TED Community » natasha nikulina

Comments

• TEDCred score: +68.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exists?

  Apr 29 2013: I think the main problem is that vexed ' objective VS subjective' business.
  Objectivity is the illusion of a subject, hardly anything more. Multiply it to the number of agents /subjects currently ' working' in the field , add the time aspect:15 billion years ( ? ) I don't know. And what we'll get is a self fulfilling prophecy, mass hallucination... collective dream, what have you. We call it ' objective reality ' , fine !
  We swallow the fact of 99.9999999999% empty space, the quanta fluctuation from the state of existence to non existence 3 bl.times per second ( on average it doesnt' exist and resides in indeterminate zone) ... the result of a double slit experiment ( consciousness , the 'eye' of the observer is required to collapse the wave function and push a particle into existence )....we swallow all these and many other facts without altering our attitude !
  Amazing !
  We still think that quantum world is standing apart from our ' human' physical world, but if you accept this division , you have a logical philosophical, experiential mess in your hands ! The nature is fractal all over the genre, ' as above so below ' .
  To question the doctrine of objectivity is a right place to start in the search for a higher dimension, call it God or whatever the name . I think it prefers to be unnamed, but to communicate the idea we need a symbol and we have it.
  
  Have a nice day !

• A reply on Conversation: Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exists?

  Apr 29 2013: Hi, Obey !
  That student is who we are, we can't accept the fact that the desk is 99.9999999999% empty space. Why ? Because we all have a strong collective belief in totally the opposite : the desk is solid.
  Our belief makes it solid, our collective mind expectation creates matter/ the world as we know it.
  For how long will we entertain the idea of external God ?
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exists?

  Apr 26 2013: While science tries to explain the invisible through the visible, there is no room for God/Spirit /Consciousness in the dictionary of science, it has no proof either.
  But now with modern physics once we grasp the full implication of the quantum message we can never again naively believe that the world 'out there' is more real than the world ' in here' .

• A reply on Conversation: Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exists?

  Apr 26 2013: God Is it what Dalai Lama meant "deep Mind is always there"
  
  Re : 'Mind on its most fundamental level has always existed, that level would be light..
  
  It may be true for photon has no antiparticle therefore eliminates the dualism that exists in the particles that are matter which is finite.
  
  Thanks, Casey !
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What is your definition of 'freedom'?

  Apr 26 2013: When alone you are One with everything else.
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: What is your definition of 'freedom'?

  Apr 26 2013: The less ego the more freedom.
  I guess, it goes like this
  Thanks !

• A reply on Conversation: What is your definition of 'freedom'?

  Apr 26 2013: I don't think that anybody here can top your 'definition' of freedom :)
  
  Thank you !

• A comment on Conversation: Are we really all the same?

  Apr 20 2013: We are all One.
  Mathematically it's one without the second. And we are different within our oneness ;
  each of us is the unique One without the second.

• A reply on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Apr 19 2013: Like bombing for peace .
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?

  Apr 18 2013: "The TED Delusion" seems to be a bestseller these days.
  
  In fact, i don't believe in freedom of choice, we are much more embedded in the 'flow' than we think.
  " Leibniz and Newton had very different views of calculus in that Newton’s was based on limits and concrete reality, while Leibniz focused more on the infinite and the abstract "
  
  And now TED is to blame ? ! :)
  
  Hi, Ed !