View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why the scientists won't accept the Conscious Universe Model

Discuss General Topics.

Why the scientists won't accept the Conscious Universe Model

Postby NucleicAcid » 16 Apr 2010, 11:02

I was pondering, as always, and frustrated by the scientific community's difficulty with accepting the Conscious Universe/Infinite Consciousness model of reality. At one point, the scientific consensus was that Classical Mechanics explained all that there was to be explained, and the only things left to do were to just narrow in on specific details of things. Then they ran into a handful of hangups and realized there were issues with CM. That gave birth to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They explain a bigger part of the picture than CM. We know QM is incomplete, and thus physicists are busily trying to come up with it's replacement. Certain esoteric models, like Conscious Universe, explain all of that stuff, plus psi, but those models can't explain psi, so Conscious Universe is the more powerful model. It also explains away its own inconsistencies, like the capriciousness of psi research, quite nicely.

But then I realized, idea of universal consciousness/infinite potential Buddhist sort of outlook essentially explains everything.

Image

How long is it before we just go, "Well, since the universe needed the ability to create everything in order to create anything, it must still be able to create any possible scenario it could potentially run into, so technically everything is possible, if not here, then somewhere." Well obviously never. That sort of thing would be PREPOSTEROUS for the scientific community to announce. Totally unfalsifiable, really no grounds for making a testable hypothesis, it's anti science. Then I was like, wait a minute, infinite potential? That's basically another way of saying God.

Science, with its very strong Atheist contingent, especially the vocal ones of the Shermer/Dawkins variety (I'm convinced they're merely two different robots of the same make and model :-P) would not be caught dead admitting that anything along the lines of a universal consciousness exists, because it is synonymous with God. And therefore, it shuns anything that even comes close to suggesting it, like psi. It's "I wouldn't believe it even if it were true." So from their point of view, the model of the universe that they want to be true is the one that is finite, because they eventually want science to be able to explain the whole thing. They will insist that the best model is one that circumscribes all that we know, but is still small enough to be totally figured out, because that's how they see the world, and that's what they want. They say things like Psi and God and the origin of the universe will eventually be explained away because science is always moving forward, and as it develops, it explains more and more of what once was superstition and myth.

However, by their own pattern of thought, they should realize that any given model of the universe they could come up with, must be incomplete and will eventually be replaced.

But alas, this would make their attempt at figuring out everything futile. So they fight against anything that suggests that their way of looking at the world is incomplete, and use some extremely solid logic to do so. Because by their meter, everything is explainable, even things yet to be explained.

Aaaand that's circular logic.

Tada. Go back to bed America. I've figured out everything. Again.

:ugeek:
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20






Re: Why the scientists won't accept the Conscious Universe Model

Postby Craig Browning » 17 Apr 2010, 00:06

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I want this piece for a book I've been working on :lol: :lol: :lol:

Down-right awesome!
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why the scientists won't accept the Conscious Universe Model

Postby NucleicAcid » 17 Apr 2010, 01:33

Steal the ideas. It's not like I didn't assimilate all those ideas from various other places :-P It's really just some simple inferences about the way models evolve and replace each other, and how people stick to the old models with much zeal.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests