robert richards

Adult Education, learning facilitator, PolyTechnic Institute of Tasmania

This conversation is closed.

The universe as a sentient being and ourselves, solar system and galaxy molecules in an immense system of synapse, axioms and dendrites.

I have abondoned this discussion due to its connection to a religeous belief. That was not my intent.

  • Aug 29 2011: Although I've believed this as a possibility for some time, the term was recently defined to me, pantheism, thought I'd share
    • thumb
      Sep 1 2011: Chris I was unaware that there was a religeous connection or movement in this idea. As such I have abandoned it as it was meant as something to ponder not something to follow or believe in.
      • Sep 1 2011: It's more an atheistic movement than a religious one, it simply states that if there is a god, it is the universe (saying nothing about if there is not a god) and not sum magical spaghetti monster or omnipotent being.
        • thumb
          Sep 1 2011: I see the distinction and thank you for your input, however I wish not to go there. My reasons for all my posts on this thread and others is merely to promote thinking, that is all. I am not trying to sell anything to anybody (ideas or concepts I mean). There are a few things that I feel strongly about (religion not being one of them) and are by definition personal therefore I will never bring them up in a social setting. I hope we can start a converse somewhere else on another thread. I enjoy such diversions.
  • Aug 23 2011: To build on what Krisztián said... While the Universe functions as a mechanism and there is interdependency, it is not necessarily all interconnected.
    • Aug 29 2011: if there is interdependency then by definition they are interconnected... just not necessarily with conciousness
      • Aug 29 2011: "X" can be dependent on "Y" and not necessarily physically connected... There can be intermediate variables that could account for the interdependency while still keeping everything physically separated. I meant "physical" connection, to clarify.
        • Aug 30 2011: understood, but who's to say a organizing connection needs to be physical? Take EM for example, which can have physical effects though is not matter itself. If X is dependant on W which in turn is dependant on Y then X and Y are connected through W, however complex W is.
      • Aug 30 2011: Agreed. W and Y would be indirectly connected.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2011: actually, what interconnectivity is there in the galaxy?
    • Aug 29 2011: I'd suggest the EM band, it physically manipulates all atoms (each absorbing and reflecting different frequencies) though perhaps as we theorise the sub atomic world we may discover other inter-connectivities.

      Nice thing about the EM band is it's basically endless, only defined by what we understand, initially as light and sound (as mentioned in many ancient texts as descriptions for "god") and now more recently as radio, microwave, ect. Maybe one day we'll discover it's actually the language of the universe. We ourselves emit EM which can be currently interpreted by technology as our emotional state, but if you buy into telepathy, could explain it.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2011: Thank you for your replies,I feel there is a lot of interconnectivity, gravity for one, Particles for another. I don’t believe there is a void anywhere; there is definitely space that has less matter than other space but not entirely void of matter. As an example, if you are one that considers the Higgs Boson field to be a plausible theory then I think you would need to agree that the universe is interconnected. That is but one example of many...dark matter is another, let alone the electrical fields created around all particles. What i am trying to suggest is that just like in the brain, things don’t necessarily need to be obviously connected to be able to connect or cause connectivness. I also think that it is this connectivity that scientist are trying to find, to marry quatum physics with general relativity.

    What are your thoughts?
    • Sep 1 2011: Hi Robert,

      Perhaps you are not familiar with the work of John Bell, and Irish physicist who in 1964 won the Nobel prize for work on his thorem (not theory) which proves the interconnectedness of perhaps the entire universe. The theorem applies to any quantum system of two entangled qubits. The most common examples concern systems of particles that are entangled in spin or polarization.

      Things become entangled when they get close enough to each other, which it turns out everything was at the "Big Bang" if indeed it is to be believed. Particles entangled at the quantum level have instantaneous effects upon each other regardless of the distance by which they are separated. (A phenomenon proven by Alain Aspect) It was Alain's seminal experiments in 1982 that confirmed the counterintuitive nature of quantum entanglement to which Einstein himself had objected. (because they happened faster than the speed of light)
      Might be of interest to you...Don
      • thumb
        Sep 2 2011: Thank you Don, This is exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping for. I was not aware of John Bell and his theorem. It sounds fascinating and I will definitely look it up. My knowledge on quantum physics while not non-existent is very sketchy. I will enjoy the read.
        • Sep 2 2011: Hi Robert,

          You may want to first read about the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen thought experiment, which was only a thought experiment until 1982, when the electronics existed to actually verify that Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen were wrong. Quantum effects can be measured instantaneously over thousands of light-year distances. It is my second favorite experiment in all of physics.