui é mostrar para nos como a sua consciência cria algo fisico, ou trazer uma porção dessa consciência alem do espaço tempo para mostrar ela produzindo algo do Universo fisico como estas afirmando que ela faz.
There, where consciousness acquires the nature of a substance, we must learn how to unify two apparent realities into one. We can begin to tear down walls, integrating objects, events, perceptions, thoughts, and mathematics under the same tent: all can be traced back to the same source.
Physics can serve a pivotal role in transitioning to this new model, because the entire biosphere operates under the same generalized principles we described from the quantum perspective, as does the universe itself. This simple unifying approach must be taken, we realize, as a basic ontological assumption, since it cannot be proven in an objective sense. We cannot extract consciousness from the physical universe, despite the fervent hope of materialists and reductionists. They are forced into a logical paradox, in fact, for either the molecules that make up the brain are inherently conscious (a conclusion to be abhorred in materialism), or a process must be located and described by which those molecules invent consciousness -such a process has not and never will be specified. It amounts to saying that table salt, once it enters the body, finds a way to dissolve in the blood, enter the brain, and in so doing learns to think, feel, and reason.
Our approach, positing consciousness as more fundamental than anything physical, is the most reasonable alternative: Trying to account for mind as arising from physical systems in the end leads (at best) to a claim that mathematics is the underlying “stuff” of the universe (or many universes, if you are of that persuasion). No one from any quarter is proposing a workable material substratum to the universe; therefore, it seems untenable to mount a rearguard defense for materialism itself. As we foresee it, the future development of science will still retain the objectivity of present-day science in a more sophisticated and evolved form. An evolved theory of the role of the observer will be generalized to include physical, biological, and most importantly, awareness aspects of existence. In that sense, we believe the ontology of science will be undivided wholeness at every level. Rather than addressing consciousness from the outside and trying to devise a theory of everything on that basis, a successful Theory Of Everything (TOE) will emerge by taking wholeness as the starting point and fitting the parts into it rather than vice versa. Obviously any TOE must include consciousness as an aspect of “everything,” but just as obviously current attempts at a TOE ignore this and have inevitably fallen into ontological traps.
The time has come to escape those traps. An integrated approach will one day prevail. When it does, science will become much stronger and develop to the next levels of understanding Nature, to everyone’s lasting benefit.
Matrix/DNA Theory: A ciência apenas pode avançar no conhecimento a partir do manuseio de fatos reais. Começar uma investigação cientifica a partir da totalidade é impossivel. Se suspeitamos que um fenomeno existe ou é a totalidade, aconselha a Razão que o deixemos de lado por enquanto e nos dediquemos a investigar e trabalhar em problemas que neste momento estão prejudicando seres humanos, como existem aos bilhões sendo torturados justo agora devido a problemas materiais concretos que nossa Ciência pode solucionar
” Among the substantive provisions of the bill, applying both to Missouri’s public elementary and secondary schools and to introductory science courses in public institutions of higher education in the state: “If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught.”
Aí diz: “Outras cientificas teorias ou teorias das origens podem serem ensinadas!”
My God! Nunca havia pensado nisso! Ah… se eu tivesse advogados aqui e agora! Será que Deus está reservando uma surprêsa para mim? Morrer feliz porque deixei plantada uma semente muito melhor da que havia quando nascí? E salvação para todos os futuros órfãos de rua, os da minha classe social?
A MATRIX/DNA É A UNICA TEORIA NO MUNDO QUE É JUSTAMENTE O MEIO-TÊRMO ENTRE A TEORIA CIENTIFICA DA EVOLUÇÃO E A TEORIA RELIGIOSA CRISTÃ DO INTELIGENTE DESIGNER. ELA PERMITE A EXISTENCIA DAS DUAS POSSIBILIDADES. É A TEORIA DE QUE OS SISTEMAS BIOLÓGICOS (VIDA) VIERAM DE UM PRÉVIO NATURAL NÃO-INTELIGENTE DESIGNER, O QUAL É O BUILDING BLOCK DOS SISTEMAS ASTRONOMICOS CONFORME O NOSSO MODÊLO COSMOLÓGICO. Essa teoria deixa uma porta aberta para a possibilidade de um inteligente designer alem do Universo ao mesmo tempo que deixa a porta aberta para a evolução Darwiniana quando aponta que dentro dêste Universo está ocorrendo um processo natural de reprodução de algo que existia antes do Big Bang!
Ah… como é duro estar sózinho defendendo uma descoberta que não tenho como divulga-la oficialmente! Será que vai acontecer comigo o que aconteceu com Copérnico, Mendel? 50 anos depois de mortos alguem se deparou com coisas escritas por eles que batiam com o conhecimento cientifico da época e os trouxe a publico. De que adianta vencer depois de morto? Se eu tivesse algum apoio… mas assim como algum dos meus modelos já constam do curriculul escolar do Rio Grande do Sul, vou continuar esta luta e talvez vão constar de todas as escolas do mundo… Porque não? Estão aparecendo evidencias comprovando as previsões da teoria em todos os lugares e a cada dia…
I am asking permission to commentators, to Bill Nye and Youtube, for adding one approach, which is forgotten here. We are adults debating what we should transmit/transfer from our experience of life to our loved next generations. But, what about the other side? There are no children here speaking for themselves. We should try “empathy”, changing informations about “who are them”, thinking from their “mysterious” wishes, and making comparisons between their bias and the real world as we know it.
When I try to think from the “children perspectives”and the world that is waiting for them, some issues comes quick to my mind. First of all, the issue about over-population.This world will become very unsuitable for them. It seems this issue is solved in first world of Europe, but till Europe will face the effects of world over-population. We need acting over education at third world countries. What we will teach: the control by scientific methods or this “non-control” by their religions?
Apes, are healthier and perfect physical machine than human beings.They are the fittest for getting better life at this biosphere built by a kind of perfect machine, described by Newtonian mechanics. But human mind is a natural production that changed the environment, in a way that apes aren’t more adapted.Then, physically, there are degradation of the inherited ape with 75% of bad mutations and 24 neutrals. Humans are the dark reverse light at the same avenue that is advancing the white light
No. It just implies that the common ancestor of all living beings is in the sky. Which means that had no abiogenesis, but, cosmological embryogenesis with a big mutation due the ancestor was made with solid and gaseous states of matter, and the first living being was nurtured in a womb where emerged the liquid state, hence chemistry.
Well…it is not in the sky in relation to earth, because earth is part of it. It is in sky like you are just now. Have you thought about that? The “womb” for the first living being was this planet…in this cosmic region. Stellar systems and galaxies were nurtured in environment existing only solid and gaseous states. At least organic Chemistry is a recent emerged process. Something wrong here?
No human names for world views. My method was applied by the forst time in Human History: comparative anatomy among all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies to brains… and now, consciousness. Academic Science is missing to do that and the result is very bad: they had shared Universal Natural History into two separated blocks, with no evolutionary link between them. That’s why they can’t understand the emergence of life here. matrix/DNA has a better rational theory about
Comparative anatomy of natural systems. Galaxies are merely one of those. This method is rational because it is the right thing to do if you make the rational question: the first living being was a system, the cell system. So, its creator must be a system. Which natural systems were existing at that time? Which is the most suitable for to be the past evolutionary link? The right question brings on the right answer.
Super-nova is not explosion and emergence of a new star. It is the opposite:implosion. Of a dark giant planet turned on a pulsar. All planets has as nucleus the germ of a star, which nuclear reactions goes eating the layers of rocks from inside to outside. When the last layer is tiny, it collapses and the internal light is released to the external world. A new baby was born. Our ancestor made everything like we do now.
This ancestor is seen when galaxies are observed from Biological perspective, I mean, by the reverse way of evolution, knowing the last product (cells) and calculating the ancestors…It is the opposite way used by Physics perspective.There was a nebulae of lighter atoms about 12 billions years ago. The nebulae made the first lightest stars. These stars were under forces that imprint the process of life cycles. They changed shapes and composed an almost living system. Lots of evidences for it.
But why are you looking at galaxies from the “Biological perspective”?
You do realize that you’re simply making an “analogy” between “biology” and “astronomy”?
Then I hope you realize that in most schools of Logic, analogies are considered technically “fallacious” (though you can come up with “good” and “bad” analogies)… Why? Because you’re ultimately comparing apples to oranges. Yours falls under “False Analogy”.
Dave, the human idea about evolution was made based in analogy between species, fossils, DNA, etc. Why? It is the unique rational alternative we have for inquiring the unknown past times. Where Biological systems came from? Be it what to be, it was inside an astronomical system. You will not agree with that if you believe in magics, by gods or randomness. So, if biological came from astronomical, the principles for biological must be hidden in the astronomical. That’s so clear!
It really doesn’t imply, but, implying that a cell system came from a non-system, like the primordial soup, is less rational.I think what is missing for modern academic Science is knowledge about natural systems. I think there are only three: atomic, astronomic and biological. I had aligned them in this sequence for you notice that there was a movement from the simple to most complex in right chronological time. This is evolution. Universal Natural MacroEvolution. There is genetic relationship
Yes Adam had a uterus. All males have it. Encrypted In the genes. It is not expressed because the gene for phallus is expressed two times. If you see the cosmological model of the state of the world when the Bible says that Adam existed you will see that those primordial galaxies were hermaphrodite, Adam and Eve encrypted. Things are more, lots more complex than you think…sorry.
But yours body once time could be fitted on the head of a pin, Goo. Why not the Universe? The smaller initial size of the Universe is not food for atheism, it is food for agnosticism and creationism. What was existing before your body being smaller than a pin? Yours parents, right? Why not the Universe? You need to understand that nature applies nanotechnology ( making a big body as a microscope one) and giantology ( making a microscope body being a big one)
This issue is very important because if we knew the truth about the sun we could built a mechanical copy getting another kind of energy. And an important factor should be a better understanding about life origins and operations. There is a problem with the method used today: they are calculating the sun from Physics perspective only. But, since that all life is dependable of Sun’s energy, and life was created by this energy also, we need the biological perspective of the sun, made by Matrix/DNA
I just let it play out and continue as is. In a way, I’m sure it is kind of mean. My area is neuropsych, though, and I intend to study clinical psych (in fact, just got an RA position in a neuropsych and social cognition lab so we’ll see how that goes). From what I understand so far about it, cognitive behavioral therapy is actually fairly difficult and challenging, in that the therapist or clinician challenges the client’s beliefs and cognitions where they are maladaptive.
Because the cognitions are maladaptive. Examples would be, “I am worthlesss”, “I am God”, or “I hear voices which tell me to kill myself”. Also, cultural considerations are made. For instance, an American might say that a particular Japanese person is neurotically shy when it may turn out that he is just culturally reserved. I will learn a lot more about this later, but I know some now. Just please know my knowledge is incomplete.
Ok. I think the area of neuropsych is very important for future of human kind but it needs urgent self-analyses. You will think that this idea is odd, but, for neuropsych professionals to understand what is going on in the brain they will need study astronomy also. Nature produced the brain which neurons must mirror the connections among natural phenomena for to be healthier. Culture can works as a kind of malignant virus, when culture has the wrong interpretation of reality. Am I wrong?
I don’t understand your idea of self-analyses in terms of astronomy. You are correct that neuropsych scientists and clinicians must understand the brain. We do, however, spend a great deal of time understanding basic brain processes such as neurodevelopment and the basic concepts in learning like plasticity, sensitization, and habituation with model animals in controlled experiments such as those done with aplysia.
I will try to explain, but, be advised, it is merely my theory. I am trying to follow the everyday new discoveries published by neuropsych scientists and clinicians.But I apply the knowledge of the brain for trying to understand the Universe and vice-verse.The brain is shared into two hemispheres. Do you know why Nature did it this way? The building block of galaxies is shared into two hemispheres also, the connections between them help us to understand the connections here. Same functions
Well, the idea of culture being wrong about something is very touchy. There are psychologists who devote themselves to cultural psychology, such as culturally specific mental illnesses. The definition of a mental illness may help here, which is that it is only a mental illness if it 1. Causes you mental stress and 2. Interferes with your daily functioning.
And how is the definition of the whole society mental illness? How to diagnose the social mental illness? How we know if a social behavior is naturally healthier or more one collective mental illness that is not synchronized with the laws of Nature? But.. there is no way for to know what is Nature here and now if we don’t know what is our astronomical system. For instance, the cosmological model resulting from a biological perspective is different from the cosmological model made by Physics
You need understand that civilizations are built by a specific interpretation of the world = culture. All human interpretation of the world must be wrong, with some few degree of rightness.But, human beings have the resource of self-cure, or self-correction. When an individual is under this process of social self-correction, his behavior will be not normal in relation to that “wrong” civilization, which causes stress. What we can do? The patient is the society, not the individual
No, it is not so simple like that. Only for yours sake: Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A ‘Giant Brain’ – If you are interested, Google it. The fact that human brains are not an entire whole, or that is not shared into 3, 4, 19 parts is because this bi-lateral symmetry is a constant pattern of natural systems, from galaxies to biological systems.
“No, it doesn’t quite mean that the universe is ‘thinking’ – but as has been previously pointed out online, it might just mean there’s more similarity between the very small and the very large than first appearances suggest.”
And the piece of speculation you are basing your claim on is “might just mean”. Hardly concrete evidence
Yes, but it doesn’t quite mean that the universe is “not” thinking also. We don’t know. My personal investigation using anatomy comparative method already suggested that the first cell is an exactly copy of primordial galaxies – if astronomical bodies are under the process of life cycle formation. I have lots of evidences suggesting it is. And “if” the cell is a copy of galaxies, the brain must be a copy of Universes. There is nothing more reasonable: the creature is the face of the creator
This is a big opportunity for you being a famous and helpful professional for Humanity. I am suggesting a new approach for neuropsych area that nobody tried before. I can’t do it because I am researching thousands of other issues and I have no knowledge/resources you have about this field.
I disagree. That would be an opportunity for me to commit career suicide before I even start. I would prefer by continuing to study cognitive rehabilitation in post surgical epileptics and learn what I can from that experience.
Ohhh…sorry, I was forgetting to talk only the things that are safe for you being a good synchronized citizen of your “health” society. I have committed my career suicide, it is very painful, I ‘must not suggest to others doing it.There are centuries people are “studying” cognitive rehabilitation and it does not works yet, without forcing the cure with drugs. be a good professional following this mindset, it is about money.
What? I don’t understand your first comment. I can, however, say that cognitive rehabilitation is a very specific therapy that has not been around for centuries and is a valid form of therapy. We are looking at a specific implementation of cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive rehabilitation works based on the idea that the brain is plastic, which wasn’t known centuries ago.
I am not resumed to cognitive rehabilitation therapy, which deals with injured brains ( If I remember it right) but I am thinking the broad sense of cognitive remediation therapy which deals with traditional diseases like schizophrenia, ADHD, and major depressive disorder.
For yours sake: The US Department of Defense has declared that cognitive rehabilitation therapy is scientifically unproved. As a result, it refuses to cover the cost of cognitive rehabilitation for brain-injured veterans
It is enough paste the title at Google. It does not talks about two hemispheres, this issue is about Matrix/DNA Theory’s models. If you see the configuration of a bi-lateral pair of nucleotides you see two hemispheres. Remember that brains are evolutionary result from evolution of nucleotides. If you try to understand how was the state of the world that created nucleotides, you need a cosmological model. If you get the right one, you will understand each division and function in the brain.
The way to tell if a society is healthy or not is simple. Is society (objectively) growing or declining. If it’s growing it’s healthy. “naturally healthier” is a subjective judgement, requiring you to impose your personal values which are not necessarily valid in the society you are commenting on.
So, when the dinosaurs society were growing it was naturally healthier? ( Don’t tell me that fare tale about meteorites) Same for lions, wales, eagles… all of then going to extinction. No, growing in not indicative that nature is happy and will support a species. It can grow in wrong way. Besides that, who is growing now and well adapted to this environment will be sick and destroyed by the next environment due natural changes.
I disagree. That would be an opportunity for me to commit career suicide before I even start. I would prefer by continuing to study cognitive rehabilitation in post surgical epileptics and learn what I can from that experience.
Actually, you can study neurodevelopment in early organisms and in humans to understand how the brain developed over time, from the nerve ganglion in some flatworms to our brains. In order to understand the organization and function of the brain, you need to study the brain using various methods, including neuroimaging, nothing more.
Nothing more? In order to understand the organization and function of the brain we need to know about natural systems, a forgot area by modern mindset. Brains are the new evolutionary shape that came from atoms systems, astronomical systems, cells systems, early organisms systems, etc. Don’t do that and you never will know what a brain is about.
What? I don’t understand your first comment. I can, however, say that cognitive rehabilitation is a very specific therapy that has not been around for centuries and is a valid form of therapy. We are looking at a specific implementation of cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive rehabilitation works based on the idea that the brain is plastic, which wasn’t known centuries ago.
I appreciate your wikipedia search for my sake, but I am well aware that of what cognitive rehabilitation is and in what ways it has been shown effective. We will be the first to test the effectiveness of cognitive therapy in epileptics. I am aware that the Dept. of Defense will not cover cognitive rehabilitation, but I’m unaware of what relevance any of this has. Our lab’s work is our lab’s work and you are welcome to read the paper when it is published. I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
What is my point? Cognitive therapy is actually fairly difficult and challenging due wrong approach due wrong interpretation of the brain due wrong interpretation of origins and meanings of brains. If we don’t know this Nature here and now we don’t know if the unusual behavior is illness of the individual or of the society.
I am grateful for you keeping this conversation because it is constructive for my job.But I understand why you never have thought outside the box.
Nature does not permit to systems that she creates to be eternally perfect closed operating system. It is because the very foundation of this material Universe: he is assented upon the expansionist light-wave triggered by the Big Bang.This light-wave produces fragments, photons, which go out from direction of the wave. Same way, the unique perfect closed system reached by matter had fragments of mass/energy going out of the systemic circuity. With time = there is whole corruption/mutation
try to stay consistent. You said their is no evidence for spontaneous life. In fact there is evidence and some of that is that 1 – RNA and lipids arise naturally and 2 – RNA and lipids together perform all the functions of life. Also you should be concerned about Prion’s. They arise naturally and can replicate themselves. That is more evidence that life can arise naturally.
No. The fact that RNA and lipids arise naturally is not proof for spontaneous life. They arise by the same process a new human baby arise inside the womb. Should we say our bodies arose spontaneously, by chance? What is missing for you is to see and understand the larger big picture, the state and shape of the world where the first RNA arose. If you try do it you could be more helpful for Humanity. Just now you remembered me that I need go back to study prions-diseases and Matrix/DNA models
You fail to understand both the conversation and the point you are trying to make. 1st, RNA and lipids arising naturally is not “proof” – only an idiot would say that. It is however evidence. RNA and lipids do not arise in nature through the same process as they arise in our body. For example, if you freeze a solution of amino acids, they will form RNA. Hint: your body does not freeze amino acid solutions to form RNA. There are other ways they form in nature as well.
I think I can understand your point because I know your world view, but, you can’t understand my point because you don’t know mine.The emergence of RNA at abiogenesis could be an evidence for spontaneous generation only if one does not know the informations inside atoms, molecules and aminoacids. Same way, the emergence of an embryo inside a womb being watched by a microbe living in that womb should be for him evidence of spontaneous generation. He does not know DNA. You don’t know Matrix
You do not understand my point because you do not know what you are talking about. You are using the terms completely wrong and nothing you are saying makes any sense. Its like you are saying the “rabbit ran fast unicorn eats soup” (WTF?). Additionally, your idea of a world view is nonsense, we live in the same world that follows the same rules of logic and evidence, this “world view” idea is simply a dishonest way to avoid your own ignorance.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Why a long post totally off the topic that initiated our debate? It is about yours beliefs in spontaneous generation of RNA and lipids. Let’s check yours evidences? First: why carbon atom was chosen for to be the basic atom for organic matter? Second: Why carbon choose to link to N and O for building aminoacids?
Ok, you are talking something that I don’t know and I need know it. I will search the paper/articles about freeze aminoacids making RNA, but if you could advance the best paper, I will be grateful.The Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that it is impossible inside a lab to built naturally those 20 aminoacidos and naturally they will compose as RNA. If it is possible, I must throw Matrix models into the garbage. But I want to see it
I am not worried with semantics, but about facts. So, *why is carbon so well suited as the basis for life?*. What is your explanation? It is not enough to say that carbon is able for several connections, etc. It does not works at other different planets. Why Earth is the right catalyst for carbon making the right compositions for life? Of course there is no self awareness involved, but why linking to N and O results into aminoacids fitted for biological systems?
“At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it’s virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm…”
The modern academic worldview have no idea how probable life is because this worldview is denying that every son must have a father with same genetic code. This worldview is suggesting that the first cell came with a genetic code built spontaneously at abiogenesis, but they do not show where and how this genetic code was in the state of the world during abiogenesis. Do you need to apply probability calculus for to know how a female womb is suitable for creating a new life?
Impossible question?! Are you talking about the question: “Which were the natural forces and elements that contributed for building the first biological system? Where were them? How and why those forces and elements converged to this planet surface at same time?”
These is the unique most rational questions we can do. And the method for finding the answers is: “Go looking them at the ancestral existing natural systems: atoms, galaxies, etc.” Yes I did it because I am not denying our ancestors.
Hummm…Yours argument is irrefutable. Really, it is impossible to avoid the basic materials for life – they are pervasive in the universe! Yours problem will begins when you take a little bit of those ingredients, mixing them for getting the right 20 aminoacidos, only the left handed molecules, and leaving them by themselves continuing the process towards the first cell system. Since they will not do that, you will go back, to the Universe – as the designer – for asking the same question.
Yes, but why the carbon structure easily forms long chain polymers for organic life? Why the oxygen or Nitrogen structures are not such suitable? I think academic establishment never did these questions, so, they have no explanations. I will advance the explanation from matrix/DNA models: carbon has number atomic 6, which is the exactly copy of Matrix natural formula for composing natural systems. Each particle is a tool performing a specific universal systemic function. And goes on…
The sun is going to dye because he is eating himself, Goo. The lesson of his existence, the big mistake of being supreme selfish, composing his own body as his own Paradise as a closed system, is spread to the external world in shape of light, a lesson for his offspring don’t do the same mistake.Creationists did not learned the lesson. They don’t love Humanity and Nature, they makes an alliance with a powerful god and lives their selfish life. Your light is our darkness. We’ll do different
Every time you have a question about Nature (the Universe is Nature) search the answer in nature.nature does not play dice with us. So, you will see that all elements and substances inside a cell system came from outside, through holes at the membrane.Now, try to make yours theoretical model about “where the Universe came from” based upon what you see. It is better than appeal to imaginations going far out away from Nature. That’s was the method used by Matrix/DNA models
I never said that. But…natural fractal patterns are in need of analyse from a different approach, other than Math. The universal pattern that Matrix/DNA models are suggesting seems a living thing that evolves, creates different appendices, changes time from micro to macro, etc. It is the universal formula that nature uses as template for organizing matter into systems. It is better seeing as a bi-lateral pair of nucleotide, the unit of information of DNA.
Technically, science is a product of your brain. and then if there were no organisms on the planet during the Big Bang, how did they come from nothing? Macro evolution also doesn’t make sense, in the terms that everyone came from a single cell that multiplied and already had the function to multiply if it was the first one
DarkHoundNero, our known data were rationally connected and the result is the Big Bang Theory. It requires that something came “through” “nothing” and not that something came from nothing. It means that the Universe is surrounded by a kind of membrane remembering nothing, with holes. And the first cell was not the first natural system able to self-replicate: our ancestors, galaxies and stars already does that.These theories are very pretty rationals under the light of what we see here and now.
Organism is the name that we call any natural biological organized system. Then you have the same question I had 40 years ago and since nobody had the answer, I went to Amazon jungle - the still living world that witnessed the origins of life – searching the answer. There the jungle sent me to ask to the sky, because at the sky was the answer. Then, I saw the Matrix/DNA in shape of astronomical system, working exactly as an ancestral organism. Maybe my answer is wrong, but it is interesting…
The Matrix/DNA does not have seen supernatural interference upon the long chain of causes and effects that began with the Big Bang and is coming to our days.But absence of evidence is not proof for non existence. I will not destroy yours faith and hope in the existence of a lovely God, but only I will debate the events and real facts of this world that my little brain can grasp
I am not well informed about LQG, which means I need to dedicate more time studying. But…theoretical Physics seems that are going away off the beam. I don’t appreciate the idea of existing ghosts black holes as theorized by Hawking, I think that it is result of deviation of Maths from the natural world due the excess of Maths and computer simulations. Matrix/DNA is suggesting that at galactic nucleus there are merely vortexes formed by dust of died stars
It’s reasonable that any natural system 75% bad mutations goes worse and the 1% good, by logics, never should get fixed. But the macro-evidences of this world, the analyses of whole Natural History, shows that the long natural chain of causation is not linear as wish our logics. The carriage makes a curve and so, there is an evolutionary movement from simple to complex that is curve also.Have you heard about white light and dark light? It does that a system must became worst for becoming better
My definition of “life” is: “The shape of the universal natural system that began simplest as a vortex at the Big Bang, but containing all seven brutes natural forces that became the seven life’s properties. This shape correspond to our shape as “fetus” when our body is changing shapes due the action of vital cycle process. So, this Universe is a genetic reproduction process of something ex-machine, performed by steps known as Evolution, but, which, really, is the Universe under a vital cycle
If my definition will be proved the right one, life is not merely “energy”. Energy is merely a natural state got by accelerated mass and mass is the state of low energy. Both, mass and energy are not essence DE per SE, but derivations of a deepest essence: information. Informations are those quantum vortexes that appeared at Big Bang working like genes and composing quarks, leptons, etc.Reproduction of Universes…or Gods? I don’t know.
Every material body that still belongs to any natural system is light sensitive. All matter is supported by an ocean of light that produces wavelengths with different intensities of vibrations.All seven vibrations are shapes of a single vital cycle process. So, the shape of “green”color always are sensitive to “yellow” and “blue” colors due the same cause that a baby is the shape that links to embryo and child. There is symbiosis among material bodies
When a kid lose his parents and becomes homeless, his inner tendency forgets parents and turn on as hate against the hell in the streets and the world, becoming a criminal. But, if the kid is kept by relatives and grows on the same land, he keeps the memory of parents, like Uudam did, and the missing parents’ love becomes great potential tendency in some kind of arts. Usually he does nothing in relation to the whole Humanity, this species abandoned here without spiritual protectors parents. But.
NoGoodScienceForYou is here suggesting a video ( /watch?v=HRyXauc0h04) which uses real scientific reality as propaganda for his theory. I think the best education for children is showing the images of reality but, being careful self-watching for not using any kind of concepts related to adult’s interpretations, no imposition of theories. I could make a video with same images having in parallel images of spermatozoons as comets, oocyte as nuclear black holes, etc. This is for philosophy class.
Creationists frequently are using the probability calculus for refuting the odds of evolution and evolutionists are using the same calculus for reinforce the odds produced by chance. Both are wrong. The “individual” evolution of a new being inside a womb is driven by the external environment (human species as the non-intelligent designer) which acts internally (through DNA) and externally. Biological evolution is being driven by an yet unknown external environment, probabilities does not applies.
Creationist woman – “My grandfather was not a monkey!”
Lawrence Krauss – ” Well… yours case is not so clear… ” (maybe a pork?)
Evolutionists could be more intelligent if they explain the real state of Science today. All known facts suggests strongly the physical body of human beings came from primates. But Neurology – the field really expert in this matter – says that it still does not found how neurons produces thoughts and how they are related to human mind. This is hope for dignity
No. Biological Evolution is a point of time/space located at the long chain of causes and effects started with the Big Bang beginning with particles evolution, atomic and Cosmological Evolution. All forces of Biology were there at the last non-biological ancestor, the top pf cosmological evolution and I can show you where. But… we don’t know if the very seen steps of evolution is universal evolution or merely reproduction of universes.
GoodScienceForYou: “Mitochondria in most species has lost over 1200 complete genes”
And you says it is due degeneration from Adam’s DNA. You have a point, you are right. Adam was a closed selfish astronomical system, also called LUCA, his DNA was the formula of Universal Matrix. The decay or Fall of Adam into the microscope shape of biological system due entropy was a change from closed to opened system. Mitochondria tried to close it doing photosynthesis, and got it as cell plants.
This debate between Dembski team and Ewens team will not be solved while Humanity doesn’t know the entire context that affects our biosphere and living things. The existence of biological systems is not due a simultaneous act of magical creation neither a long process obeying natural selection as agent of immediate environmental changes. For instance, the process of Earth nuclear reactions and Sun’s reactions are stronger forces composing NS, any change there means changes here. See Matrix/DNA
“I want you to find one positive mutation ever found in the human genome.”
The Matrix/DNA models explains how and why the genome is continually mutated. The fundamental unit of information which is the building block of RNA/DNA is a bi-lateral pair of nucleotides, which is the biological microscopic counterpart of the building block that came evolving from quantum vortexes after Big Bang, to atoms to galaxies. This universal “matrix” diversifies into infinite different kinds of nucleotides
Look! There are trees. Someone must have designed them. See? Tree elves are real and great designers engineering trees for everyone. How else did trees get here, if not by the mysterious powers of the chief tree elf?
Yes, trees were designed. Genetically, by transmission of “Matrix/DNA” from their creators…living in the sky. Trees are the same image of galaxies.The trunk represents the central nuclear axis. The branches are the galaxy’s arms. The leaves are the planets. The yellow fruits pending on the arms are the stars. The plant cell is the biological tendency to reproduce the closed astronomical system with chloroplasts making photosynthesis linking the cell to the star, which is an evolution-stopper.
Question: why can’t humans create a self replicating machine? We can’t even create a machine that can eat breakfast. Intelligent designing humans can’t come close to the technology, complexity, efficiency, eloquence, etc of any type of life. Why would random chance processes be better able to produce life (even when the laws of physics, entropy, are against their natural creation?). I’m interested in an intelligent response! Do you have one?
“Machine” and “life” are cultural symbols used for describing real states and details of Nature. We learn mechanisms, processes existing at Nature and we see matter organized as working systems. Our technology is mimicking natural phenomena, sometimes applying fuzzy logics, mixing mechanisms and materials from different phenomena and producing new arrangements. We produces “machines” because our limited sensors and brain capability see only mechanical and biological aspects of natural systems.
Could you elaborate this information? Are you referring to synthetic molecules, like those from Craig Venter? Matrix/DNA is researching the extensive already published papers related to NASA research of self-replicating robots, but any additional information about other sectors will be welcome.
NASA has a sector dedicated to study self-replicating machines. The goal is sending robots like Curiosity to other astronomical bodies, self-replicating robots that could use the matter of those bodies for populating the astro, maybe extracting some valorous mineral, etc. I am preparing a descriptive suggestion because the Matrix/DNA models arrive to a theoretical formula, a software’s diagram about a natural self-replicating machine. It is about the Newtonian mechanics aspect of systems
The same question would have been asked as to why humans can’t get to the moon a hundred years ago. Not only have we done that, but we’re getting closer to building a self replicating machine.
Also, technically, we absolutely can create a self replicating creature that eats. We can create some that are even capable of learning on a fundamental level. Programmers have done that for quite some time. It’s limited to another, simulated universe. Technically, those programmers could be gods.
This issue is good food for thought. Nature makes self-replicating machines: a stellar system (working with the principles of Newtonian mechanics) degenerates, decomposes, its dust composes again as a new stellar system. But this process is self-recycling, when the original machine needs “dying” and its matter be used for a new one. Suppose that we could insert a software inside each atom of Curiosity and when the robot become oldest, we keep it at same place, the atoms would joining again…
Then why doesn’t 1 human have at least 1 wing growing out of their back. The fly did it, w/ less of a need to fly, than we have. They can walk around all day and find poop. That is their life “poop”, poop is on the ground, they do not need wings.
Joe, the causes are deeper than we think. Wings can be a result of personal effort (anfibians jumps) or can be imposed into a specie by informations flowing in this environment. Wings are specific shapes of accessories developed from cellular cilia which was produced by a universal systemic function number 5. This same function produced the tails of comets for realizing an operation. Here, the system that built biosphere was in need of something being the transporter of pollen. It was imposed
@tsub0dai “humans are far more diverse as a species than any individual person”
The population of human species is comprised of individuals. Theoretically, one individual from today’s human population could be compared to one individual, Adam, in the creation model for genetic diversity. The quagga is an example of selective breeding (artificial selection) used to restore lost genetic information to a few individuals. Natural selection works oppositely toward genetic entropy, i.e. loss.
Yes, Adam/Eve were/is the most perfect genome possible to be made by Nature. Their genome was the formula for building their bodies, which was a closed non-minded system, merely extension of their genome. You can see their “photo” published by Matrix/DNA theory. Natural Selection worked oppositely to their tendencies, entropy causing the big Fall. As microscopic biological systems, the offspring of Adam/Eve lifted up at planets, as opened systems. The sinner father in the sky is driven NS now.
Yes, cancer is an issue that needs urgent attentions. If you see the picture at my website tipping “The Cycle Of Cholesterol And The Matrix” you will know a new approach for understanding diseases. We have the formula for perfect systems, any disease is dysfunction of that formula. My problem is that I am alone doing this, have no time and resources. I did only fast research about bad cholesterol, Alzheimer. For analyzing cancer under Matrix models is necessary reading lots of informations.
Germany, with militant socialists liberalism has 7.5 million functionally illiterate adults out of a population of 81.7 million.
That is a great sign of how well that works. Germany used to be the country where science and engineering prevailed and German engineering was well known. Now 9% of the population can’t read or write. They are setting up programs to educate people who have already been through the school system
I think this is normal result from WW2: generations of people went to hard work instead schools. But this is also a suggestion that Matrix/DNA models are right. They are suggesting a different kind of targets for the Science enterprise, producing a different kind of technology, medicine, human habitat, different design for urban life. Different from that produced by Germany, whose unconscious target was driven to be a kind of Brave New World ruled by the Big Brother, mimicking insects societies
OUR DNA closely maps out our history of self destruction. Its clear that we have been destroying our genome for a long time and it shows in the huge numbers of deaths directly due to genetic diseases, 30.4 million is less than half of the real number each year. Considering that we created all the viral fungal and bacterial infections by our stupid actions that kill us from infections.
We seem to have become animals with sexual compulsions owning us completely, never aware of what that is doing
The building blocks of DNA, bi-lateral pair of nucleotides, are diversified copies of a unique system. each copy expresses a particular particle, a specific function, different of all others. These copies self-assembly themselves, free in biosphere and cell environment. Some kind of biological behavior selects among these copies which will be increased in their genomes. But the constructors of these copies does not want us as biological minded creatures, they want pieces for a natural machine.
We now have the all time record of childhood congenital disease rates and at astonishing accelleration. 120% rise in Autism in 2 years! 1 in 88 diagnosed by 8 year old. 1 in 125 babies born with congenital heart disease. A rise of 135% in childhood invasive cancer in 34 years. 200% rise in 10 years of STD’s affecting 1 in 4 and young fertile girls have the highest rates. Evolution is a denial mechanism that supports this genetic suicide. “evolutionforum.info”
I should leave these statistics for atheists answering them. But, my personal technique is searching causes based on Matrix/DNA models. They suggests that degradation of humans genetics and bodies is the predicted results from this biosphere evolution. This biosphere was produced by chaos through fragments coming from the decay of a ordered half-mechanical/half-biological system. The action of these fragments is to reproduce the machine, humans must be pieces, so, it is fixing our genome.
History’s shown from the dark ages; the advent of many diseases that nearly wiped out humans, like the plague , wiping out 1/2 the population of Europe; resulted in extreme political measures, using the state religion, Gods authority, to stop diseases. Prison time public whipping, death to homos & anyone who had sex outside of a virgin marriage was a criminal period. It took a lot of suffering to learn to stop killing families children mothers fathers. Used to use a sharp pole for punishment.
I had no time yet for analyzing those plagues based upon Matrix models, but these models suggestions about the origins of viruses also suggests that diseases caused by them are produced by specific psychological states – individual or collective. Viruses are organic constructs from Matrix/DNA genetic code – which exists inside living beings and flowing in the environment – produced by universal function number 5. So, those plagues were produced by specific state of mind, which were religious.
33% of people ages 15 to 64 will die from cancer in the USA. Source CDC. Childhood invasive cancer in the US has risen by 135%;34 years. STD’s in the US up 200% in 10 years with the highest rates: young women ages 14 to 24.
It seems that also the fastest growing religion is atheism.
It turns out that Evodelusionism is the religion of atheists, homos, sex addicts, socialist liberals, communists, politicians, prostitutes (no kidding) and scientists. What a group of people to model after. Eh?
It is just the opposite. This degradation of human bodies is the corolary of millenniums of religious thought ruling societies with wrong social systems, wrong technology and wrong science. Religion is a minded-stopper, it separates men from its Nature for alliance with supernatural. Then, the whole body is driven not by the intellect, but by the laws of atoms composing the body. These atoms are matter which supreme tendency is closed inertial equilibrium. We got it, but Nature is responding.
A good sample is the biggest religions of the planet, the Asian religions, which supreme goal is the search for personal equilibrium and nirvana. We have a model of a natural system just in this exactly state: the building block of astronomical systems, our ancestor since 10 billion years ago. It is a closed system into itself, cutting relations with the whole natural world, a self-constructed paradise, where the two aspects of matter, mass and energy got its targets. Extreme selfishness.
These building blocks grew and built galaxies. Its shape is like a perfect machine, a perpetuum motor, self-recycling. The Universe was populated by them. But, above galaxies are forces like the Clausius Law, which produces degradation, measured by entropy and the pretense eternity falls down. Today the Universe is composed by their fossils, ours ancestors. Meanwhile, consciousness was sleeping at galaxies, woke up in shape of animals and lifted up as humans. Religious aret repeating the sin
Are you based on Thermodynamic Theory for systems? First of all, those theorists never knew how and what is a perfect closed system. It is built by any lightwaves invading inertial mass and modeling matter accordingly to its seven different frequencies of vibrations, from gamma-ray to radio. Entropy is the name of unit of measurement, not the sate itself. Degradation is not loosing quantities of energy/mass, is fragments escaping from the circuit flow and diminishing the quality of closed system
EVOLUTION is a fairytale for grown-ups, complete with its abiogenetic virgin birth, apes that talk and tell lies, “survival of the fittest “moral code, The prophet called Charlie, a magical process that’s never been observed while its happening, cows that tried to walk on water but became whales, a story about how a primordial soup made a chef.
Almost equal to the collection of fairytale in the Bible, eh? The big difference is that Charlie really sacrificed his best years abandoning a good life in London for facing the hell of the salvage world, observing facts for building conclusions, while the prophets of Bible forgot the real facts of nature and jumped to imaginary conclusions. Any other man that go back to the salvage world with the modern scientific knowledge will find models that solves all problems pointed by you, rationally
No, DNA proves that he has all informations for doing all species at Earth. DNA proves to aliens that there are diversification of species at Earth. It does not prove Evolution, it merely suggests that evolution is possible.
DNA proves for a microbe as observer located inside the womb and watching the progress of a fetus that he is seeing evolution. As observers outside the womb, we know that it is reproduction. This Universe is a cosmic egg – or is an agglomerated of bodies still alive or of died fossils (galaxies) – where is occurring a normal natural process of reproduction. And we – like all conscious living beings at millions of other planets – are the minded “genes” making the embryo for the final Big Birth
@van der Meer “[Creationists] provide an answer, just not the correct one”
Considering that scientific theories are only temporal and never absolute (e.g. Newton’s gravitation theory was replaced by Einstein’s general theory of relativity), how do you know what the “correct” answer is concerning man’s origin? Modern-day scientists admit that they don’t know how life began nor has anyone ever created an artificial environment that facilitates the spontaneous generation of life from non-life.
Newton’s theory was not replaced by Einstein’s theory because they were dealing with different dimensions of time/space. Newton’s theory is for Einstein’s the same that atoms are for cells, it means, the new arrangement of atoms inside a cell changes their behaviors and functions. Newton was dealing with mechanics at stellar system level which is an mechanic arrangement like a watch – but Einstein was dealing with galaxies which is half-mechanical/half-biological acting over stellar systems
We don’t know man’s origins in relation to human mind/brain, which could have aggregated new informations coming from a superior natural system located at a superior level of complexity in relation to the total systemic environment (Milk Way) that supplied informations for man’s body, about which we have the most strong evidences that came from primates. For creating biological systems from the evolutionary top of non-biological systems we need more knowledge about natural light, it is the code
I would hardly think the lack of 100% confirmed theory in the branches of science would drive children into the wrong path, most depending on age wouldn’t grasp the Matrix /DNA theory anyway ,and most likely be taught at the college level.. Where as religion prefers to brainwash children at a young age before their logical abilities are fully developed and are still easy prey to mythical fairy tale stories and fear of invisible boogie men and good fairies …
You are right, religion has not worked for improving human existence, so, they are not the solution, our futures generations needs search other alternatives, while the empirical scientifically proved facts must be known. The observation of fossil record and another known facts strongly suggests that there is a natural process from simplest to complexity, which is called “evolution” But this process happens at universal macro scale, unknown, so biological evolution is a non-complete theory.
@NuggetKazooie “negative factors you described wouldn’t apply to the other populations”
Then you get a net positive. Even very small positives soon leads to huge numbers & small negatives quickly lead to extinction.
“Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass, with a narrowing population of Homo erectus leading to possibly one single mutant, whose improved genes emerged into a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is startling.” Alan F. Alford
@Martin Koch “Alan F Alford is not an reliable witness”
“however, he admitted to serious faults in his use of Sitchin’s theory and proposed an alternative, cataclysm theory of ancient myth: “I am now firmly of the opinion… the descent of the gods was a poetic rendition of the cataclysm myth…” wiki
Alan Alford is thus a “hostile witness” for creationism. Too bad he was forced to consider what he thought was a better mechanism than TOE.
Do “reliable witnesses” only have your same viewpoint?
“Human evolution thus appears like an hourglass,…”
But his observation above is known, being the human genes emerged by evolution or by other unknown source. Alford almost touched the deeper secret of Nature and the deeper source for religious myths. In fact happened a cataclysmic event and the descent of gods as source for human genes. But this cataclysm was not the Noah’s flood neither the explosion of Nibiru, Matrix/DNA suggests other kind of “cataclysm” and descent “gods”
Yes, that is what Matrix models are suggesting: no aliens, ancient or otherwise. We need to remember the initial state of this biosphere and the jungle is the best witness still existing about the life’s origins. It indicates that this biosphere is product of chaos. Chaos is product of cataclysm that happens on ordered environments. The environment existing before biosphere’s origins was made of atomic and astronomical systems. So, there was the Newtonian machine and ours ancestors, the “gods”
The Matrix model still is a theory explaining this worlds’ existence, under tests facing real proved facts. It is a natural formula used by Nature for assembling matter into systems, like atoms, galaxies, trees, humans, cells, etc. This formula is under evolution since the Big Bang ( initially the Matrix was shared by billions of vortexes as bits-information or ex-machine quantum genes) and here the formula is resumed into a base-pair of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. Theories…
Only when Science as real knowledge of real facts is used by someone that did the mental exercise for connecting the facts, got a big picture, and teach to children that his picture is Science. Since we for sure don’t have all facts ( maybe neither 30% of all facts of this Universe) any big picture will be product of imagination, then, should be taught as theory. Any big picture (as Matrix/DNA Theory) now will be a driven into wrong pathway for children or a closer mind
I agree and I will talk to kids about ToE, ID, panspermia, Matrix/DNA, etc., mentioning that I don’t know which theory is more appropriated and my personal thought has indicated that there is a natural process of transformation that have increased complexity. But, all these theories must be taught in a Philosophy class, not Science class. Science only inform about real known facts, has no conclusions. The most important thing is to be certified that kids will be opened minds, free for choices
That’s funny. You make me remembering when Morelli was in Amazon jungle and elaborated the Matrix/DNA Theory. He saw lots of snakes in his pathway, they were static waiting any attack for expelling their venom. Louis usually touched them with a long piece of wood, and the snake bites the wood, before going away. Here in Internet, we find snakes in needs of expelling poison of their souls and any comments contrary to their beliefs works as the wood branch. Funny is that Interned is enough long
You have a testable hypothesis. The Last Universal Common Ancestor – LUCA – of all living systems, is pictured in a intelligible astronomical model that’s testable. Taking out LUCA from Earth and out of abiogenesis, putting LUCA in the sky, all tools of a cells system can be reduced to the astonishing singularity of LUCA. Broken LUCA into small pieces, you have as result all living species seen at earth. But, LUCA was found coming from before the Big Bang, its origins is unknown.
Ok, they you think you have the right for taking the word “theory” from the ancient Greeks that coined the word and give a new definition. No, my friend, the modern schools are not the owner of this world, they applied the wrong word to jobs resulting from a specific method of connecting real data, which method can be wrong. The Matrix?DNA Theory is a theory in the strictly sense obeying the right of its creators.
- ” Foi Marshall McLuhan, o Papa da Comunicação que disse isso, veja aqui: “Only puny secrets need protection, big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”
- ” Não fique cantando de galo antes do tempo, dona Matrix. Veja isto aqui, quem disse fui eu : “Quando uma grande descoberta cai na incredulidade publica, como a Teoria da Evolução, o publico tem razão”
- “Que?! Estás dizendo que não crês em Evolução?!”
- “Na evolução cega, sem propósitos, como estão crendo muitos intelectuais hoje, baseados na Teoria Neo-Darwinista, não acredito. Os meus modêlos teóricos sugerem que nêste Universo está ocorrendo um processo de reprodução, do que o gerou. Ora, se eu fôsse de uma espécie de micróbios inteligentes como humanos e vivendo dentro de um óvulo fecundado, assistindo o que tem ocorrido com o embrião lá dentro, eu iria para a escola dos micróbios aprender que antes havia uma espécie chamada mórula, que evoluiu para blástula, depois para a forma de peixe, de réptil, de mamifero quadrupede e por fim está na forma quase humana. Meus professores e tôda minha espécie acreditariam piamente na Evolução. Porem quem estivesse fora do universo, quer dizer, do ôvo, saberia que trata-se de um mero processo de reprodução. Todo processo de reprodução contem micros-processos evolutivos. Alem disso, teríamos o livro sagrado dizendo que o mundo começou com uma grande explosão. Os micróbios até poderiam dar o nome a êste evento de “Big Bang”. Mas quem estivesse fora saberia que a tal “explosão” nada mais foi que o súbito rompimento do invólucro espermático no centro do óvulo no momento da fecundação – o que de fato foi o inicio do mundo. Mas explosões e novas formas de espécies que parecem serem obras do acaso porque nunca foram vistas antes, para quem estivesse fora do mundo, saberia que tudo estava contido dentro de um propósito, um processo pré-determinado pelos pais que geraram aquêle óvulo.
” Portanto, estamos vendo que existem duas versões lógicas, válidas, para o conjunto dos fatos realmente cientificos conhecidos e provados até agora. Se nos fixar-mos na possibilidade do acaso, tudo se encaixa, é uma alternativa racionalmente possível. Mas se nos fixar-mos na existência com propósito, tambem tudo se encaixa, tambem é outra alternativa igualmente possível. Por isso não acredito na Teoria da Evolução Neo-Darwinista. Os fatos que ela apresenta não autorizam suas conclusões. E tambem não acredito em você, dona “Teoria da Matrix/DNA”. Os fatos que apresentas não são provas de suas sugestões para o contexto existencial. E acho que seria precipitação, leviandade racionalista mesmo, acreditar em qualquer alternativa, por enquanto. Sou agnóstico. Só sei que não sei, a unica certeza que tenho é que não tenho certeza alguma. Tu estás protegida pela incredulidade publica, por enquanto só provocas alguns risos condescendentes, mas ninguem lhe dá importancia a ponto de levá-la para a fogueira. Não comemore nada ainda, talvez seja provado que tu não existes…”
- “Bem… mas que sou a mais bonita, poética, romantica… e provoco gritos de alegria quando me mostro como reflexo no espêlho das imagens de todos os fenômenos naturais descobertos até agora, alem de ser a unica a produzir uma agradavel esperança para o ser humano de que êle tem um sublime e magnifico destino por tôda eternidade… isso não podes negar… certo?”
- “Concordo. Mas tôda aquela Miss que um dia pôde se mirar vaidosa no espêlho com sua faixa de campeã, certa que não existia nenhuma mais bela, foi substituida…”
Matrix/DNA: ( vermelha de tão irritada)
- Ah, seu… então fique com a Teoria da Miss Macaco. Essa sim já foi substituida a muito tempo e só os bebâdos ainda enfeitiçados e os caôlhos não perceberam…”