Interesting studies, but irrelevant.

When they saw a picture of their loved one specific areas of the brain became active, suggesting that there is a specialised system in the brain relating to romantic love.

Notice the word, "suggesting". They are reacting to a picture of someone close to them. Where does it prove that the person's reaction to the picture is one of love? It could be any number of things. Additionally implied is that it is only romantic love that lights up these areas.

What about familial love? Platonic love? Metaphysical love? Self love? Compassion?

There is evidence both direct and indirect for the existence of a Universal Mind/Consciousness. Evidence hidden in plain sight. The experiential evidence, verified and repeated over the millenia is overwhelming. If you are ever fortunate/unfortunate enough to have the experience of touching It, even for the briefesst of moments, there is no doubt. None whatsoever.

But that's basing on the assumption that what you are experiencing is in fact coming from or belonging to a god or universal mind/conciousness. I'm not disputing the fact that such experiences do happen (had a few myself), what I do dispute is that they are from divine intervention.

While I do understand that there is a mathematical possibility that a god or suchlike does exist, however the probability in my mind is extremely slim to highly improbable. I see no evidence of any such being/conciousness.

I beleive if there is such thing as consiousness that it is most likely connected. The total of these points of conciousness could be called a god.
What is its nature?
-maybe God is a superiour being, a piece/pieces of consiousness that has evolved to the point where it can truely experience itself, this may or may not be what enlightenment is. If so maybe the universe it made to continue moving forwards so that these completed conciousnesses can create themselves, at the cost of all conciousnesses which do not reach the end point during their lifetimes. Or maybe each conciousness is reborn/reincarnated until it is able to reach its final destiny.
-maybe god has created the universe and consious beings as it is too powerful, or maybe it contains too much evil(not realy the word im looking for maybe impurity would be better) to view itself in its full form without causing self destruction. By splitting itself up so that its total can be viewed by many from many points it is currently able to survive.

It is possible that there are natural transmitters in all consious life which allow our consiousness to observe our minds. DMT would be a candidade for this. In unusually large amounts this could allow us to view much more of our constant thought proccess and feelings than normally possible. Maybe even allowing us to breifly observe our true self.


Personally if there is a god i find it unlikely that it would create a universe just for the sake of it. Maybe it would, maybe it would want entertainment, or enjoyment in watching species develope towards its level. But i think its more likely that god if there is such a thing is either a part of the universe or the universe is a part of it.

Several years ago I was given the task to prove the existance of god utilizing science. The challenge was that I dont believe in a deity as most humans define the word and science is fundamentally in opposition to the creationist view. It was a hard task to undertake I was being asked to prove something that in my mind I knew was false but I could not use statements or tactics that are used by those who follow the dogmatic path as my opponent would be well prepared to debunk them. Eventually I was able to formulate a decent plan.

M-theory (Multiverse) states that there is a infinite number of parrallel universes based off of Quantum theory which tells us that anything that is possible however remote will occur in some parallel universe. M-theory states gravity is such a weak force because it permeates through multiple dimensions. Understanding the graviton is a big deal in physics they just dropped 11 billion dollars on the LHC to study this force. If quantum physics is right and M-theory is correct in it's assumption that gravity does travel between universes then you have your foundation. In some universe somewhere god exists. His ability to effect this universe could come from his manipulation of gravity. My argument was infinitely more detailed but you get the idea.

God didn't create the universe. God became the universe.

Or perhaps the Universe is becoming God - that as life and information processing evolves as features across the Multiverse (and when viewed from the perspective of the Multiverse, life truly is unique in holding patterns that can propagate information) - eventually the entire Multiverse will be directed towards the Omega Point, where all of Reality is turned into pure conscious information processing; as this collapses into the final singularity, the energy of the universal gravitational collapse is used to power ever faster and faster information processing, ultimately diverging into infinity : omniscient, in that all possible quantum states in all Universes will be known, as they will be part of the history comprising the conscious aggregate of all experience, information and knowledge...a scenario in which the final singularity is ...God.

Lol. This isn't my idea. Try Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality. Honestly, I think the guy must have dropped a bunch of acid before writing the book. Thought provoking though.

the notion of there being a "god" is demeaning. though the notion that we are only the beings inside our skin is depressing. So, to take some wise words from Alan watts:

"you and I, sitting here in this room as complicated human beings are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns there on the end of it. Very interesting. But so, we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curly-cue WAY out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. But billions of years ago you were a big bang. But now, you are a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we are still the big bang. But you are. It depends how you define yourself. If this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning, you're not something that is a result of the big bang, You're not something that is a sort-of puppet on the end of the process, you are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. You see, when I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as, I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it."

It is based upon the experience I had. I have had plenty of experiences of merging with the universal consciousness, both in meditation and with spice use, but none of those were "the" experience. There was no assumption, I understood. It took me over a year to come to terms with what happened to me. Lots of research, contemplation, probing, questioning. I knew what had happened, but didn't want to believe it. THe connection I experienced that day has never left me.

Obviously it has not happened to you, as you can still conceptialize metaphysics as a mathmatical inprobability. Which is perfectly acceptable as each is at their own place along the journey.

I like it. Makes me think of a torus, alpha information expanding outward, becoming more cohesive and organized as it expands then contracts and returns to the source at the omega point.

You do realize that this quote is saying that you are god? This is Watt's whole point, you are inseparable from the creation, because it is ongoing and you are both the creator and the creation.

Plies like that make me want to leave the nexus I was simply statin my beliefs and was put down as if I am in sixth grade and don't know anything. I went to catholic schools fovever I know religion. I do not believe there is anthing out there and that we are simply smart apes that have old ways and new ways and we are having a hard time integrating the old ways of trying to explain things and give them human qualities. We are forgetting that we are natural animals and not some super beings. There is no super natural force.

Everything is natural because all matter came from one place in the beginning. And if the why is asking why did the universe expand and create us and our intelligence and conciousness then we are putting a human quality to the universe. Do trees have a moral goal at the end of the day? Nature has no intelligence it simply makes more efficient energy because that really all evolution is.

These are my views and I hope I'm not persecuted for them. If someone is wrong don't scold, inform.

yes i do, let me explain. by god not being an encouraging hypothesis i mean the common christian image of "god". to speak with god you must understand yourself and be happy with yourself and accepting of your own actions. being at peace with ones self = being god.

You are absolutely correct. My sincerest apologies.

Ok, I understand better. The Christian god makes no sense to me, as it is so divorced from experience and common sense to be absurd in my opinion. When I talk about god, I am speaking from a pantheistic perspective, which is at odds with all organized religion. There is no separation, as all is One.

I agree, one must be at peace and understand themselves before the doorway to the true self opens. Since we are all individual manifestations of All That Is, how can one know god if they do not know themselves?

I consider myself an Atheist, and I like getting stumped on it. Which never happens. Wow. This is the most convincing idea I've come across yet.

M-Theory is certainly interesting. I was under the impressin that it stood for Membrane, not multi-verse. Their theory as to why gravity is so weak is that it is working in the 11 dimensions of M-theory, so in our 3rd dimension we only feel a fraction of it.

We live in one membrane amongst an infinity of membranes, and everything that could happen does happen. Therefore, you are an eternal being, because somewhere in some universe you would live forever. So there is an energy that exists across all universes that never disappears and is eternal.

Much respect

Wouldyou inform me of your views of "god"? One time I was tripping amushroms and I was procaloming to myself gd is in all of us and that god is the little thought in the back of your head that says this is wrong. Which means god s different for all of us. If you ask me my "god" is just that. I would be in awe If I was wrong and I wish I was so please inform me of anything I sound like I'm not aware of

The m in M theory does stand for membrane. Edward Witten, who proposed it to settle some of the inconsistencies in the 5 differing string theory equations, was uncomfortabe with the word membrane as a description of superstrings, so he abbreviated it to M and enigmatically stated that the M was subject to interpretation. Since then magic, matrix, mother and a whole slew of other m-words have been employed by the layman - now we must add multiverse.

Vovin wrote:

"Several years ago I was given the task to prove the existance of god utilizing science. The challenge was that I dont believe in a deity as most humans define the word and science is fundamentally in opposition to the creationist view. It was a hard task to undertake I was being asked to prove something that in my mind I knew was false but I could not use statements or tactics that are used by those who follow the dogmatic path as my opponent would be well prepared to debunk them. Eventually I was able to formulate a decent plan.

M-theory (Multiverse) states that there is a infinite number of parrallel universes based off of Quantum theory which tells us that anything that is possible however remote will occur in some parallel universe. M-theory states gravity is such a weak force because it permeates through multiple dimensions. Understanding the graviton is a big deal in physics they just dropped 11 billion dollars on the LHC to study this force. If quantum physics is right and M-theory is correct in it's assumption that gravity does travel between universes then you have your foundation. In some universe somewhere god exists. His ability to effect this universe could come from his manipulation of gravity. My argument was infinitely more detailed but you get the idea."

Vovin - I am intrigued by a number of things in your statement; my understanding of m theory and superstring theory in general is that it is meant to supplant quantum theory, much as reativity did newtonian mechanics, and quantum mechanics did relativity. Given that the 10 + 1 dimension proposition is integral to superstrng theory, how does it apply to quantum mechanics? I have never personally heard the proponents of quantum mechanics refering to dimensions in excess of the four familiar ones. The idea of remote, non-local action has never to my knowledge, under the auspices of the quantum mechanic scientists, been explained multi-dimensionally.

The gravitron, as well, is a theoretical particle. All the other forces (strong & weak nuclear & electromagnetic) have been associated with observable particles, but the gravitron, having never been observed, is a sort of holy grail of modern physics (or at least a MAJOR step toward the real holy grail : the theory of everything, or unified field theory as einstein called it). Can you provide some sources for the idea that BOTH quantum mechanics and M theory assert that gravity travels between universes and is hence weaker than the other forces? This sounds like a fantastic breakthrough - I find this fascinating, but have never come across it, so would be very interested if you provided me with some reading!

cheers to intrigue,

JBArk

Superstring and Supersymmetry theories are still very much tentative - there is, as yet, no experimental evidence to prove them, though they are elegant. In particular, Supersymmetry, which posits a super-particle for all known particles in the Standard Model, has yet to demonstrate the actual existence of any of the supposed "sparticles" (a quark has a squark, an electron a selectron, photons - photinos, etc). While defenders will argue that we have, indeed, found half of the particles required by Supersymmetry (the half we know about and can actually see), still, there remains producing actual experimental evidence of the other half to give these theories more than speculative weight.

That may happen - if these theories are correct, than the new supercolliders should be able to demonstrate their existence. If they do, Supersymmetry will indeed supplant the Standard Model, and give us a Grand Unified Theory to boot. The cool thing about Supersymmetry is that it works with or without string theory, it can go, oddly enough, out to 11 dimensions, but only requires 4.

It's not quite accurate to state that Quantum Physics supplants Relativity - both are true, yet incomplete in themselves. Quantum Gravity is an attempt, so far unsuccessful, to unite the two. If Supersymmetry pans out, it will achieve this, and we will have achieved the Holy Grail of Physics. Keep your fingers crossed!